Regulating for Safety: Cannabidiol Dose in Food: A Review.

ABSTRACT: Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive phytocannabinoid and hemp derivative increasingly used in food. Illegal in food at the U.S. federal level, but legal in some states, the CBD-infused food product market has grown substantially, prompting government concerns regarding potential safety risks. CBD foods are a growing market that is driven by increasing demand from producers and consumers and that is governed by an inconsistent and evolving legal framework. This systematic review of research and regulations identified how legality relates to safety. The research also included an emphasis on dose, a key factor for determining safety in foods. Statutes and guidance documents were reviewed from a selection of jurisdictions with existing or proposed legalized CBD in food to determine what restrictions are used relative to safety, including dose and related standards for food. A search of scientific literature was conducted to evaluate what is known about safe dose in food applications and determine what information is still needed to inform a standard or regulated limit. Findings were analyzed to determine risks and what research and regulations are needed to address them. Legal jurisdictions do little to safeguard consumers against potential risks associated with CBD in food because they focus primarily on warnings and prohibiting health claims. Warning and labeling requirements lack consistency. More concerning is the absence of standards for dose in food or for the composition of the CBD used. Further, there is limited and incomplete information to inform such standards.

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion.

The food industry is advancing at a rapid pace and consumer sensitivity to food safety scares and food fraud scandals is further amplified by rapid communication such as by social media. Academia, regulators, and industry practitioners alike struggle with an evolving issue regarding new terms and definitions including food fraud, food authenticity, food integrity, food protection, economically motivated adulteration, food crime, food security, contaminant, adulterant, and others. This research addressed some of the global need for clarification and harmonization of commonly used terminology. The 150 survey responses were received from various food-related workgroups or committee members, communication with recognized experts, and announcements to the food industry in general. Overall food fraud was identified as a "food safety" issue (86%). The food quality and manufacturing respondents focused mainly on incoming goods and adulterant-substances (<50%) rather than the other illegal activities such as counterfeiting, theft, gray market/diversion, and smuggling. Of the terms included to represent "intentional deception for economic gain" the respondents generally agreed with food fraud as the preferred term. Overall, the preference was 50% "food fraud," 15% "economically motivated adulteration" EMA, 9% "food protection," 7% "food integrity," 5% "food authenticity," and 2% "food crime." It appears that "food protection" and "food integrity" are terms that cover broader concepts such as all types of intentional acts and even possibly food safety or food quality. "Food authenticity" was defined with the phrase "to ensure" so seemed to be identified as an "attribute" that helped define fraudulent acts. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Food Fraud-illegal deception for economic gain using food-is a rapidly evolving research topic and is facing confusion due to the use of different terms and definitions. This research survey presented common definitions and publication details to gain insight that could help provide clarity. The insight from this report provides guidance for others who are harmonizing terminology and setting the overall strategic direction.

Food Fraud Prevention: Policy, Strategy, and Decision-Making - Implementation Steps for a Government Agency or Industry.

This paper addresses the role of governments, industry, academics, and non-governmental organizations in Food Fraud prevention. Before providing strategic concepts for governments and authorities, definitions of Food Fraud are reviewed and discussed. Next there is a review of Food Fraud activities by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), the Elliott Review in the United Kingdom, the European Commission resolution on Food Fraud, and the US Food Safety Modernization Act including the Preventative Controls Rule. Two key concepts for governments or a company are: (1) formally, and specifically, mention food fraud as a food issue and (2) create an enterprise-wide Food Fraud prevention plan. The research includes a case study of the implementation of the concepts by a state or provincial agency. This analysis provides a foundation to review the role of science and technology in detection, deterrence and then contributing to prevention.

Introducing Food Fraud including translation and interpretation to Russian, Korean, and Chinese languages.

This paper introduces the topic of Food Fraud with translations to Russian, Korean, and Chinese. The concepts provide a system-wide focus leading to prevention. The goal is not to detect Food Fraud but to adjust entire food supply chains to reduce fraud opportunities. Food Fraud is a recently defined area of Food Protection between Food Safety (such as Salmonella or pesticide residue), and Food Defense (malicious intent to harm such as terrorism). Food Fraud is intentional with no intent to harm but only for economic gain. As with improving Food Safety and Food Defense, preventing Food Fraud is good for society and the economy. Society benefits through fewer public health threats from unauthorized acts. Society also benefits from increased consumer satisfaction and harmony. Food Security is increased through the production of more, higher-value products for consumers, commerce, and exporting. Food Fraud can reduce economic output because sickened citizens cannot work and it also reduces consumer confidence leading to less commerce.

Defining the public health threat of food fraud.

UNLABELLED: Food fraud, including the more defined subcategory of economically motivated adulteration, is a food risk that is gaining recognition and concern. Regardless of the cause of the food risk, adulteration of food is both an industry and a government responsibility. Food safety, food fraud, and food defense incidents can create adulteration of food with public health threats. Food fraud is an intentional act for economic gain, whereas a food safety incident is an unintentional act with unintentional harm, and a food defense incident is an intentional act with intentional harm. Economically motivated adulteration may be just that-economically motivated-but the food-related public health risks are often more risky than traditional food safety threats because the contaminants are unconventional. Current intervention systems are not designed to look for a near infinite number of potential contaminants. The authors developed the core concepts reported here following comprehensive research of articles and reports, expert elicitation, and an extensive peer review. The intent of this research paper is to provide a base reference document for defining food fraud-it focuses specifically on the public health threat-and to facilitate a shift in focus from intervention to prevention. This will subsequently provide a framework for future quantitative or innovative research. The fraud opportunity is deconstructed using the criminology and behavioral science applications of the crime triangle and the chemistry of the crime. The research provides a food risk matrix and identifies food fraud incident types. This project provides a starting point for future food science, food safety, and food defense research. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Food fraud, including the more defined subcategory of economically motivated adulteration, is a food protection threat that has not been defined or holistically addressed. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led to the development of food defense as an autonomous area of study and a new food protection discipline. As economically motivated adulteration grows in scope, scale, and awareness, it is conceivable that food fraud will achieve the same status as an autonomous concept, between food safety and food defense. This research establishes a starting point for defining food fraud and identifying the public health risks.