This week the FDA came out with actions against the CBD businesses that were falsely marketing CBD and its benefits. For those who don't know, CBD is a molecule in marijuana that is the "medicinal" side of marijuana. CBD doesn't cause a "high" feeling and is proven to help certain conditions like severe types of epilepsy. CBD can be prescribed for these severe types of epilepsy, but for other conditions that the FDA claims that CBD doesn't treat, it is illegal. They claim that certain companies advertise CBD to treat conditions that it doesn't actually treat, and doesn't show the damaging effects that CBD can have on the body. The FDA also put out a fact sheet (also linked) about CBD and all the effects of it. The main argument that the FDA has is the false advertising that these companies provide for the effects of CBD and the products that they are making illegally. The marketing is apparently towards children which makes it seem even more illegal. After the warnings that the FDA gave out, we'll see how this affects the CBD and the legal marijuana industry in general.
Now, time for my opinion. Anyone who knows me decently well, I live with chronic nerve pain. At one point in the past year, I wasn't getting help from anything that my doctors were prescribing so I decided to do research on and try CBD oil. There were a handful of studies done and it was determined that CBD affects the nervous system, which is why it is able to be prescribed as an epilepsy drug, and which is why it helped with my nerve pain. One thing that I noticed is that chronic pain wasn't mentioned anywhere really in this article, which is interesting because a lot of people in chronic pain use CBD. I wish the FDA covered their bases more and maybe this move would've been more understandable to me, a CBD supporter. Also, they claim that CBD affects the liver and its functions, which alcohol also does, but that isn't an issue in our society, so where does the line get drawn? They also claim that CBD is marketed towards children, but in the hours that I've spent on various websites the ads aren't for children, they're for conditions that they believe that CBD can treat. Sure, there are flavors and other ways that you can drink and eat CBD, but also, between you and me, CBD oil tastes disgusting, with and without flavor. I understand that the FDA is cracking down on illegal ways that CBD is being distributed, but the majority of people who use it are over 18 and theoretically, get a medical card, but that's extra money and maybe not applicable to the state that they live in. Moral of the story, there needs to be more published research on this drug, and the FDA needs to not scare the public as much on a drug that, as of right now, doesn't affect people's bodies more than alcohol does.
Now, time for my opinion. Anyone who knows me decently well, I live with chronic nerve pain. At one point in the past year, I wasn't getting help from anything that my doctors were prescribing so I decided to do research on and try CBD oil. There were a handful of studies done and it was determined that CBD affects the nervous system, which is why it is able to be prescribed as an epilepsy drug, and which is why it helped with my nerve pain. One thing that I noticed is that chronic pain wasn't mentioned anywhere really in this article, which is interesting because a lot of people in chronic pain use CBD. I wish the FDA covered their bases more and maybe this move would've been more understandable to me, a CBD supporter. Also, they claim that CBD affects the liver and its functions, which alcohol also does, but that isn't an issue in our society, so where does the line get drawn? They also claim that CBD is marketed towards children, but in the hours that I've spent on various websites the ads aren't for children, they're for conditions that they believe that CBD can treat. Sure, there are flavors and other ways that you can drink and eat CBD, but also, between you and me, CBD oil tastes disgusting, with and without flavor. I understand that the FDA is cracking down on illegal ways that CBD is being distributed, but the majority of people who use it are over 18 and theoretically, get a medical card, but that's extra money and maybe not applicable to the state that they live in. Moral of the story, there needs to be more published research on this drug, and the FDA needs to not scare the public as much on a drug that, as of right now, doesn't affect people's bodies more than alcohol does.
8 comments:
CBD is new, and because it's new, the FDA is acting like they're scared of it, and judging by their fact list the post linked to, they want everyone else to be scared of it, too. There was an extensive paragraph on "Male Reproductive Toxicity" that seemed designed to make readers nervous. To some extent, they're right. Nobody really knows how these products will affect people in the long term because there hasn't been a long term yet. The same arguments are being made for electronic nicotine/marijuana products, and screens, AIs, and really anything new that comes onto the market. However, just because something has the "potential to harm you" like the FDA says, doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be dangerous. Not to be evasive, but really anything is potentially dangerous, some things are just more likely to be dangerous than others. The danger level of a molecule like CBD is really no different from the danger level of any other molecule humans consume every day. Caffeine is addictive. Trans fat clogs arteries. Too much sugar can lead to Type II diabetes. Those are both completely legal, lucrative substances. Instead of cracking down on a substance, all they really need to do is put a label that says "Hey you are literally a guinea pig for this product proceed at your own risk" and have people assess from there. For a lot of things, regulation is good, and even necessary, but in this case, people need to stop conflating "new" with "bad."
What bothers me most is that the FDA is trying to build their case based off of an incomplete account of the CBD situation. The research/information they’ve published doesn’t encapsulate the extent of what CBD serves to help— such as the chronic pain Maggie explained in her post. I don’t think it’s fair for the FDA to advertise an incomplete story to the public, because then the public would be forming opinions without hearing the whole story. And the last thing we need is more ill-informed opinions. I think the CBD debate should only proceed once sufficient and accurate data of its use is published and spread to the public, because only then can we have a valid debate. Another thing that is slightly confusing to me is the fact that CBD doesn’t even cause a “high” like marijuana does. It seems to me that CBD is used solely for medical use as opposed to recreational use and doesn’t have the intoxicating effect that would make it considered a mind-altering drug. Therefore, I find it a little confusing that there is such a large debate on whether it’s being marketed to children or not. Even if it was being marketed to children, it’s not something that promotes intoxication in any way like alcohol or marijuana, and so I don’t see it as very dangerous advertisement. Either way, of course it’s not good to be marketing substances meant for adults to children, however, I personally don’t see how CBD would be a dangerous or harmful substance.
Upon reading the FDA article Maggie linked, I actually thought the FDA, for the most part, was being transparent about wanting to inform the public about potential risks associated with CBD consumption. While the article in total seemed to discourage consumption of CBD products that aren’t FDA-approved, or at the very least consult with your physician beforehand, I think the article did a good job of distinguishing between proven fact and hypothesis. For example, the paragraph about “Male Reproductive Toxicity” elucidated that CBD was found to cause reproductive harm in mice, but the effects on human reproduction are not yet known. My criticisms would follow along the lines of: it published some warnings that were already quite obvious (“Use of CBD with alcohol or other CNS depressants increases the risk of sedation and drowsiness.” Yeah, alcohol does that.), and there are other FDA-approved substances that seem much more harmful (Have you ever seen a Chantix commercial).
That’s about the extent of my opinion, but I can connect this post to the material we’re learning on the federal bureaucracy. The FDA is an independent regulatory commission, which is one of the subdivisions of federal bureaucracy, among government corporations, independent executive agencies, and cabinet departments. Government regulation of private corporations has long been controversial, and Maggie’s post brings up the question of how the cannabis industry will be affected by regulation that is presumed to follow more extensive research by the FDA.
One big reason for the FDA's use of scare tactics with CBD is the success of anti-cigarette campaigns in the 90s and 00s. These campaigns made heavy use of scare tactics--anti-smoking presentations in schools, posters at bus stops and on subways, and TV ads featuring former smokers--and these were extremely effective because they basically pushed the immense, obvious consequences of cigarette smoking into audiences' faces. This success by anti-smoking campaigns has been a major influence on the FDA's approach to CBD, and I agree in believing that the use of scare tactics with regards to CBD is a poor approach. Unlike cigarettes, CBD has legitimate medical uses, and its demonization by the FDA can be largely attributed to its association with marijuana, a recreational drug like tobacco. This association isn't really accurate for purposes of public health, as unlike marijuana, CBD is not a hallucinogen, and using scare tactics in labelling CBD ends up hindering the potential usefulness of CBD as an implement for bettering public health.
Still being a fairly new, there is not much we know about products containing cannabis (CBD). As of now, there has been controversy with CBD. It can calm the nervous system and cause liver damage. With this is type of danger, I agree why it is currently illegal to market it. I opened the link that Maggie provided and the questions in the article was brought to my attention. "What happens if you take CBD daily for sustained periods of time?" I agree with Franklin with using CBD as an anti-cigarette campaign and the results have actually been very successful. But will more issues arise from CBD now that cigarettes did not carry? Another issue is that people think that CBD is can't hurt. But there actually has been many studies showing otherwise. I'm very curious to seeing what happens next.
Adding on to Natali’s comment, just because something has the "potential to harm you" like the FDA says, that doesn’t mean you can put out a fake argument that it destroys male reproductive traits. I feel that it is silly how FDA is attempting to control the distribution of CBD without providing actual evidence to its harms. Like Maggie said, CBD could supposedly alleviate her chronic nerve pain, and like many other people who are medically prescribed to be able to take CBD should be able to take it without worrying about how it might damage them. I understand that FDA is concerned with the significant increase in CBD but that doesn’t mean they should display undetermined or even false information about this substance. Like Franklin said, CBD is used medically, unlike cigarettes and alcohol, so the FDA should take into consideration the effects its misguided information can negatively provide for patients.
A large reason behind the FDA's fear of PDA is likely the vaping epidemic of the late 2010s, along with, as Franklin stated, scare tactics used by anti-tobacco and anti-marijuana lobbyists. There's been a clear trend of America beginning to shun chemicals such as Nicotine since the 60's as, despite fierce lobbying by the tobacco industry, cigarettes and the like began to be connected to diseases like cancer. The fear surrounding its proliferation is understandable, but it's important to consider the fact the CBD may have yet undiscovered medical uses, akin to medical marijuana.
In some ways, I do understand where the FDA is coming from on this. They want people to be safe and especially with a relatively new treatment, who really knows the long term side effects on people? However, I don't really understand why they are so strict on something like this for it's "damaging effects" when there are other drugs out there that could be considered pretty damaging as well. If they want to regulate CBD, why not regulate something like prescribed narcotics more as they have been seen to lead to cases of addiction. Plus, the argument about the damaging effects on one's liver is sort of weakened by the fact that alcohol can harm one's liver, but is sold in stores to anyone over 21. I feel like the FDA is sort of over-reacting to the scare tactics mentioned by Justin as while regulation in order to protect people's health isn't necessarily a bad thing, the way the FDA is going about it could probably be improved.
Post a Comment