Challenges in Regulating the North American Cannabisand Hemp-derived Product Market
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Prior to the introduction of the Cannabis Act of 2018, recreational use and misuse of Cannabis was a public health concern in Canada. The United States (US) and other countries have met similar challenges in regulating the Cannabis and hemp markets under a patchwork of laws. Having been an illicit substance, the recreational Cannabis market has carried negative connotations without much consideration to well-established medical marijuana programs in North America. The intention of the Cannabis Act was to provide a comprehensive framework of regulations to protect public health and safety, reduce youth access, improve quality in the supply chain, and deter the illicit market and criminal activities. The market potential for hemp, which is defined as Cannabis containing 0.3% Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-9-THC) or less, prompted the US Congress and Trump Administration to pass the US Agriculture Improvement Act at the end of 2018. This act, which followed on the heels of Canada’s Cannabis Act, took hemp out of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s hands, provided for crop insurance programs, incentivized farming opportunities, and reduced regulatory risk for retailers of finished products containing hemp-based cannabidiol (CBD). While the introduction of these two landmark Acts in North America has coincided with a boom in the demand for CBD products and propelled a significant increase in the supply chain for hemp flower, there are challenges for the regulating authorities in both countries. Canada regulates CBD differently than the US because cannabinoids, including CBD, are included on the prescription drug list in Canada and therefore can only be associated with health claims as components of medications that have been granted a Drug Identification Number. While some states permit CBD in food products, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which governs interstate commerce, has remained steadfast that such products are not yet legal at this time. The US Federal Trade Commission has used its authority to target manufacturers of CBD-containing food products that do not possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate marketing claims. Health Canada and US FDA are also facing the unenviable task of implementing an enforcement strategy. Fifteen hundred dietary supplement and food products are already available for sale in the US through e-commerce, and a thriving illicit market threatens to serve the demands of consumers in both countries. Canada has a great opportunity to lead by ensuring consumer confidence, demonstrating quality in cross-border supply chains, and upholding the tenets of the Cannabis Act. If FDA permits CBD in finished products through new regulations, it will foster an even playing field for all finished product CBD manufacturers and retailers. The international Cannabis/hemp trade should be an important topic of conversation in future amendments of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on North American Free Trade. Active enforcement strategies in the aftermath of new regulations from all North American trading partners, will be paramount to long-term market viability for the Cannabis market.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».