ANALYZING CANADIAN LAWS ON RECREATIONAL CANNABIS EDIBLES FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The Canadian government amended the Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations to legalize use of recreational cannabis edibles. Edibles are food products and beverages that contain chemical compounds from the cannabis plant. Developing legislation is challenging given both food and drug related hazards must be mitigated; additionally, few jurisdictions have experience regulating edibles. Besides Canada, the United States of America (USA) is the only other country with experience regulating cannabis edibles at the state-level. Hence the objectives for this thesis were to: (i) compare laws (within Canada and the U.S. states that have legalized the recreational use of cannabis edibles) that govern tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-infused cannabis edibles and identify any associated gaps in Canada's cannabis regulatory framework; (ii) identify potential food safety hazards and health hazards associated with manufacturing cannabis edibles; and (iii) compare the Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA) and Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) with the Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations to identify potential food safety gaps in the Canadian cannabis legislation. Methods The Canadian documents containing the information necessary for objective (i) are the Canadian Cannabis Act, Cannabis Regulations, and the Health Canada report: Final Regulations for New Cannabis Products published in the Canada Gazette. The necessary U.S. state-level statutes and regulations were retrieved for all U.S. states with laws on recreational cannabis from LexisAdvance Quicklaw. A comparative analysis of these documents highlighted similarities and differences in the cannabis regulatory framework of Canada and the U.S. states with laws on recreational cannabis edibles. For objective (ii), to identify potential food safety hazards and health hazards associated with manufacturing cannabis edibles, a rapid review was conducted. The PubMed database was searched. All 11 articles retrieved were reviewed. From the references within these articles, an additional 14 articles were identified and reviewed. Lastly, for research objective (iii), cannabis legislation (Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations) and food safety legislation (SFCA and SFCR) were taken from the Government of Canada website. The two sets of legislation were compared to determine which food safety-related requirements were incorporated into the Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations and which were omitted. Results As of June 20th, 2019, twelve jurisdictions in the USA authorized recreational cannabis use, but only ten states outlined specific requirements for edibles. Overall, Canada and states in the USA that legalized recreational cannabis edibles implemented similar regulatory requirements; however, restrictions on THC per package and labelling requirements were more conservative in Canada. Differences in regulatory requirements between both countries were also identified. Requirements on reporting of test results and data collection via the cannabis tracking system differed between Canada and the USA. Moreover, four U.S. states require cannabis manufacturers to directly imprint edibles with a cannabis symbol, which is not mandated in Canada. With respect to food safety, to prevent food-borne illnesses, the Cannabis Regulations adapted food safety requirements from the SFCR to prevent contamination of ingredients during the production of edibles. These requirements pertain to standard operating procedures, filtration systems, sanitation, quality assurance and hazard control plans. Gaps in regulatory requirements were also identified and include: (i) two food-safety related clauses from the SFCR that were not incorporated in the Cannabis Regulations; and (ii) the Cannabis Tracking and Licensing System (CTLS) does not collect data from licensed laboratories. Conclusion This thesis project analyzed Canada’s regulatory framework for recreational cannabis edibles to determine whether legislative requirements would adequately mitigate public health risks by comparing it to state-level statutes in the USA and to understand Canadian legislative requirements on food safety as applied to cannabis edibles and assess the legislation’s adequacy in mitigating potential food safety related risks. Overall, Canada’s regulatory requirements on cannabis edibles are comprehensive and will be critical in minimizing public health risks, including food safety related risks. Canada’s cannabis legislation can be further strengthened by mandating manufacturers to directly imprint edibles with a cannabis symbol and addressing requirements on test result reporting and data collection via the CTLS.
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 | 0,006 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
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 ».