FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4307712586> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4307712586 abstract "Vol. 130, No. 10 Science SelectionOpen AccessWhat’s in Your Gummy? State Cannabis Contaminant Rules Vary Widelyis accompanied byComparison of State-Level Regulations for Cannabis Contaminants and Implications for Public Health Nate Seltenrich Nate Seltenrich Search for more papers by this author Published:28 October 2022CID: 104001https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12099AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit AbstractWith every passing year, more U.S. states move to fully legalize cannabis, or at least permit its medical use. The federal government, by contrast, continues to view cannabis as an illegal drug. Absent federal oversight, states have enacted a patchwork of policies governing product testing, quality, and safety—roles usually fulfilled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture. The resulting lack of rigorous, universal standards for regulating common cannabis contaminants has significant implications for public health, write the authors of a new study in Environmental Health Perspectives.1People who use cannabis medically may be particularly vulnerable to harm from exposure to contaminants, notes senior author Maxwell Leung, an assistant professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Arizona State University. Various compounds in the plant are used to treat or alleviate symptoms of a variety of health conditions, including seizures, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. Cannabis can also help reduce side effects of common therapies for AIDS and cancer.2 The global market for medical cannabis is currently worth approximately USD $10 billion and is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years.3,4Contaminants in cannabis and its products—including foods such as gummies and cookies, plus tinctures, topicals, and concentrates—are regulated by the states that permit some or all uses. The result is a patchwork of different testing rules, methods, and action levels. Image: © Shelby/stock.adobe.com.During cultivation and subsequent processing, cannabis flower (the part of the plant commonly used for smoking) and cannabis-derived goods (such as concentrates, extracts, and edibles) can be contaminated with potentially harmful substances. Pesticides applied directly to plants or dispersed from nearby fields may exhibit neurotoxicity, as can metals absorbed into plant tissues from soils and fertilizers.5–8 Bacterial and fungal pathogens that can grow on flowers before and after harvest may pose a risk of serious infection to immunocompromised users.9 Residues of solvents used to concentrate or extract desired compounds may have other ill effects.10In the new study, researchers from Arizona State University and two California-based cannabis testing labs reviewed the disparate rules regulating cannabis contamination across the jurisdictions—36 states and the District of Columbia—that permitted recreational or medical use as of May 2022 (legislative changes are ongoing11). They tracked which substances were screened for and how much of each substance was allowed. The authors found particularly large discrepancies in the regulation of pesticides. For example, although 27 jurisdictions tested for the fungicide myclobutanil, just two tested for the insecticide ethion, even though both may be harmful to human health.12,13 Four jurisdictions regulated more than 400 different pesticides on cannabis; most of the rest regulated fewer than 100.Next, the authors compared test results for nearly 10,000 cannabis samples previously analyzed by CannaSafe—a state-licensed testing laboratory in California—against the jurisdictions’ range of “action levels” (pass/fail limits) to further assess regulatory variation. Myclobutanil was detected in 16 samples at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 41.2 ppm. In the 27 jurisdictions that regulated the chemical, action levels varied from 0 to 1.0 ppm, so regulatory responses to detection of these fungicide residues also would be expected to vary widely.In addition, the authors used jurisdictional licensing data to characterize populations who use medical cannabis. By far the most commonly cited reason for use was chronic pain (nearly 800,000 reported users), followed by posttraumatic stress disorder (approximately 164,000 users). Spasticity, cancer, seizures, irritable bowel syndrome, and dozens more reasons also were reported.“This study demonstrates an urgent need for a unified regulatory approach to mitigate the public health risk of cannabis contamination at a national level…. In our opinion, this guideline should be based on human health risk assessment methodologies consistent with other agricultural and food commodities,” the authors concluded.1 They also recommended a more stringent approach to regulating medical cannabis.Chris Hudalla, founder and chief scientific officer ProVerde Laboratories, a cannabis testing company with facilities in Maine and Massachusetts, notes that though these issues are widely acknowledged in the rapidly expanding legal cannabis industry, they may well persist for some time. “Short of federal legalization of [cannabis], there does not appear to be any chance of harmonizing safety standards,” he says. “Even with federal legalization, this harmonization would most likely take years to develop, oftentimes requiring studies to assess the hazards associated with individual contaminants.”Although the new study succeeds in highlighting the huge disparities in cannabis quality and consumer safety across the United States, he adds, its discussion of common, potentially dangerous microbial contaminants would benefit from an analysis of additional test results from labs outside California, where different microbes are prevalent and other testing methodologies employed.Sang Hyuck-Park, a senior scientist at the Colorado State University Pueblo’s Institute of Cannabis Research, agrees that the industry should move toward adopting a single set of regulatory guidelines for contaminants. Such guidelines should dictate not only safety standards but also testing protocols, he says, because the latter area is similarly rife with inconsistencies, both between and within individual states. “There are so many different lab protocols, and results are not consistent,” he says.In a more effective, federally managed system, he says, contamination above set levels could trigger an inspection or audit to ensure that producers are following Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.14 This would simultaneously protect consumer safety and reduce the likelihood of future failures.“Short-term, [transitioning to a federally managed system] would be very impactful for manufacturers who are not ready for it,” Hyuck-Park says. “But long-term, this is what we need for public health.”Nate Seltenrich covers science and the environment from the San Francisco Bay Area. His work on subjects including energy, ecology, and environmental health has appeared in a wide variety of regional, national, and international publications.References1. Jameson LE, Conrow KD, Pinkhasova DV, Boulanger HL, Ha H, Jourabchian N, et al.2022. Comparison of state-level regulations for cannabis contaminants and implications for public health. Environ Health Perspect 130(9):97001, PMID: 36102653, 10.1289/EHP11206. Link, Google Scholar2. Davis MP. 2016. Cannabinoids for symptom management and cancer therapy: the evidence. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14(7):915–922, PMID: 27407130, 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0094. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Transparency Market Research. 2022. Medical Cannabis Market is Estimated to Rise at a CAGR of 26.6% during the Forecast Period, Observes TMR Study. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-cannabis-market-is-estimated-to-rise-at-a-cagr-of-26-6-during-the-forecast-period-observes-tmr-study-301553574.html [accessed 22 September 2022]. Google Scholar4. Research and Markets. 2022. Global Medical Cannabis Market (2022 to 2027)—Featuring Aurora Cannabis, CannaGrow Holdings and Cannbit Among Others. https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/08/16/2498789/28124/en/Global-Medical-Cannabis-Market-2022-to-2027-Featuring-Aurora-Cannabis-CannaGrow-Holdings-and-Cannbit-Among-Others.html [accessed 22 September 2022]. Google Scholar5. Pinkhasova DV, Jameson LE, Conrow KD, Simeone MP, Davis AP, Wiegers TC, et al.. 2021. Regulatory status of pesticide residues in cannabis: implications to medical use in neurological diseases. Curr Res Toxicol 2:140–148, PMID: 34308371, 10.1016/j.crtox.2021.02.007. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. McPartland JM, McKernan KJ.2017. Contaminants of concern in cannabis: microbes, heavy metals and pesticides. In: Cannabis sativa L. – Botany and Biotechnology. Chandra S, Lata H, ElSohly M, eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 457–474. 10.1007/978-3-319-54564-6_22 Crossref, Google Scholar7. Amendola G, Bocca B, Picardo V, Pelosi P, Battistini B, Ruggieri F, et al.2021. Toxicological aspects of cannabinoid, pesticide and metal levels detected in light cannabis inflorescences grown in Italy. Food Chem Toxicol 156:112447, PMID: 34343597, 10.1016/j.fct.2021.112447. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Taylor A, Birkett JW. 2020. Pesticides in cannabis: a review of analytical and toxicological considerations. Drug Test Anal 12(2):180–190, PMID: 31834671, 10.1002/dta.2747. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. Benedict K, Thompson GR, Jackson BR. 2020. Cannabis use and fungal infections in a commercially insured population, United States, 2016. Emerg Infect Dis 26(6):1308–1310, PMID: 32441624, 10.3201/eid2606.191570. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Raber JC, Elzinga S, Kaplan C. 2015. Understanding dabs: contamination concerns of cannabis concentrates and cannabinoid transfer during the act of dabbing. J Toxicol Sci 40(6):797–803, PMID: 26558460, 10.2131/jts.40.797. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2022. State Medical Cannabis Laws. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx [accessed 22 September 2022]. Google Scholar12. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2022. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 6336: Myclobutanil. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6336 [accessed 22 September 2022]. Google Scholar13. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2022. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 3286: Ethion. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/3286 [accessed 22 September 2022]. Google Scholar14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2021. Facts About the Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources/facts-about-current-good-manufacturing-practices-cgmps [accessed 22 September 2022]. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesComparison of State-Level Regulations for Cannabis Contaminants and Implications for Public Health14 September 2022Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 130, No. 10 October 2022Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received2 September 2022Manuscript accepted20 September 2022Originally published28 October 2022 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days." @default.
• W4307712586 created "2022-11-05" @default.
• W4307712586 creator A5031643794 @default.
• W4307712586 date "2022-10-01" @default.
• W4307712586 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4307712586 title "What’s in Your Gummy? State Cannabis Contaminant Rules Vary Widely" @default.
• W4307712586 cites W2271954605 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W2481334488 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W2618367961 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W2994672063 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W3025636530 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W3134030879 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W3193090964 @default.
• W4307712586 cites W4295678496 @default.
• W4307712586 doi "https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp12099" @default.
• W4307712586 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36306206" @default.
• W4307712586 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4307712586 type Work @default.
• W4307712586 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4307712586 countsByYear W43077125862023 @default.
• W4307712586 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4307712586 hasAuthorship W4307712586A5031643794 @default.
• W4307712586 hasBestOaLocation W43077125861 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConcept C107872376 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConcept C2777056318 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConceptScore W4307712586C107872376 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConceptScore W4307712586C118552586 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConceptScore W4307712586C185592680 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConceptScore W4307712586C2777056318 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConceptScore W4307712586C71924100 @default.
• W4307712586 hasConceptScore W4307712586C99454951 @default.
• W4307712586 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W4307712586 hasLocation W43077125861 @default.
• W4307712586 hasLocation W43077125862 @default.
• W4307712586 hasLocation W43077125863 @default.
• W4307712586 hasOpenAccess W4307712586 @default.
• W4307712586 hasPrimaryLocation W43077125861 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2600473608 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2796934328 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2810276538 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2891845629 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2972548569 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2999908913 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W3158056710 @default.
• W4307712586 hasRelatedWork W2912428230 @default.
• W4307712586 hasVolume "130" @default.
• W4307712586 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4307712586 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4307712586 workType "article" @default.