Why pot packaging problems are keeping Missouri operators down
Election years are notorious for stirring controversy, and this year is no exception. Industry veterans, so many of us are cautiously optimistic but jaded as a result of years of regulatory restrictions and rules that, more times than not, leave us befuddled about how to work within the regulatory constraints we have today – and fearful of how federal regulations might be different/better/worse.
Here in my home state of Missouri, one of the greatest regulatory frustrations for us is product packaging. For the unaware, Missouri passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 to institute a medical cannabis program in our state and was lauded widely for a very quick (by industry standards) implementation of rules and execution of the program. Newly legal markets are always bumpy, and ours was no exception, especially in terms of regulatory rule interpretation and the issuance of guidance letters from our governing body at that time, the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Unfortunately, packaging rules were a huge topic of consternation – again, not a surprise for any of us that have been in other markets when they launched. The regs themselves under medical were limiting but not terribly unexpected.
However, in the months that followed launch, additional guidance was provided, which seemed to be the genesis of our now five-year tumultuous back and forth with DHSS over packaging. The guidance had several points of clarification, but one of the most controversial and continued changes required that the word “marijuana” shall be clearly and conspicuously labeled with “Marijuana” printed at least as large as any other words used, as well as a prominently displayed universal symbol in red and white print.” Translation? The word “marijuana” – not cannabis – must be as large as largest font on the package.
Think about that for a moment – a doob tube or a concentrate jar/box, where the focus of the package is MARIJUANA. At that time, this meant a massive undertaking for producers to provide labels to dispensaries to add to packages to make them compliant with this latest guidance – costly and, more importantly, a logistical nightmare.
In 2022, Missouri voters again passed a constitutional amendment, this time for adult use. With the passage came the new regulatory rules, and with those rules came more obstacles for operators in terms of packaging.
While we know that most legal states have specifics to avoid packaging designs that include anything “appealing to children,” Missouri regulators cranked that up a notch. Our packaging can’t include anything that is attractive to children, but also “must not contain any shape or part of a shape of a human, animal, fruit, cartoon, caricature, or cartoon. Limited colors, including a primary color as well as up to two (2) logos or symbols of a different color or colors, whether images or text, including brand, licensee, or company logos, provided that the widest part of a logo or symbol is no wider than the length or height, whichever is greater, of the word “Marijuana” on the packaging.
Fortunately, the department has provided grace periods for operators to sell through non-compliant packaging; that date is now November of this year. What many of us in the space find infuriating is that there are still packages on shelves in dispensaries today that aren’t compliant under the medical regs – simple things like non-CR certified containers, yet no one is enforcing the removal of those from shelves.
Another new rule with the passage of adult use? Each and every packaging SKU MUST be printed individually with a packaging approval number provided by the department. Here’s an easily digestible way to view this one – you produce gummies, of which there are 15 flavors. EACH of the 15 bags SKUs must be submitted for approval, and the department commits to approving or denying them within 60 days. With over 200 licensees submitting each package for approval, you can see how this would require massive manpower not only for cannabis operators but also for the regulatory body itself.
At the crux of all of the regulatory restrictions, changes, and guidance is the fact that these rules were developed without any visible consultation with industry professionals in our own state or others. The packaging approval number has to be printed on the package – on the compliance label – and the number holds NO significance to consumers whatsoever.
In addition to the other requirements on the compliance labels, this means that consumers have to attempt to read/interpret compliance labels that, in some cases, are smaller than a four-point font which means potency and instructions for consumption have even LESS readability. For a governing body that cites public safety as their top priority, why would anyone want to make the consumer-safety information even SMALLER to accommodate the inclusion of the packaging approval number that literally has no relevance EXCEPT to the department?
While I could wax poetic about how many of the regulations seem to defy logic, the packaging regulations are the ones that cause the most cost/manpower to both operators and the governing agency – and it comes down to one important thing that is being overlooked or perhaps pushed onto the industry as a diversion from responsibility for the consumer. Public safety and the safety of children.
I believe we’d be hard-pressed to find anyone in the licensed market who didn’t agree that cannabis products SHOULD be labeled to prevent ingestion by people who shouldn’t, and we all know that CR-certified packaging is to be expected for a regulated product like cannabis. (Despite no such rules for liquor, sugar, or cigarettes, but ahem, I digress.)
Our retailers have extremely rigorous entry protocols: no one under 21 without a medical card, locked entry into the sales area where product is on display, and no sales to anyone without a medical card or valid government-issued ID. We’re required to put purchases in opaque exit bags, and we do everything required to operate. But when the consumer leaves a shop with their purchase – our responsibility for public safety and access to the products for children ends.
Parents who consume cannabis aren’t bad parents – anyone who is around children or has access to products not meant for children (again – liquor and tobacco) bears the responsibility for its storage and access, not the industry. I would challenge anyone to take a peek around the common areas of homes – kitchens, bars, living areas – of friends and family and NOT find alcoholic beverages readily displayed or stored with no limits on access for children.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention it – although I’m sure it will cause further ire, non-regulated cannabis-derived products in our state aren’t held to any of the rules for public safety whatsoever. CR-certified would be minimal requirements, but not only are they not held to the standards for packaging, but those products are also not held to the same rules in terms of testing or non-children-appealing packaging.
If our goal as an industry is to destigmatize cannabis use, shouldn’t we seek consistency and bring both sides of the argument to the table during rule-making? Shouldn’t someone be focused on the enforcement of existing products?
I can only imagine how much national legalization will impact this, but if the states can solve some of these issues before that happens, we can adopt more modern attitudes across the nation more quickly.
