‘The Significant Economic Advantages of Amending Legislation’ – APPG Minutes 29.06.22
‘The Significant Economic Advantages of Amending Legislation’
4th Meeting
10am Wednesday 29th June 2022, Committee Room, Upper Committee Corridor, Westminster
Minutes Draft
Attendees
Internal
Crispin Blunt MP (co-chair)
Baroness Manzoor CBE (co-chair)
Tarsilo Onuluk
External
Guest speaker: Shawn Hauser (Shawn Hauser, Partner at Vicente Sederberg LLP)
Guest speaker: Jessica Billinglsey (Chair US Cannabis Council, CEO Akerna Corp)
Nick Morland (Tenacious Labs)
Andy Cutbill (Tenacious Labs)
Adrian Clarke (Tenacious Labs)
Susie Macarthur (Tenacious Labs)
Jamie Bagley (Tenacious Labs)
Charles Sampson (Tenacious Labs)
Alex Markland (Tenacious Labs)
Dan Houseago (States of Jersey)
Renata Legierska (CSAB)
Prof. Mike Barnes (CIC)
Jamie Bartley (CIC)
Marika Graham Woods (CTA)
Sian Phillips (CTA)
Rebekah Shaman (BHA)
Lorenza Romanese (EIHA)
Jade Proudman (EIHA)
Tony Reeves (EIHA)
Bob Oldham (Oldham Global)
Mario Patone (Oldham Global)
Heather de Haes
Andrew Wigmore
Ian Gregory (Abzed)
Abzed employee (Abzed)
Chris Tasker
Stephanie Price (Cannabis Wealth)
Helen Taylor
Attending Online
Gillian Cowell (Office of Stuart McDonald)
Apologies
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Lord Stone of Blackheath
Martin Vickers MP
Paul Tossell
Meeting commences
Crispin Blunt MP, co-chair of the APPG for CBD products, welcomes everyone to the meeting, and introduced Shawn Hauser, partner at American law firm Vicente Sederberg and co-author of Amendment 64 which established the legal marijuana market in Colorado, to give an overview of the impact and opportunities in Colorado following the development from prohibition to a regulated market.
Shawn Hauser thanks Crispin for the introduction, then continues to discuss the social and economic impacts legalisation has had in Colorado.
She begins by talking through the economic benefits that Colorado has seen since the legalisation of the cannabis industry within the state, establishing what is now a $31bn US industry, noting the significant benefits to public health alongside generating over $2bn in tax revenue to Colorado, much of which has gone to schools, community health and safety, and local budgets.
Talking on the impacts of cannabis legalisation in Colorado, Shawn Hauser highlights the key takeaway of replacing prohibition with a regulated market, this being the provision to states of a revenue stream that funds important programmes such as school and public health that were largely underfunded, pointing out that $538.7 million of cannabis tax dollars have been dedicated to improving the state’s school system in Colorado.
Further, she made note of the job creation potential that legalisation has had across the US, creating over 438,000 jobs across several sectors, from cultivation and manufacturing to high paid support industries such as legal, accounting, construction, marketing, and hospitality.
Shawn Hauser then goes on to talk about some drawbacks within the US cannabis industry, these being perpetuated by federal prohibition. She states that businesses have been unable to reach their maximum potential and the illicit market has not been able to be fully eliminated due to the federal illegality of cannabis in the US, with US businesses within the cannabis industry not having access to traditional financial services or federal agencies for consumer protection and regulation.
Adding to this, she notes that the federal illegality of cannabis makes it near impossible to fully eradicate the illicit cannabis market, as not all US states have a programme in place for access to a regulated cannabis market, so the illicit market still thrives in these states. She argues that the only way to properly combat the illicit market in the US would be through federal legalisation.
Hauser continued by laying out the framework for taxation within the US industry, pointing out that states receive a steady generation of revenue from significant retail and excise taxes, coupled with state sales taxes, local taxes, and licensing fees. Though receiving adequate income from taxation is important, she makes clear that the legal market must remain competitive with the illicit market if it is still to attract investors and be effective. Governments must be sure not to impose heavy tax burdens initially if it is to compete with the illicit market; starting with a lower tax rate that perhaps increases over time would allow for regulated businesses to compete with the illicit market and counterbalance future retail price decline.
Hauser goes on to talk about the lessons learned about effective cannabis policy, identifying three primary ingredients for an effective cannabis market that are attractive to governments, consumers, and investors, broken down into ‘the three A’s’.
- Availability – for a market to be attractive and generate sizeable tax revenues, consumers must be able to easily access the market and obtain the products they demand. This means physical availability in the form of storefronts, and a medical programme for a wide set of conditions including symptoms, such as chronic pain and nausea. Having availability of stores makes sure consumers can go ‘above ground’, where taxes can be collected, customers are age-restricted, and consumers are exposed to safe products that are accessible without legal risk or physical danger.
- Affordability – established through geographic competition, with licensing and a diverse and robust supply chain. A strong market requires enough cultivation and manufacturing infrastructure to allow competition and reduce prices. Otherwise, the base prices are too high to allow cannabis to be effectively taxed while remaining competitive with the illicit market.
- Assortment – as with any CPG industry, consumers demand a wide range of product choice, and with cannabis this is different strains, potency levels and methods of ingestion. Cannabis programmes that have banned product forms have not done well, such as programmes that have banned smokable flower, which cuts out 40-60% of consumer demand. If consumers cannot purchase the products they want from the regulated market, they will return to the illicit market.
She continues by summarising her key points, starting with pointing out that without sufficient enforcement resources state programmes are ineffective, illicit sales thrive and responsible operators must compete in the market with bad actors who don’t apply to safety standards. Finally, Hauser ends by saying that with effective regulation, tens of billions of dollars of cannabis demand is shifted from the illegal market to one that is taxed, regulated, job creating and subject to robust manufacturing testing and safety standards.
Crispin Blunt MP thanks Shawn Hauser for her opening discussion and introduces Jessica Billingsley, chair of the US Cannabis Council and chief executive officer of tech business Akerna Corporation.
Jessica thanks Crispin for the introduction, then continues to discuss the cannabis space in the US from the perspective of industry.
She begins by discussing her company Akerna, which has worked within the legal cannabis space for over 12 years, having clients that operate within all sectors of the industry, enabling compliance, regulation and taxation.
She states that her clients include state regulatory agencies, countries, multi-state operators, multi-country operators and single state operators, highlighting that as chair of the US Cannabis Council (USCC), their goal is the creation of an equitable and values driven industry with social, financial, and environmental benefits, shared by all.
Continuing to discuss the economic sizing and contributions of the industry, Jessica highlights that roughly 43 million Americans consume cannabis from regulated programmes, currently being legal in 39 states, and legal for adult use in 19 states, pointing to data that shows a large majority of Americans support legalisation, this crossing all demographic factors, income levels, political party affiliation, gender, and more.
She goes on to state that the adult use market for state regulated cannabis products is estimated at $14bn in 2021, and when combined with the $11bn in medical cannabis sales, the industry total exceeded $25bn in 2021, estimating that the annual growth rate over the next 5 years stands at 16%.
Further, she states how the covid pandemic highlighted the recession resilience of the cannabis industry, it being declared an essential service in nearly every US market.
Despite this, she makes note that despite the popularity of state licensed programmes, the state regulated programmes only account for roughly 38% of the market, this being seen across the board in the US, including the states that do not have either medical or adult use programmes, and states that do not have an effective medical programme, such as New York, meaning most people are still pushed towards the illicit market.
Billingsley uses this to highlight the overarching goal of the USCC, this being federal legalisation, believing that this would bring the industry into further compliance, which would not only help ensure the safety of consumers but also increase the amount of tax revenue available.
More to this point, she states how legalisation would also bring the potential of freeing up state resources, as it would help reduce the prison population, and enable law enforcement to pivot away from costly, unpopular enforcement, in favour of combatting serious crime.
The final economic contributor that she alludes to is the creation and subsidence of jobs, touching on Shawn’s previous comment on how there are currently over 400,000 US jobs existing within the cannabis industry, and that these well-paying jobs span both rural and urban areas, highlighting how the proliferation of jobs contributes to and generates significant economic activity, further stimulating local economies.
She concludes by touching on two key areas on legalisation and the development of the cannabis market that are crucial, these being social equity and consumer safety.
On social equity, she points to how cannabis prohibition in the US and other nations is rooted in racial discrimination, and that this is something we need to acknowledge and work to rectify as part of cannabis legislation, this being a reason why the USCC strongly supports not only legalisation, but also the expungement of past cannabis related criminal charges, believing that those directly impacted by prohibition should have a real shot at participating in a newly legal industry.
Finally, she discusses the importance of consumer safety, ensuring that cannabis products are safe for consumption, and providing the accountability and traceability to know what consumers are putting in and on their bodies. The reality is, according to Billingsley, that illicit cannabis is widely available across the US, being grown, manufactured, and distributed by people who don’t properly test and label their products, and have no issue with selling to the youth.
In her closing statement she draws attention back to Akerna’s documented advising strategy to not only legalise the emerging market, but to also extinguish the illicit market too, alongside grasping onto the scientific pursuit of cannabis advocacy, pointing out that the is still a lot to be learnt, and once this potential is realised, we shall see the other positive effects in other portions of society.
Crispin Blunt MP thanks both Jessica and Shawn for their introductions on the position in the US, making note that the situation in the UK is more so focused on the non-psychoactive CBD market, which has been largely unregulated, asking whether there are lesson to be learned for the strictly CBD market in the UK, Jessica highlighting that the US CBD industry has seen similar regulatory challenges in that it operates within somewhat of a grey market, the exact numbers for which are difficult to get as the majority of CBD purchases are online and not with regulated product.
Shawn Hauser points out that projections for the US CBD market were largely inaccurate due to the FDA legalising cannabis and production but failing to bring in regulation around the finished product, this disincentivising potential investors as final CBD products aren’t recognised as legal by the FDA.
A discussion between Shawn and Baroness Mansoor CBE follows concerning research around teen use and crime within states that have legalised cannabis use and have cannabis programmes, Shawn pointing out that there is no evidence that legalisation has led to an increase in either crime or teen use, and in some cased has led to a decrease in both.
Baroness Mansoor CBE enquires about the affect’s cannabis use has had on teens in terms of negative side effects within a legalised framework, compared to the illicit market.
Hauser replying by stating that due to the products within legal markets being regulated, access to strong cannabis products is monitored and more difficult for teens to access, reiterating that crime, youth use and traffic fatalities has gone down significantly in states that have a legal framework for cannabis programmes, stating that mental health programmes have gained increased funding due to the tax returns on the cannabis industry within mature states.
Crispin Blunt MP underlines this point by saying that 95% of the cannabis sold in the UK is high-strength skunk, and if the UK were to move to a regulated market this would massively reduce the strength of cannabis being sold, and would also make it much more difficult for underage people to get access to cannabis, having a demonstrative effect of a significantly reduced amount of psychosis in the young, though brings attention to the fact that the UK is more so focused on the CBD and wellness business within a regulated form as appose to adult recreational use.
Rebecca Shaman asks whether the US has any data regarding consumer demand for different types of CBD products, such as full spectrum, whole plant, isolate and synthetic, Jessica Billingsley pointing out that there is a growth in demand for all varieties of CBD oil, however the lack of FDA regulation around the final product means there is little enforcement for labelling and manufacturing standards, stating that the terminology of full spectrum, broad spectrum and isolate are used very loosely and in different contexts, stating that a lexicon on CBD terminology is something the USCC is currently working on implementing.
Rebecca shaman points out that you don’t need a medical or GMV license in the US to grow CBD and asks whether this is likely to change. Jessica replies by stating that they think it is unlikely that the bill that allows the ability to grow hemp will be reversed, however they do think more regulation and labelling standards around manufacturing, production and finished products are likely to be introduced.
Currently the FDA doesn’t properly enforce regulations on CBD products due to the legal grey area, so this is an area of focus for current stakeholders.
Rebecca goes on to ask whether larger organisations such as Coca Cola are likely to come into the cannabinoid space, with a focus on isolate-only and THC-free, Jessica replying by stating that a lot of conversation has happened with larger and traditionally established businesses that are interested in the space, however there is less of an attitude amongst interested parties to focus solely on isolate-only products, they instead want a better understanding of the regulatory structure for hemp and CBD ingredients, especially focused on safety levels for THC.
Again, the main issue here is a lack of FDA regulation and enforcement around cannabinoids which makes potential investors wary.
Crispin Blunt then directs to Lorenza Romanese of the European Industry Hemp Association (EIHA), who asks what is done in the US industry around the waste product after hemp and buds have been harvested, to which Jessica Billingsley replies by stating this differs state-to-state, some have very wasteful programmes, where others have great environmental sustainability initiatives and some even have zero-waste policies, going on to point out that a number of businesses are implementing self-regulation certifying clean and green policies from an environmental standpoint.
Lorenza replies with several key points, the first being that she believes hemp should be added to common agricultural policy due to it being a natural plant, suggesting that following this in the UK a legal limit of 1% should be put on THC content in hemp. Secondly, she suggests that regulation should be implemented that separates food from seeds, as seeds will contain THC and they need to be clean when they are processed, followed by a maximum level of THC in the final product.
She states that the UK framework should somewhat reflect the rules of Europe, as rules strengthen the sector, strengthen the economy, and will allow for proper regulation. Her final point is based around stocks, believing that in the open market it is likely the more profitable and less environmentally friendly route will be taken to establish a strong market, emphasising that an industry model with an environmentally positive impact is crucial. Further, she states that the procession of hemp should be established within Europe and the UK as opposed to relying on international markets, saying we need to repatriate the supply chain and develop adequate infrastructure in Europe.
Mark Tucker of TTS Pharma asks whether the obstacles that prevent the Hemp Farm Act from being rolled out state to state on the federal level are perceived or real. Shawn Hauser points out that the farming side has been rolled out well federally and in all states. Arguing that the standard 0.3% THC limit is too low, and that scientifically 1% makes more sense, they highlight the finished product where there is a lack of federal and state level regulation. The fact the US has strict farming regulation without finished product regulation is stifling the industry.
Mark Tucker states that the UK already has separate schemes for 0.3 and 0.2% in biomass and asks what the issues are with certain states not adopting the Hemp Farm Act, Shawn Hauser reiterating that all states allow the farming of hemp, however not all allow the sale of the final product, therefore the issue lies with the lack of standards for the finished product.
Mark Tucker asks whether these issues with regulation are due to the final product being registered as a medicine, instead of being a food. Shawn Hauser says this is the point exactly, that within federal drug law, that if studies show it is a drug, then it can’t be a dietary supplement, which is the case for CBD.
They go on to point out that CBD products are legal in some states and illegal in others, packaging must be different on a state level, and some states have a 2mg THC limit meanwhile others have a 12mg limit, which is higher than legal marijuana markets.
Mark Tucker points out that the picture is slightly different in the UK as we already separate biomass from the finished product, also being allowed to have food and medicine being the same product. Shawn Hauser and Rebecca Shaman agree that having federal regulation, THC content and other safety standards in finished products is crucial for the industry, both in the US and the UK, Rebecca Shaman pointing out that this is what is wanted for the UK market, as we currently have product on shelves that there is no defined law for, Mark Tucker stating that this is why Novel Food regulation is so important, so manufacturers and businesses have clear operating practises to work under.
Shawn Hauser adds that the safety studies businesses are required to adhere to under the FDA need to be clearer and more reasonable for businesses to comply with, not being the same as pharmaceutical standards that take years and millions of dollars to complete, but more akin to those for dietary supplements, such as studies that show a product has the amount of CBD as advertised.
Jade Proudman asks, regarding FDA regulation, whether a product being sold as a medicine affects CBI compliance, which Shawn Hauser states is at the core of the issue. They continue by giving example of Epidiolex, a CBD isolate derived from marijuana which has different ingredients to full spectrum hemp which is treated the same by the FDA, leading lots of companies to operate under federal FDA standards on the basis that full spectrum is legal. They state that this process is also evident in other dietary supplements that are derived from botanical sources.
Hauser continues by pointing out that the key issue with full spectrum is that most companies advertise it with a focus on CBD content rather than being full spectrum which enhances CBD, going on to state that we need better regulation for full spectrum, broad spectrum and isolate, as they all have valid uses as food and dietary supplements and drugs.
Crispin Blunt MP thanks Shawn Hauser for their discussion and introduces to the room Nick Morland, chief executive of Tenacious Labs, to give a summary of progress of the APPG.
Nick begins by commending the work done by the CTA, EIHA and CIC, going on to state how the APPG have been working collectively on a business plan with over 700 businesses within the cannabinoid industry.
He goes on to state how crucial Colorado has been as a model for what the current cannabis markets can look like, highlighting the 38,000 jobs created in Colorado, and extrapolating that to the UK to propose the creation of over 400,000 jobs if a regulated market were to be established in the UK. Nick proposes that the core idea of the APPG is to set up the UK as a centre of excellence, supporting premium discretionary spending in a space that will compete with markets such as Canada’s, mirroring the model of Scotch Whiskey.
He reiterates the importance of creating 400-500,000 jobs in more rural and deprived areas where there is an abundance of workforce.
Nick continues by briefly highlighting some of the key takeaways from the work the APPG has been doing and how they want to make it accessible.
- Firstly, he mentions industrial hemp, how throwing grown produce away is nonsensical, pointing out that two and a half to eight tonnes of biomass are produced twice a year in an average hemp crop, and this has a large positive impact on pollinators and soil regeneration. Further, he states that the positive benefits of carbon credits to the industrial hemp industry and insulation in building homes is a vital aspect that cannot be ignored.
- Secondly, he points out that there is a lot of evidence that giving cattle a higher protein diet containing hemp will have a massive reduction on methane production, which accounts for more global warming than carbon dioxide. He continues by stating that these environmental benefits are not controversial and need to be done properly in tandem with all areas of the industry in they are to be done correctly, not in isolation.
- Thirdly, he mentions the topicals market, these being a small part of the market because ingestibles are easier to make and the regulations around these products become a trading-standards issue and are less financially viable.
- Finally, Nick goes on to discuss ingestibles, highlighting how consumer protection is very important, stating that there needs to be a differentiation between levels for consumer needs, such as someone using it to sleep and someone using CBD to come off pharmaceuticals like codeine, with 900 people dying annually from codeine use. He goes on to mention medical, which is prescription and non-prescription, which is also included in the APPG business plan.
Baroness Manzoor CBE makes a comment about how it is worth including data around codeine as there is little widely known about this, and research will be necessary if comments are to be made.
Nick Morland replies by stating Tenacious Labs’ intentions with working on the APPG report, saying that their focus is more so business and finance orientated, focusing on the potential job creation and how these clear economic and environmental benefits are attractive to policy makers and have potential to set the groundwork for a regulated and economically viable industry.
Baroness Manzoor CBE highlights how since medicinal prescriptions became accessible on the NHS only three people in the UK are on an NHS prescription for medicinal cannabis, and how the medical community needs further education on the subject.
Nick replies by stating that he would like to present a business plan for starting a process, not giving an immediate solution, stating that as a commercially interested group, Tenacious Labs will do whatever is legal; conversations about recreational use and tax, and medical access are political, and aren’t the focus of the company, which simply wants to get the ball rolling in terms of starting a serious discussion around the development of a cannabis and hemp industry in the UK, stating that it will happen eventually as its too irresistible, its just a matter of doing it the right way.
Briefly discussing the drawbacks and failings of other cannabis markets from around the world, Nick reiterates that Tenacious Labs simply want to get the initial discussions and developments done properly, to make a regulated market viable for investors and consumers.
Asked by Baroness Manzoor CBE about which department may oversee a possible cannabis industry in the future, Nick states that the industry needs to be top-down, needing a cabinet directive to make a new industry, arguing there’s no excuse for not bringing in another £3-4bn in annual tax and another 400,000 jobs.
Crispin Blunt MP adds to these remarks that he hopes the APPG report will build on the Hodges Report and involve and better engage with the whole industry to get the attention of government ministers, with the goal of then having a conversation with all the relevant governmental departments including the treasury, DEFRA and the Home Office.
Nick replies by saying that in some cases, such as carbon credits and high-protein diets for cattle, DEFRA is the department that will likely oversee projects, however, reiterates that the industry as a whole is a new industry, and therefore this needs to come directly from the cabinet, needing a directive to make it into being.
He continues by stating that despite the legal and political hoops that will inevitably lay further down the road, Tenacious Labs’ is ultimately a commercial body, with financial backing and success in developing into other markets, pointing to scotch whiskey and their private equity background as perfect examples of why the future cannabis industry is promising and attractive to investors.
Finally, Nick makes note that if the framework for an attractive and robust cannabis industry is set up in the UK, it could end up being very influential in the US, and the UK could end up being the centre of the industry.
Crispin follows up by asking if there any further questions for Nick, to which Rebecca Shaman highlights how many UK farmers are wanting to grow hemp, however it is considered a controlled substance by the Home Office, this being the biggest sticking point for potential hemp farmers. They go on to say that if the UK industry becomes isolate-only, there is no way farmers are going to be able to access the economic benefits of hemp, and that these can only be accessed if the market is also full-spectrum and whole plant, finishing by stating that if the authority over licensing was moved out of the Home Office and into DEFRA, it would really ignite the industry as an agricultural and industrial crop.
Crispin Blunt MP acknowledges this and goes on to suggest that the APPG on CBD should be renamed to also include Hemp, to do more to show the stakeholders agricultural interest, then opens to the floor for final comments.
Baroness Manzoor CBE goes on to mention that it would be beneficial to have a team in place to scrutinise any bills or amendments that go through either the commons or the lords in terms of agriculture and DEFRA, stating that this will be more useful than simply talking to people, using legislation that is being passed through the parliamentary bodies.
Crispin Blunt MP goes on to conclude the meeting, thanking the secretariat and the work of Tenacious Labs. He thanks them for their commendable work in engaging with the whole industry – including the SAB. He thanks them for working on the business plan to be served to the APPG officers and group for discussion and for sign off by the present parliamentarians as a submission to government at the next meeting on 18th July at 4pm.
Mr Blunt mentions that the plan will be of especially significant use from July onwards, thanking the Jersey Government for their fleet footedness and showing the way for the UK industry, hoping that people will have imagination to grasp the vast opportunities that the report offers, reiterating that the report will reflect the views and professional opinions and credible interests of the whole industry, and will hopefully lay the foundations of a successful and globally competitive industry.
Appendix A
Email from Crispin Blunt MP to members of the SAB in response to the resignation of Charles Clowes and Kyle Esplin from the APPG for CBD Products, dated 28th June 2022 @ 13.42
Dear All,
Firstly, I would like to express my most sincere thanks for the great hard work and support given by all members of the Secretariat Advisory Board (SAB) since its formation. I fully appreciate that the time and energy that you have all given the SAB is in addition to your own busy work lives. Advancing policy is not easy, especially in large groups (you only have to look at Parliament) so thank you for all your collective efforts. Also thank you to Nick and the team for the large amount of time and effort you have put into coordinating this, at your own expense, and for working so effectively with my office.
Following the emails from Charles and Kyle, and recent developments over the weekend and the start of the week, I thought an update from myself would be useful.
I am very sorry to see Charles and Kyle you have regrettably decided to resign from the SAB and whilst I sincerely offer my thanks to you both for your commitment to it these past months, I hope you can both work with us again.
First, I understand that there have been some frustrations around the SAB process and that these are being resolved as an MOU is being put in place.
Second, I also want to be clear that ultimately, final decisions on matters of policy are the remit of the Parliamentarians (MPs and Peers) that make up the APPG’s Officers. Naturally, Officers look to both the Secretariat and the SAB for advice, but it is up to the Officers alone to make any final decisions, regardless of any advice received be it by the SAB, individual organisations or individual people. For information, APPGs are governed by the Rules for APPGs which, if interest, you can find here.
An APPG that can truly claim to represent the interests of the majority of the UK CBD industry is, in my view, our best hope in advancing the industry’s best interests and in shaping the regulatory environment in the UK. Leaving the SAB poses a risk to this claim, and undermines the strength and work of the APPG, for which we have all worked so hard these past months. As Co-chair, my door, and that of all other officers I’m sure, is always open to listen to the concerns of any part of the APPG, and in that vein I hope that Kyle and Charles may reconsider their resignations from the SAB. Please do let me know if a conversation is of interest.
Turning to the latest developments in the form of the Hodges Report I am sharing with you a copy of the letter that I have sent to Minister Freeman following letters from CTA, CIA, EIHA and the Secretariat. As you will see in the letter, the report can be welcomed but with its limitations acknowledged, and on the understanding that until the Government sets up a regulatory design process where voices beyond single interest groups can be heard and regulation developed for the benefit of all consumers, industry and UK bioscience. In the meantime the APPG is the only fully open group in the field overseen by MPs and regulated by Parliament. I will be making this point to my colleagues and either myself or Nick and the team at the Secretariat will keep you posted directly or through our various meetings.
It may also be of interest to you that the Secretariat and I met with Steve Moore at the beginning of this month to discuss progress to date, and the CBD industry in general as the APPG is keen for everyone to have a voice. Steve was once again invited to join the APPG and contribute to the report currently being drafted by the APPG and we await to hear from his organisations.
Finally, in case it is helpful, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the work of the APPG to date.
· January 2021: Home Office states intention to establish a legal framework for consumer CBD products, commissions ACMD report.
· November 2021: APPG is incorporated.
· December 2021: ACMD Report on CBD Products is released.
· March 2022: The Co-chairs of the APPG write to Kit Malthouse MP, outlining the key issues of industry fragmentation, consumer protection, and consumer demand for full-spectrum products in response to the ACMD’s findings.
· April 2022: The Co-chairs write to Kwasi Kwarteng MP and George Freeman MP regarding the potential economic advantages, and current negative impacts of existing legislation.
· April 2022: The APPG commissions its own report in response to the ACMD’s findings, to be shared with relevant Ministers in advance of any ministerial response to the ACMD’s 2021 report.
· June 2022: Letter to George Freeman MP regarding the advantages of the APPG in the absence of an open and clear regulatory design process.
· July 2022: APPG report into the state of the CBD industry and next steps due.
I hope that this has gone some way to clarify certain issues, highlight progress to date, and show the work which the APPG hopes to undertake in the immediate future. As previously mentioned, I am always available to listen to the concerns of any members of the APPG – it is only by working together that we will get this right. I hope this helps and I look forward to seeing you all again soon.
Yours,
Crispin
Crispin Blunt MP
Member of Parliament for Reigate
House of Commons
Westminster
SW1A 0AA