{"id":77792,"date":"2020-08-24T07:23:25","date_gmt":"2020-08-24T05:23:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/?p=77792"},"modified":"2020-08-18T13:51:04","modified_gmt":"2020-08-18T11:51:04","slug":"some-who-cannabis-recommendations-draw-strong-opposition-at-recent-un-meeting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/some-who-cannabis-recommendations-draw-strong-opposition-at-recent-un-meeting\/","title":{"rendered":"Some WHO cannabis recommendations draw strong opposition at recent UN meeting"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two of the World Health Organization\u2019s (WHO) cannabis scheduling recommendations<\/a> might face an uphill battle getting adopted later this year by the United Nations\u2019 Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND).<\/p>\n

That revelation stems from an analysis of statements made by U.N.-member states at a recent two-day CND meeting.<\/p>\n

Still, many in the cannabis industry are hoping for a positive outcome at the end of the year, when a vote is planned.<\/p>\n

The reason: If the two recommendations discussed at the CND meeting in June are approved, international trade in certain CBD preparations is expected to become more free.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s because such products would be subject to fewer international controls. And that, in turn, could boost sales.<\/p>\n

During the recent closed-door CND meeting, participants discussed two of the WHO\u2019s six cannabis-related recommendations:<\/p>\n

Recommendation 5.4 to delete cannabis \u201cextracts and tinctures\u201d from Schedule 1 of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs.<\/p>\n

Recommendation 5.5 to add a footnote to the cannabis entry in Schedule 1 of the 1961
\nSingle Convention to clarify that preparations containing predominantly CBD and up to 0.2% THC are not under international control.<\/p>\n

The CND\u2019s virtual meeting at the end of June included only U.N. member states and intergovernmental organizations.<\/p>\n

But Marijuana Business Daily was able to watch most of the content and concluded that member states which actively engaged in the conversation were largely reluctant to change the status quo.<\/p>\n

The debate around Recommendation 5.4 was relatively uneventful because many consider the proposal to be mostly of an administrative nature \u2013 intended to avoid repetition of the word \u201cpreparations\u201d \u2013 rather than a move to reduce any controls.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the CBD recommendation had almost no vocal supporters during the meeting.<\/p>\n

If adopted, Recommendation 5.5 could have more direct implications for the cannabis industry and result in greater trade in CBD products.<\/p>\n

Among those countries voicing reservations were the United States, Canada and Brazil as well as nations such as Kyrgyzstan.<\/p>\n

The apparent lack of verbal support is a worrying sign for cannabis companies hoping to capitalize on this possible international change that would clarify that certain CBD products are not subject to the controls of the 1961 Single Convention.<\/p>\n

However, it is worth noting that a large number of countries remained silent throughout the meeting. These included European countries that were present at the meeting but only rarely engaged in the conversation.<\/p>\n

If those countries support the recommendations in December, the chances of approval would look better than what the June meeting suggested.<\/p>\n

In addition, many of the U.N.-member states that expressed disagreement with the two WHO recommendations aren\u2019t current members of the CND, which means their position wouldn\u2019t count in the December vote. These include nations such as Ghana and Singapore.<\/p>\n

United States voices opposition<\/p>\n

Recommendation 5.5 saw resistance from the United States \u2013 which until now had not voiced a firm opinion on this proposal.<\/p>\n

But in statements at the meeting, the U.S. was clear it does not intend to support the WHO proposal.<\/p>\n

Instead, it would prefer that member states \u201cdecide for themselves what an appropriate threshold (of THC) should be.\u201d<\/p>\n

The June meeting \u2013 as preparation for an expected December vote \u2013 was the \u201cfirst topical meeting\u201d in a series of three during which countries will discuss economic, legal, administrative and other implications of adopting the six WHO cannabis proposals.<\/p>\n

The second \u201ctopical meeting\u201d is scheduled to be held virtually Aug. 24-25.<\/p>\n

In principle, the meeting will also be exclusively for member states and intergovernmental organizations. However, during the first meeting, Canada and Mexico asked the commission to reconsider the exclusion of civil society, such as nongovernmental organizations and reporters.<\/p>\n

The \u2018experts\u2019<\/p>\n

More than 600 participants from more than 100 U.N.-member states registered for the first topical meeting.<\/p>\n

Countries also had the opportunity to preregister experts to deliver introductory presentations throughout the meetings, but only the following did so:<\/p>\n

Algeria.
\nArgentina.
\nAustralia.
\nBrazil.
\nChina.
\nColombia.
\nJapan.
\nNigeria.
\nRussia.
\nSingapore.
\nTurkey.
\nUnited States.<\/p>\n

Most of the experts were government officials either from health or drug enforcement agencies.<\/p>\n

European countries not only were largely silent during the open debate, they also did not make use of the opportunity to bring in experts.<\/p>\n

Recommendation 5.4<\/p>\n

The first day\u2019s discussion was about the proposal to remove cannabis \u201cextracts and tinctures\u201d from Schedule 1 of the 1961 treaty.<\/p>\n

Although many consider this proposal to be simply administrative in nature, countries such as Japan expressed concern about the intention behind the recommendation and noted that its adoption might lead to misunderstandings.<\/p>\n

Singapore warned during its presentation that this proposal would \u201cresult in loss of control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thailand was worried that the proposal could \u201cmislead the general public that they (tinctures and extracts) are not harmful and could be used without any restrictions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Recommendation 5.5<\/p>\n

If the CBD recommendation is adopted, qualifying products would be exempt from international control.<\/p>\n

However, many member countries and the European Commission are still unsure about the possible ramifications of the proposal\u2019s approval.<\/p>\n

This was one of the reasons why voting was previously postponed to December.<\/p>\n

More recently, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) raised questions about the applicability of this recommendation and warned that cannabis cultivation for the purpose of extracting CBD would remain under control even if the proposal is adopted.<\/p>\n

Although the 1961 convention exempts from its scope cannabis cultivation for \u201cindustrial purposes\u201d \u2013 mentioning fiber and seeds as examples \u2013 the INCB interprets the examples as exhaustive.<\/p>\n

Not everyone agrees with this way of reading the treaty. For instance, the U.S. said in the June meeting that fiber and seed are \u201csuggestions\u201d and \u201cnot a hard limitation.\u201d<\/p>\n

But when it comes to Recommendation 5.5, the U.S. said that several issues prevent the country from supporting the proposal.<\/p>\n

One of several U.S. arguments was that member states should determine for \u201cthemselves what a pure preparation of CBD might contain, based on analytical capacity, abuse liability and prioritization of prosecutorial resources.\u201d<\/p>\n

In April, the U.S. removed CBD drug Epidiolex from its controlled substances list.<\/p>\n

Canada also seemed unsupportive of Recommendation 5.5 as it is written, calling on the WHO to:<\/p>\n

\u201cReformulate\u201d the proposal because it is \u201cinconsistent\u201d with the 1961 treaty to specify
\n\u201cwhat is not subject to control rather than indicating what is subject to control.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cReexamine the THC threshold\u201d \u2013 a position shared by the U.S.<\/p>\n

Most of the countries that made statements about Recommendation 5.5 also had opposing positions, but for other reasons:<\/p>\n

Brazil was worried about several issues, including the possibility of THC products bearing fake CBD labels to disguise international control.<\/p>\n

Japan showed concern about the potential application of this recommendation to nonmedical products, something \u201cnot in line with the (1961) Convention.\u201d<\/p>\n

Singapore emphasized \u201cpreparations containing THC should not be excluded from international control, regardless of the amount.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indonesia lamented the WHO made a \u201chasty\u201d decision to say that CBD preparations with minimum THC aren\u2019t liable to abuse and called for more research. The spokesperson of the country said it\u2019s \u201cunnecessary\u201d to use CBD medicines to treat children with epilepsy, as other more efficacious medicines are already available.<\/p>\n

Turkey criticized the \u201cpredominantly CBD preparations\u201d definition as ambiguous. The speaker also questioned the current ambiguity surrounding \u201ccannabis cultivation for nonmedical CBD.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two of the World Health Organization\u2019s (WHO) cannabis scheduling recommendations might face an uphill battle getting adopted later this year by the United Nations\u2019 Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). That revelation stems from an analysis of statements made by U.N.-member states at a recent two-day CND meeting. Still, many in the cannabis industry are hoping […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","nova_meta_subtitle":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5572],"tags":[5838,13012],"supplier":[15405,2714],"class_list":["post-77792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bio-based","tag-bioeconomy","tag-phytopharmaceuticals","supplier-the-commission-on-narcotic-drugs-unodc","supplier-world-health-organization-who"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77792"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=77792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}