The way forward
A variety of regulatory pathways were proposed at the hearing. To prevent adulteration and contamination issues, many advocated standardized good manufacturing practices (GMPs), product reporting, and identification or registration, and a centralized reporting registry for adverse events.
Patient advocates, physicians, and scientists called for an easing of access to cannabis for medical research. Currently, cannabis, still classified as a Schedule I substance by the Drug Enforcement Administration, is only legally available for this purpose through a supply maintained by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. A limited number of strains are available, and access requires a lengthy approval process.
Most discussion centered around CBD, though some presenters asked for smoother sailing for THC research as well, particularly as a potential adjunct or alternative to opioids for chronic pain. Cannabidiol has generally been recognized as non-psychoactive, and the FDA assigned it a very low probability of causing dependence or addiction problems in its own review of human data.
However, in his opening remarks, Dr. Sharpless warned that this fact does not make CBD a benign substance, and many questions remain unanswered.
“How much CBD is safe to consume in a day? What if someone applies a topical CBD lotion, consumes a CBD beverage or candy, and also consumes some CBD oil? How much is too much? How will it interact with other drugs the person might be taking? What if she’s pregnant? What if children access CBD products like gummy edibles? What happens when someone chronically uses CBD for prolonged periods? These and many other questions represent important and significant gaps in our knowledge,” said Dr. Sharpless.
The FDA has established a public docket where the public may submit comments and documents until July 2, 2019.