Risk for Risk's Sake:
Why Civil Servants Are Over-Regulating CBD While Ignoring Evidence
Regulatory caution is crucial for consumer safety. However, when precaution morphs into unwarranted overregulation, it can create more harm than good. Civil servants in the Home Office and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are misinterpreting the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for cannabidiol (CBD), treating it as legally enforceable rather than advisory.
This misunderstanding reflects broader issues in risk governance, highlighted by the paper “Is there a risk? Disclosing the tipping points of regulatory action”
Wiedemann, P. (2009). Is there a risk? Disclosing the tipping points of regulatory action: comments to R. Loftstedt. Journal of Risk Research, 12(5), 559–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903122985
The result? A disproportionate response that stifles an industry brimming with potential.
Misinterpreting the Role of the ADI
The ADI for CBD, set at 10 mg per day for an average adult, is an advisory figure designed to ensure safety. It is not intended as a hard legal limit. Nevertheless, civil servants have applied this guideline as though it were law, creating unnecessary compliance burdens and confusion for businesses and consumers alike.
The paper “Is there a risk?” sheds light on how such missteps occur. It discusses the misuse of the precautionary principle in regulatory action, particularly when evidence is inconclusive. By prioritising public concern or media pressure over solid scientific proof, regulators risk amplifying public fear and undermining trust in their systems.
Determining Risk: A Balanced Approach
Regulation must balance two key factors: the probability of a risk occurring and the seriousness of its potential outcome. The paper outlines a structured approach:
- High Probability + Serious Outcome: Regulators must act to avoid the risk.
- High Probability + Minor Outcome: A proportionate reduction in probability is sufficient.
- Low Probability + Serious Outcome: Efforts should focus on mitigating the outcome.
- Low Probability + Negligible Outcome: Overregulation is unnecessary.
In the case of CBD, the evidence suggests a low probability of risk to consumer safety, particularly for full-spectrum products with minimal THC. The FSA should regulate THC levels scientifically rather than imposing a blanket ADI that disregards product differences.
The Misapplication of Blanket ADIs
The current 10 mg/day ADI is not supported across the diverse range of CBD products. Toxicology data clearly differentiate between isolated CBD, distillates, and full-spectrum CBD. Applying a single ADI, derived from isolated CBD studies, to all products undermines the principle of judging each application on its own merits—a process the FSA initially promised. This approach fails scientific scrutiny and harms both the industry and consumers.
Lessons from the FSA’s Past Actions
The parallels between the CBD regulations and the FSA’s 2008 decision to ban certain food colourings are striking. That ban, intended to protect children, was based on the precautionary principle despite inconclusive evidence. Similarly, the Novel Foods process for CBD has been marked by an overly conservative approach, leading to unintended consequences such as a shrinking market and eroded consumer trust.
The “Is there a risk?” paper emphasises that regulatory action driven by external pressures—rather than clear scientific evidence—can harm credibility. Transparency and effective communication are essential to maintaining public trust.
Comparing CBD to Alcohol
The disproportionate regulation of CBD becomes even clearer when compared to alcohol, which is regulated far more leniently despite well-documented risks. While alcohol consumption is linked to thousands of deaths annually, CBD has no known fatalities and offers potential therapeutic benefits. Treating CBD with stricter caution than alcohol exemplifies the pitfalls of risk-averse policymaking.
What Needs to Change
Clarify the Advisory Nature of the ADI: The FSA must make it clear that the ADI is guidance, not a legal limit.
Adopt Evidence-Based Regulation: Differentiate between CBD product types and set scientifically supported limits for THC and isolated CBD.
Promote Transparency: Regulatory agencies should clearly communicate the rationale behind precautionary actions to avoid public confusion.
Balance Science and Public Perception: Decisions should address legitimate concerns without succumbing to unwarranted media or political pressure.
Learning from the Past to Shape the Future
The CBD industry can draw valuable lessons from the FSA’s history. Early engagement with regulators, robust scientific evidence, and transparent communication are critical for navigating the evolving regulatory landscape. By adopting a balanced, evidence-driven approach, the UK can support a thriving CBD industry while safeguarding public health.
Published - 1st December 2024
