ANALYZING CANADIAN LAWS ON RECREATIONAL CANNABIS EDIBLES FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".