The FDA hasn’t banned the sale of cannabidiol oils as a drug company is considering marketing them.
The Daily Debunker brings you the top stories on Snopes.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the sale of cannabidiol (CBD) oils as a drug company is considering marketing them.
On 20 March 2016, the disreputable alternative health web site Natural News published an article claiming the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had "only " outlawed cannabidiol (CBD) oils by claiming that "all plant molecules now belong exclusively to Big Pharma":
Although the article was later considerably edited, its original version was republished verbatim to alternative news blog The Event Chronicle on 21 March 2016. The original article, which was credited to Natural News ‘ "Health Ranger" Mike Adams, stated:
Hemp oil extracts containing CBDs (cannibidiols) are a danger to the pharmaceutical industry which the FDA is now invoking completely insane justifications for outlawing them.
CBDs are non-psychoactive chemicals found naturally in hemp plants. They work really well as powerful natural medicine that people everywhere are realizing CBDs work better than medication for treating epilepsy, disorders, neurological disorders and other serious health conditions (including HIV infections).
So the FDA has only established a huge regulatory attack against CBDs by invoking the most insane logic that you ‘ve ever discovered… The FDA only criminalized among the most miraculous recovery drugs from the world by handing it over to Big Pharma[.]
In other words, the FDA only handed Big Pharma a complete monopoly over CBDs (hemp oil extract) by ridiculously claiming such natural goods are "adulterated" with molecules (CBDs) that the FDA says may one day turn into a medication.
The association between digital content and societal media is that a huge share of the reading audience is exposed only to the headline of any given article rather than its full text. One quote from 2014 indicated that as many as four people only read a product ‘s name, a figure which could be far higher when multiplied by Facebook. Thus, Adams’ asserts led several to infer that the FDA had indeed issued a direct, sweeping ban on CBDs (a product popular among chronic pain sufferers).
The original article contained several connections that viewers may have presumed corroborated its claims. The first important link was to some 19 February 2016 article which in no way indicated that the FDA had banned CBDs; it only reported warning letters delivered by the FDA to CBD oil producers with respect to "impermissible" tag claims:
The debate over hemp CBD’s legal standing continues after FDA shipped eight warning letters to producers of CBD dietary nutritional supplements and food products before this month. The warning letters cite impermissible health claims used to advertise the goods, in addition to CBD’s invalid standing as a dietary ingredient because of its existence in two drug programs currently under consideration.
On February 4, FDA sent warning letters to eight companies marketing CBD foods and dietary supplements, partly on the grounds of impermissible medical claims used in marketing https://cbdreamers.com/cbd-oil-for-sale materials. These include hints that CBD may be used to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, obesity, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and much more.
The following link pointed to some nearly month-old article published by the Cannabusiness web site on 22 February 2016. Cannabusiness ‘ coverage seemed to explain CBDs labeled and marketed in a Way That violated FDA labeling regulations:
This continues the FDA’s ongoing battle against unapproved CBD solutions. In April of 2015, the FDA issued six comparable warnings to companies with varying quantities of CBD.
Pain Bomb, among the companies in question, was issued an FDA warning February 4th, 2016. Members of the FDA composed "PainBomb violated the FDC [Food, Drug, and Cosmetic] Act by misbranding its goods. The diseases that PainBomb marketed its products cannot be self-diagnosed or self-treated by people other than health care professionals. For this reason, PainBomb’s schooling labels informing users how to use its products violate the FDC Act. "
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, otherwise known as the FDC Act, requires scientific information to demonstrate that a drug is safe. Pain Bomb allegedly violated section 201(g)(1)(B) of the FDC Act [21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)].
Cannabusiness connected to some 16 February 2016 article published by legal blog Above The Law, which concisely explained why the FDA was sending letters to CBD oil vendors:
In April 2015, the FDA sent warning letters to six companies whose goods supposedly contained CBD. The FDA warned these companies about marketing and promoting unapproved drugs to diagnose, mitigate, treat, or prevent ailments in humans or animals.
The FDA sent out a fresh round of warning letters to eight new businesses. The FDA’s February 4th correspondence to PainBomb, LLC in regards to the company’s "PainBomb CBD" goods is representative of the letters, and it says… PainBomb’s websites and accompanying literature seek to sell medication covered by section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [(the "FDC Act")] [21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)] because they are meant for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.
The diseases that PainBomb marketed its products cannot be self-diagnosed or self-treated by people other than health care professionals. For this reason, PainBomb’s schooling labels informing users how to use its products violate the FDC Act.
Especially, the FDA in no manner issued a ban of almost any description on the sale of all CBD oils. Rather, the agency stepped in to warn many producers that their products couldn’t be marketed or labeled as "meant to be used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of illness " without further FDA supervision. And as it happens, section 201(g)(1)(B) of the FDC Act pertains to the tagging of products under its own governance: