- What about cotton – one of the most widely used materials in bedding today?
First, there’s a major difference between regular cotton and organic cotton.
Here are some facts you may not know about conventionally grown cotton:
- Cotton farming takes up only about 3 percent of the world’s total farmland, but uses 25 percent of the world’s chemical pesticides and fertilizers
- Each acre of cotton harvested every year in the U S is sprayed with an average of 13 pounds of pesticides, herbicides, and defoliants
- The World Health Organization classifies half of cotton crop chemicals each year as “hazardous”
- Toxic defoliating chemicals are used to harvest the cotton
And this long list doesn’t even include the billions of pounds of synthetic fertilizers used for cultivating cotton. The runoff from these fertilizers can create aquatic “dead zones” in waterways, killing off species of aquatic life.
The U.S. and the European Union are right now negotiating a free-trade agreement with the potential to impact the health and environment of hundreds of millions of people. Of particular concern is the risk that this new trade partnership will lower protections from toxic pesticides. New analysis exposes how the pesticide industry is lobbying negotiators to lower standards on both sides of the Atlantic. If adopted, industry’s proposal would reverse the EU’s ban on the use of carcinogens and hormone-disrupting chemicals as pesticides, increase the amount of pesticide allowed on food sold to consumers, and interfere with efforts to protect bees and other pollinators to safeguard food supplies for future generations.
The public has a right to know where U.S. and EU negotiators stand on issues pertaining to pesticides, climate change, toxic chemicals, and other urgent health and environmental issues before they are presented to lawmakers. Join the Center for International Environmental Law in urging the United States trade representative and the European Union trade commissioner to practice transparency in their discussions and protect individuals and communities from toxic pesticides and chemicals. …
Lets look at the similarities and differences.
Humans have used drugs that have been derived from plants for many thousands of years to decrease and cope with pain.
In 1964 THC was discovered at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel by Dr. Raphael Mechoulam. In the year 1973, scientists discovered the first opiate receptors in the human brain.
Humans have used opiates for pain since the time of Ancient Greece.
Opioid receptors are distributed widely in the brain and can be found in the digestive tract and spinal cord. Opium is found in the seedpod of poppy plants.
In 1975 scientists discovered that the human brain had what are known as “endogenous opiates”, commonly known today as “endorphins”.
American researcher Allyn Howlett and her graduate student William Devane discovered the first cannabinoid receptors in the brain in 1988.
They named them cannabinoid 1 receptors (CB1).
In 1992 researchers in Israel found an endogenous cannabinoid and proceeded to name it N-arachidonoyl ethanolamine or anandamide.
In 1993 scientists found cannabinoid receptors in the immune system (CB2), and subsequently discovered a second endocannabinoid called 2-arachidonoyl glycerol.
So far there have been five endocannabinoids discovered, although as far as medicinal value, the first two found, anandamide and 2-AG appear to have the most importance.
Scientists have since realized that CB1 receptors are found mostly on neurons in the spinal cord, brain, and peripheral nervous system. This very reason explains the role of cannabinoids in pain modulation, memory processing, and motor control.
CB2 receptors are located mainly in immune cells such as the spleen and tonsils.
An amazingly extraordinary fact is that in the human body there are more receptors for cannabinoids than for any other substance.
In the middle area of the human brain there are systems that are critical to keep humans alive, such as heartbeat and breathing.
Cannabinoid receptors are almost completely missing in this area of the brain, whereas opioids have a profound affect on the midbrain.
This explains why cannabis is so safe and does not cause overdoses and deaths like opioid-based medicines so commonly do.…
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) determined that some of the American Licorice Company’s black licorice candy manufactured in 2012 contained quantities of lead significantly in excess of permissible levels, and ordered a recall. American Licorice Company later performed an investigation into the adulterations of its candy, and concluded that the excess lead originated in molasses purchased from Total Sweetness, Inc; it then moved to sue Total Sweetness. American Licorice Company is the candy company that manufactures the popular Red Vines®.
In another case, this past spring, a decision came down through the Northern District Court of San Francisco* against the Safeway grocery chain that posed the question of whether Safeway had a duty to issue a post-sale warning to its “Club Card” loyalty members when the Food and Drug Administration issued Class I Recalls. Class I recalls are implemented when there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death. The question for Safeway was whether failing to issue a post-sale warning constituted negligence—where California law imposes a general duty of care.
Cases like these cause me deep concern for what I see as a significant problem when it comes to the manufacturing and retail distribution of marijuana-infused products and edibles sold in medical marijuana dispensaries (in California called “collectives” or “cooperatives”).
If a product is found to be “abnormally dangerous” or “unsafe,” there are a number of legal theories potential plaintiffs could use as grounds to sue infused-products manufacturers and dispensary retailers, I will refer to these theories as “product liability.” Product liability is where the manufacturer or the retailer can be found legally liable if a product is found to be unsafe. Potential plaintiffs include customers, patients, and any foreseeable third party who consumes the product. The focus of this article is the duty to test and to give post-sale warnings in the event flowers, products, or edibles are tested and found to be unsafe.
An unsafe product in the cannabis industry can, among other things, be a product that has a substance in it or on it that is unsafe for human consumption. For example, in a conversation I had with Dr. Jeffrey C. Raber, CEO of Werc Shop testing laboratory, I learned that it is not uncommon to find cannabis flowers or edible products contaminated after doing lab tests. According to Dr. Raber, flowers and concentrates can be tested for cannabinoids, terpenes, pesticides and microbiologic growth, and edibles and infused products can be tested for cannabinoids and microbiologic growth. Dr. Raber believes that some dispensaries and edible manufacturers do not test the flowers they use because of the added cost, but contaminated products can be unsafe.
According to the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency website, the health effects of pesticides depend on the type of pesticide. Some, such as the organophosphates and carbamates, affect the nervous system. Others may irritate the skin or eyes. Some pesticides may be carcinogenic. Others may affect the body’s hormonal or endocrine systems. Unscrupulous growers may have only one goal in mind—harvest at any cost. We cannot allow folks to come to our dispensaries and sell us untested product!
An unsafe infused product could be one where the flowers were treated with dangerous pesticides in the garden. This is why I believe a best business practice is to ensure that flowers sold in a dispensary be tested before being sold to medical marijuana patients. As a Lawyer in this industry, I believe the dispensary owner has a duty to ensure products being sold in the dispensary are properly tested. Most of us know that this is an unregulated area in most states, and, for the most part, products are not tested. Said another way, without regulation or a law that says one has to test, people don’t test. Notwithstanding a law printed in black and white, one could be found negligent by failing to test. This is because it is foreseeable that flowers could have been treated with dangerous pesticides in the garden.
The next issue is the “standard in the industry” for testing. The standard in most states is not to require testing, because the lawmakers are not necessarily privy to what can happen in a grow room or garden. However, in the event one was sued for product liability (and both the product manufacturer and the retailer could be), the standard unquestionably would be the new high mark of testing regulations and requirements posed by Colorado and Washington’s cannabis industries. Experts from these states would be called to testify to what the understood standard for safety is in the industry. Therefore, a duty to test flowers is the standard for flowers, and any infused product should be tested for microbials. Additionally, where appropriate, the THC levels also should be tested and placed on the label of the product.
Duty to Recall
Next, is there a duty to recall products and give notice to dispensary member patients if it is learned that flowers or an infused product failed testing? Most medical marijuana dispensaries have contact information or a patient database. A jury could very well find a manufacturer or a dispensary retailer is negligent for failing to recall or failing to send a post-sale recall notice to patients they reasonably knew could have ingested (or may ingest) an unsafe product. Most people would say that if a manufacturer’s product is found to be unsafe, that manufacturer should contact every dispensary to whom it has sold a defective batch of product and inform them of the problem. In the same way, many would say a dispensary owner who has contact information for its customers should contact them in the event a product is found to be unsafe.
Therefore, I urge edible manufacturers and dispensary owners to insist on properly tested products by a reputable testing laboratory. Insist on the testing of every batch of flowers, concentrates or any infused product. Let the day of purchasing or distributing untested product be …