In the past few years, I have been asked to review dozens of cannabis labeling materials to see if they meet California’s complex cannabis labeling requirements. I don’t remember one time I didn’t find at least some problems that needed to be changed.

Mistakes in simulated cannabis labels have nothing to do with the complexity of cannabis companies — I have seen errors in label drafts provided by even extremely complex companies — but California’s over-regulation. There are too many rules about what must be included on the label and what is forbidden.

All of this stems from the “Medicinal and Adult Use of Marijuana Regulatory and Safety Act” (MAUCRSA), which details Claim For things that must appear on the label, such as a long all-caps warning package containing marijuana (duh), etc. By the way, there are actually two different government warnings, one for hemp and the other for hemp products. I often see these being confused!

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which regulates cannabis manufacturers, issued regulations under MAUCRSA to expand labeling requirements. In many cases, the rules for manufactured products (vapes, oils, dabs, etc.) are different from the rules for flowers or non-infused pre-rolls. Even in the category of manufactured goods, there are additional rules regarding food.

There are special rules for packaging and how to make it child-safe. If you are considering having a separable internal packaging, guess what-there are even more different rules!

There are rules for font size, color, boldness, and the size of certain required “universal symbols” that look like cannabis leaves inside a triangle (because of course, capitalized bold government warnings are not enough). By the way, the size rules of universal symbols have changed in the inner and outer packaging.

These rules require labeling cannabis with cannabinoid content, and there are different standards based on the labeling person.in spite of as long as Manufacturers can mark finished products, and distributors and growers can mark flowers or pre-rolls. If dealers add cannabinoid content after arranging a national mandatory test, then there are other rules.

The CDPH rules also contain many prohibitions. Some are justified: companies cannot have false or misleading content, nor can they try to make cannabis products look attractive to children. But some requirements are a bit far away. For example, the word “candy” or any variation of that word cannot be used to label cannabis, because you know that adults cannot eat sweets. Edible products cannot even have product pictures included in the packaging.

Although the CDPH rules apply to manufacturers, they are also included by other agencies. Therefore, for example, cultivators who package flowers or distributors whose packages are not pre-rolled need to comply with these detailed rules.

Even retailers or distributors who buy or ship pre-packaged cannabis have an obligation to ensure packaging and labeling compliance. I have seen cases where licensees actually refused to deliver products based on non-compliant labels. I have seen more than one case where people complained about labeling issues.

I should also mention that when it comes to the label called Proposition 65, there is a complete area of ??compliance. I have linked some of the posts we made on Proposition 65 below. I will not explain in detail here, except that the state considers cannabis smoke and THC to be harmful in general, and requires warnings on the label to provide consumers with relevant information. Information on these risks (this is a big summary, so the following article is very helpful). Although Proposition 65 is not enforced by cannabis agencies, private plaintiffs can — and often do — sue or threaten to sue cannabis companies, so compliance is also critical.

Given the regulation within the industry (for example, retailers will not accept products with incorrect labels), institutional oversight, and Proposition 65 litigation, it goes without saying that label review is a good idea. For experienced lawyers, this is not the most time-consuming or complex process. But it can save a lot of trouble afterwards. After all, who wants to reorder thousands of printed labels after discovering an error?

Here are the 65 proposals I promised: