WA Hemp in Food Task Force - Meeting
(July 20, 2022) - Summary

Washington Hemp in Food Task Force
[ Event Details ]

Members introduced themselves before debating the background and scope of their mandated report, though many were predisposed to laying the groundwork for legislation in 2023.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday July 20th Washington State Hemp in Food Task Force (WA Hemp in Food Task Force) Meeting.

My top 5 takeaways:

  • WSDA Policy Advisor to the Director and Legislative Liaison Kelly McLain briefed on the background of hemp in food policy in Washington and the need for “strong recommendations" to legislators before fielding questions from other task force members.
    • McLain started off by addressing Peterson’s statement about interest in hemp in food legislation, indicating that the topic had come up in 2021 but WSDA policy and federal law “didn’t permit it” outside of “those places in Washington state where there are hemp products, like whole hemp hearts” (audio - 3m).
      • The law wouldn’t allow hemp as a food ingredient “until the feds move,” which she felt federal authorities were doing in an “exceptionally slow” way. However, the task force had been written into the budget based on “conversations we had during the legislative session to really start to tackle” the science and policy options around “extracts as a consumable.” 
      • Feeling the topic wasn’t one where WSDA staff had “expertise,” McLain was appreciative that the department was part of the discussion and angled to create “good strong recommendations, and a final report to the legislature" due in “December of this year.”
    • McLain later commented that the Hemp Commission Task Force (which kicked off "last week") and this group had the same kind of “deliverable”: a report to lawmakers due before the end of the year. She allowed that it was possible the group would also draft legislation but it would be the responsibility of stakeholders to find a legislative sponsor, as WSDA wouldn’t put forward the concept as an agency request bill in 2023 (audio - 3m). 
      • McLain intended for the group to keep meeting with Byers until the end of 2022, specifying that his contract with WSDA ran through June 2023.
      • “I know there's a sense of urgency from industry," she stated, which was the reason “the timelines…are so short.” McLain anticipated department leaders would need some topics studied in-depth, either by task force members independently, via work in “sub-groups,” or hiring a “consultant,” which the group was budgeted to do if they decided it was appropriate.
    • Wyckoff raised a process question, wondering what would happen if task force members continued to discuss options after a report was drafted or finalized. This led him to ask if there was “another route that might be more productive” in creating legislation “that the WSDA was in favor of” during the 2023 session (audio - 4m). 
    • Beckerman asked if their scope would include agricultural livestock or “companion animal” feed, citing a 2021 policy change in Montana. McLain agreed it could be part of their scope, but warned that “food safety officials in general tend to be exceptionally risk averse.” Earlier, she told Peterson that regulators at the department felt "it's not ‘no,’ it's ‘not yet,’" because she wanted industry and scientific stakeholders together "to have some robust conversations" like those which the task force was gearing up for. Byers chimed in with his impression that “we've identified a number of things we want to come back to as key topics” and members could decide what aspects should be addressed “early versus later” (audio - 3m).
    • Haney’s reaction to the breadth of the group’s scope was that it represented “a pretty big sandbox for us to play in,” and he asked if one option was “seeking legislative support for one [or more] of our land grant” institutions to undertake “human or ag trials.” McLain replied that it could be a suggestion the task force adopted and she remained open to “where the science takes us.” She wanted “robust conversations” and possible sub-group work to bring better information back to the full task force. McLain was also aware that some stakeholders were “financially and emotionally invested in this space" and came to the group with strong positions and ideas about what was best. To her, hemp and cannabis policymaking had become a “building the plane while flying it scenario,” leaving her receptive to “revisit” policy as needed (audio - 3m). 
    • Wyckoff next inquired about “a timeline” for them to find “consensus on various subjects to be able to get to the end goal” articulated by McLain, and the availability of task force staff to help. McLain’s answer was that "we don't necessarily have staff, but we do have resources." If the task force voted on things they “specifically want put together,” she could arrange that (audio - 3m).
      • Byers anticipated “five or six meetings between now” and the final report submission in December. He was planning to make a list of “interest areas, or topics, or presentations you'd like to hear” as task force members generated “the content, the prioritization” which suited them. 
      • In designing their schedule, task force members opted to front-load three bi-weekly meetings in August and establish several work groups.
  • Members debated the scope of work in breakout groups and returned to share feedback on hemp in food and dietary supplements; synthesized and artificial cannabinoids; microgreens; and hemp as an animal feed component.
    • Byers started off the conversation on “meeting topics or focus” areas of the task force by inviting any ideas for scheduling or arranging ideas. He advised shifting into breakout groups to give people a better opportunity to speak up (audio - 2m). 
    • After discussion, each breakout group spoke up with their views, first from Bacon, Elgar, and Wise (audio - 4m).
      • Wise suggested the next task force meeting should focus on “the background of what’s been done in Washington,” other state policies, and developing a list of priorities about what the task force “wants to regulate,” like plant material or synthesized cannabinoids.
      • Their group agreed to getting “something on the books” to study hemp in animal feed, Wise mentioned, as well as appropriate ways to destroy or remediate “hot” hemp containing more than 0.3% THC. She relayed that the group also wanted to talk about traceability and testing requirements, wanting to model their recommendations after what “FDA ideally already has on the books.”
    • The next group included Ehrlich, Haney, and Summers, who shared their concept for issue prioritization (audio - 3m).
      • Summers remarked that they aimed at “knocking out the eas[ier] parts” like identifying categories, “analytic protocols,” and leaning into the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) for hemp production. Beyond federal code, he indicated that they should learn from other state policies
      • Summers felt that the most “pressing” issue for the public and lawmakers “looking in on the hemp industry…is the topic of cannabinoids.” What would the state allow, from what sources, and whether this could include “intoxicating or impairing” cannabinoids were all areas Summers expected would get further discussion.
      • Haney then brought up food safety standardization and packaging and labeling, which he believed could “help guide us” if reviewed early on.
    • Another breakout group was comprised of Beckerman, Douglass, and Tonani (audio - 4m).
      • Tonani called attention to the “overarching themes” of knowing what was already established in Washington law, what would be needed in law or rule to allow hemp in food, and “what are the concerns.” She added that since food safety inspections of cannabis infused edibles processors already occured, that practice could be expanded to hemp foods.
      • Beckerman reminded the group that "hemp is a legal agricultural crop" distinct from cannabis products, and that the CFR covered the many stages of food handling and distribution for food, beverages, dietary supplements, or other products for human use. She emphasized that these regulations weren’t optional for hemp businesses and they needed to abide by them. Insofar as other state policies were applicable to regulation of hemp in food, she advocated for leveraging them, along with “national trade associations that have already addressed this” in other states. She also implored the group to understand differences between artificial and synthetically produced cannabinoids.
      • Beckerman shared her concepts in the chat box:
        • “1. Legal & Regulatory Framework for Allowing Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids in Dietary Supplements
        • 2. Legal & Regulatory Framework for Allowing Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids in Foods & Beverages
        • 3. Synthetically-Converted and Artificial Cannabinoids
        • 4. Hemp Greens / Microgreens for Human Consumption
        • 5. Hemp Grain in Ag Feed / Hemp Grain for Companion Animal Feed”
    • Another group included Gang, Hunt, and Middlesworth (audio - 6m). 
      • Middlesworth relayed that his group wasn’t interested in “a long report of items,” but rather aimed “to really get into presenting and helping” pass legislation. An extensive report could “muddy up, or confuse” officials, he worried. Instead, they recommended sticking to “getting hemp in food to consumers” and livestock where they believed the benefits of the crop would be most evident.
      • Hunt described their sub-group as “busy professionals” not versed in drafting legislation, so he recommended Peterson’s bill be “circulated” and updated with “an executive overview” as their final report. Gang added that the last draft of Peterson’s legislation hadn’t become a bill, but could be shared. Hunt remarked that "we all know this industry is on life support right now" and that a legislative allowance for hemp in food was critical to their future.
      • Gang observed that "we need to have something that we move to the legislature" if possible as he was of the opinion that "just a report” could be a waste of members’ time. He supported reviewing Peterson’s draft legislation “as a first step” for debate at a future meeting.
      • Tonani spoke up to say they should differentiate what had to be “in legislation versus in rules,” even if that dialogue among members was contentious.
    • The last breakout group was made up of Carter, Clark, McLain, and Peterson (audio - 5m). 
      • McLain expressed support for previous comments, like the “urgency around a legislative package,” but the group also needed to speak to "significant scientific and food safety risks" in order to secure WSDA support for any resulting bill. A consensus emerged among Hunt, Byers, and McLain to review these areas of concern at their next meeting, in addition to inviting Carter to brief on “what's happening on the Canadian side.” Carter noted there was a debate on moving hemp oversight to Agriculture Canada
        • A recommendation under review by the WA SECTF Production Work Group would consider the equity impacts of shifting authority for regulation of cannabis production from WSLCB to WSDA.
    • Douglass wanted background on federal statutes or obstacles to hemp in food. McLain responded that their policy was already “deviating from what the federal structure looks like” and remained a topic WSDA staff wanted more input on (audio - 1m). 
    • Haney asserted that the report could be influential on law and rules “if worked correctly” by advocates and stakeholders (audio - 1m). 
    • Byers wrapped up the discussion of their scope and promised to share his meeting notes with task force members (audio - 1m). 
  • Members had a variety of final thoughts and a few questions about the opportunities and pitfalls they faced in the months ahead.
    • Haney was “excited” despite “heavy expectations” around drafting a bill, and he anticipated that “we're not all gonna agree" on the result. He was especially looking forward to a “good hard meditative analysis” on food safety standards to “continue to create a sustainable, safe, and ethical industry” (audio - 1m).
    • Tonani predicted there was “lots of work to do” and advised laying out items in "a grid or a system" so they could be organized and “checked off” (audio - 1m).
    • Hunt called for “goal-oriented” meetings going forward, calling their first gathering “a fairly scattered approach" with the exception of planning for future meetings. He wanted the task force to work on a “consensus” basis and suggested if members “don’t want to be part of what the consensus group is” they should “drop out” (audio - 1m).
    • Beckerman hoped everyone would appreciate the complexities of the subject matter and resist a "misguided oversimplification of hemp." She said "the idea of intoxicating cannabinoids is a global conversation right now" and had to be addressed by the task force as well. The distinction between “synthetically converted and artificial cannabinoids” was another big issue Beckerman anticipated confronting, as well as the regular difficulties in bringing any dietary supplement to the market, not just hemp compounds. She was “very grateful and hopeful for this work group” (audio - 2m). 
    • Clark was ready to learn and be “as supportive as possible” (audio - <1m). 
    • Elgar felt their initial meeting went “as well as I kind of would have expected” given their broad topic, and expected the next meeting would “start to narrow down” their scope and work. He was impressed by the array of task force member expertise (audio - 1m). 
    • Bacon agreed with the complexity noted by others, along with the expertise, but felt they had to make their proposals “fit” with the needs of existing regulators and laws (audio - 1m). 
    • To Hevly, their first meeting was “enlightening,” a "really good brainstorming session," which laid a foundation for their next conversations. He concluded that the task force had a chance to “accomplish a lot” (audio - 1m). 
    • Gang admitted that the event “went better than I expected” and he’d “learned a lot” about the “goals and interests people have.” He was considering how to frame the varied issues they’d confront (audio - 1m). 
    • Wise conveyed that she was "cautiously optimistic about the group." Having been part of prior state task forces, she felt early agreement on consensus “or vote-based work” for handling disputes was important. Getting their “deliverables and goals” settled at the next meeting was important, but she cautioned that a task force report was no guarantee “that the state organization does adopt” what’s proposed. Wise encouraged a focus on drafting the best report they could (audio - 2m). 
    • Summers expressed optimism they were already "moving the football down the field" because this conversation had taken “years” and it was “time to get to work” (audio - <1m). 
    • Douglass was pleased by "the diversity of perspectives" as it would help them see the complexities and challenges clearly “before rushing into solutions.” He hoped members could be “comfortable with the messiness” of their topic and respect the expectations of WSDA leaders (audio - 1m). 
    • Middlesworth echoed the positive sentiments of their diverse members and didn’t want to limit the potential of hemp for consumers or the industry (audio - 1m). 
    • McLain was similarly "appreciative" because there weren’t many at WSDA looking into hemp. She told members she covered “nine different policy areas,” including cannabis, and really appreciated the extra expertise and “time commitment” from those in attendance (audio - 1m). 
    • Makoso felt "empowered" by their dialogue, comparing it to WA SECTF which also had “contentious” topics related to people’s livelihoods. He was excited to contribute to an actionable report and potential legislation (audio - 1m). 
    • Peterson seconded others’ optimism in the face of “messy” policymaking due to “some hard very detailed work” which was now in their court. “We can come up with a bill that we can all mostly live with," she believed, assuming they remained mindful of WSDA concerns. She promised to follow up with “a few people who missed the meeting or who dropped off” (audio - 1m). 
    • Hunt asked for a “a sample work product from a similar type” of task force effort that had been “successful at the legislative level” for them to “mimic.” McLain assured him she could furnish some examples, like the Cannabis Science Task Force reports which led to “impactful multi-agency legislation.” She commented that both the report and possible legislation could "educate and inform legislators” (audio - 2m). 
    • Wise asked who specifically would author their final report and track information necessary for the report or legislation. McLain answered that she’d send “an outline of what this report would likely look like,” including a synopsis of their meetings, participants, a “synthesis” of what happened, and “a summary of recommendations and conclusions” with draft legislation added as an appendix. She expected that she would write the first draft for members to review, but it wasn’t going to be a “WSDA product” (audio - 3m). 
    • It’s Cannabis Observer’s understanding that the task force’s second meeting on August 3rd wasn’t recorded. Members were next scheduled to convene on Wednesday August 17th to address a full agenda:

Information Set