Awaiting this one to push under the Stil/BioScience Enterprises, Inc deal into reality?
AB 228 Aguiar-Curry Food, beverage, and cosmetic adulterants: industrial hemp products. 8/30/2019-In committee: Held under submission.
legiscan.com/CA/text/AB228/id/2043675/California-2019-AB228-Amended.html
Supposedly, the California Senate needs to within 90 days(by >< September 20th?) to have Senate decide.. if passed, then onto the Governor's desk.
There is an allowance for a legislation to be 'buried' in Senate beyond the accustomed '90 days requirement' after State House approval(I think everyone approved it in the State House).
This does not over ride Federal Authority or the CA Sherman Law gives the CDPH authority over foods and beverages, but notably also over cosmetics.
What this would mean is that if passed, CDPH could not use the CA Sherman Law to find that CBD-containing topicals adulterated simply by virtue of containing Hemp CBD (the same would also apply to foods). This may lead to more clarity for California CBD companies who have topical products.
www.cannalawblog.com/are-cbd-topicals-allowed-in-california/
"That said, it’s not yet clear whether the CDPH would continue to follow federal law even in spite of AB-228 passing. The state may find itself in a position of ignoring federal positions (like it has done with marijuana), or the CDPH may continue to follow federal agencies. Even the California Attorney General’s office has recognized that this could happen:
“Even if it [AB-228 passes], it is not clear whether changing California law on this adulteration issue would be sufficient to alter the decision calculus of the CDPH, which has to this point relied on the FDA’s interpretation of federal law. That is, it might be the conclusion of these agencies that federal law still prohibits adding CBD to food or dietary supplements, even where derived from industrial hemp.”
Keep in mind 'online' sales continue today.
