More Congressional Hearings on PFAS, when can Americans expect Action Taken by Regulators?

Photo by Alex Kondratiev on Unsplash

If the title seems a bit confusing, so does the fact that more hearings are occurring on the class of chemicals which are pervasive across parts of the United States -- particularly around specific Military installations.  Congress is hearing more on PerFluorinated Alkyl Substances this week to determine what action needs to be taken according to 'Politico Energy:'

PFAS-PALOOZA GETS UNDERWAY: The legislative push around PFAS begins in earnest today with a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change subcommittee on a range of bills that would direct everything from drinking water and air regulations for the toxic chemicals to guidance for firefighters on how to minimize risks from firefighting foam containing PFAS.

As lawmakers push for regulation, a key fault line will be whether to require EPA to set limits for individual chemicals or the entire class of PFAS chemicals. The more than 5,000 chemicals in the family share a strong carbon-fluorine bond that causes them to linger in the environment and human bodies, but they haven't all been studied thoroughly or shown to cause harm, as Annie Snider reports this morning.

House Democrats, public health advocates, and some Republicans with contamination in their districts have pushed for a class-based approach, arguing that it's the only way to truly address such a large class of chemicals. But industry has fiercely opposed it, saying that the chemicals vary widely and that a "one-size-fits-all" approach will stifle innovation — an argument already being echoed by some Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Expect the debate to heat up further with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introducing a bill in the upper chamber today that would require EPA to set an enforceable drinking water limit for the entire class of compounds within two years. Presidential hopeful Gillibrand has called for a ban on all PFAS and said in a statement introducing the bill that EPA has "failed to do what is necessary" to protect families from toxic chemicals like PFAS

First, remember last summer when Congress intervened and started to take an interest in the Trump administration's attempt to cover the problem up.  Here are two blog posts on that coverage - here and here.  After which a conference was held by the Environmental Protection Agency to explore the dangers of this class of chemicals.  During the meeting, reporters were thrown out and not allowed to cover the discussion - which caused an appropriate outrage by the Press. 



All of this started when the Trump administration released a health report through the Department of Health and Human Services, which tried to downplay the dangers of the well-known class of dangerous chemicals.  More can be found from the government agencies at the Environmental Protection Agency's web page -- click here.



The hearing in the House is shown below (in full):

As of this morning, the news from above has progressed to the following by 'Politico Energy':

SENATE TEES UP PFAS ACTION: A more targeted approach to tackling contamination from toxic PFAS chemicals is taking shape in the Senate, compared to a set of sweeping bills that have been taken up by the House. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is preparing a hearing on six bills for next week.

The hearings are promising that meaningful legislation is on the horizon.  At the very least, these hearings give the public the sense that there is still a responsibility on the part of Congress to protect the American people against harmful chemicals entering the water system and the environment.  Taking responsibility and seeking some solution is the first step toward a better world.  No Congress of politicians is perfect.  But the hearings are evidence of change toward a better solution for the American people are coming soon.  Stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Food is not addictive, but is filled with Addictive Drugs -- Engineered Chemicals to Elicit Addiction

Photo by Edward Guk on Unsplash

One of the toughest addictions which I have faced is that of giving up 'fast food' eating.  Am I cured of eating 'fast food'?  No.  Have I dramatically reduced eating out at 'fast food' venues - YES.  Since then, my diet has changed along with the associated weight loss one would expect.  Further, I have a different preference for food.  Why?  I am not craving the chemicals -- additives which are as powerful as drugs which manufacturers insert into the 'fast food' recipe.

Food Additives?

The subject makes me think about a podcast I was listening to around a year ago.  It was an interview of an investor on Wall Street -- an employee of a large bank who day trades.  She was directed to change her investment strategies one year by her boss.  Her new focus was primarily on the food industry.  A subject about which, she knew very little.  Over time, after digging into the fundamentals, she began to realize that the 'fast food' industry chooses to use chemicals (colorings, additives, etc.) which are not healthy for the average consumer.

More importantly, she found that the same 'fast food' chains in European countries have substituted the harmful chemicals with a safer (and healthier) alternative at the request of the consumers.  Imagine what I was thinking at the moment listening to the interview?  

My jaw dropped while I was running on the indoor track at the university at which I work!

Suddenly I realized that the food manufacturers have a choice to find a healthier alternative if pressed to do so.  Although, if no one pushes them to change, the status quo (i.e., unhealthy) remains the day to day operative methodology.   Which is sad to say.

Recently, I ran across a blog post on Medium titled "Stop calling food addictive" in which a similar revelation regarding the additives to 'fast food' recipes by food manufacturers:

It’s true that rats, monkeys and humans show addiction-like behaviour when exposed to highly palatable, calorie-dense foods, sometimes even preferring them to drugs such as cocaine. But I’ve come to see that nearly all the foods that elicit addictive behaviour share one thing in common: they have been significantly altered or enhanced through manufactured flavour chemicals and ingredients — also known as drugs.

Quite simply, food is not addictive; drugs are addictive. And food companies are putting drugs in our food. The correct name for this problem is food additive addiction, or perhaps refined food addiction.

Was anybody living 200 years ago addicted to food? I have never come across an account of an apple addiction, a cashew addiction, or a salmon addiction. But were people living 200 years ago addicted to alcohol, tobacco, or opiates? Of course. That’s because each of those substances has inherently addictive properties, containing a specific psychoactive compound that causes intoxication, dependence or withdrawal. Such addictive substances rarely occur in nature, and are typically created through processing.

Commercially sold cookies now share many of the same reward-giving properties as crystal meth. That’s because they contain highly palatable and highly profitable ingredients, often forms of sugar or salt. These are not your grandmother’s salt and sugar — they are complex formulations engineered by food scientists to be irresistible. They’re psychoactive compounds that meet the definition of an addictive substance.

For example, forms of salt have been developed that dissolve far faster than normal and deliver a jolt to the brain. These resemble natural salt no more than crack cocaine resembles the coca leaf.

If we were to remove the engineered flavor chemicals from our processed food, it wouldn’t sell — it would be edible, but not highly palatable, and certainly not addictive.

The author brings up valid points of argument as to why food is so addictive.  Which mainly lies in the design of the food by the food manufacturers.  As a chemist, I am always interested in the design of food by these large corporations.  To be able to make a 'Big Mac' the same in the United States as in the desert of Kuwait is no small feat.  These foods are highly engineered.  The chemists have outdone themselves with the knowledge of perfection.



Recently in the news, Burger King has released the first plant-based veggie Whopper -- which is made out of plant-based ingredients -- No Actual Meat.  Imagine perfecting a veggie Whopper to taste identical to the actual Whopper which is made with Real Beef?  The chemistry behind the process and knowledge is impressive.  I often wonder what the day to day job of a food chemist is at Mc Donald's Research Corporation or Burger King University?  Must be amazing.



The food is equivalent to the knowledge of tobacco by the Tobacco Industry.

Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS)

In the article, the author did mention the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) which has the following description on the Wikipedia page below:

The Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) is a 25-point questionnaire, based on DSM-IV codes for substance dependence criteria, to assess food addiction in individuals. The scale was released in 2009 by Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.[1]

It was found that the brain mechanisms in people with food addiction were similar to those in people with substance dependence, such as drug addicts.[2] While there is currently no official diagnosis of "food addiction", the YFAS was created to identify persons who exhibited symptoms of dependency towards certain food. Foods most notably identified by YFAS to cause food addiction were those high in fat and high in sugar. A self-reported standardized tool was created by a Yale researcher, Ashley Gearhardt, to determine those individuals at high risk for food addiction, regardless of weight.[1]

The subject of food addiction is difficult to tease out and controversial in nature.  Although, each of us can agree on the fact that 'fast food' can be easily addictive over time.  In fact, any food item can be addictive over time if enough pleasure is derived from eating it.  'Fast Food' has won the test of time in terms of addictive consumption which is why this story is emerging.



The food manufacturers need to be gathered into a room to discuss the problem and the link to society's obesity epidemic which is associated with our love for 'fast food.'  Although that might require such corporations to admit to 'spiking' food with addictive compounds (chemicals), which promote consumption and mimic other favorite meals.  Just think how would such a corporation change the recipe from a meat-based burger to a plant-based burger without altering the chemical composition to keep the taste the same?



Questions like those above are a large part of why I love chemistry (science in general).  My intellectual appetite is never a need.  I can always find digestible and satiable information (data) to satisfy my intellectual thirst or appetite.  Over time, with technology changing along with consumer tastes changing, change is inevitable in the 'fast food' arena.  To come clean about additive compounds which drive consumption and sales.  The data is in the hands of these corporations.  The impetus is on the public to not only demand change to a healthier alternative, but also to the data which shows the health data.  Until we get there, we will be at the mercy of these corporations.




Related Blog Posts:


1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Which light is harmful to our eyes? Quora taught me which was.

Photo by Daniil Kuželev on Unsplash

Quora is an interesting website where people can ask any type of question that is occupying their minds.  Questions will inevitably be answered by a professional or another person who might not have professional experience but is still offering advice based on experience and education.  I have enjoyed answering science questions along with random relationship questions too.



There are questions which I choose not to answer.  Especially if the previous answer is sufficient or better than the answer I may provide.  Below is one such example question which was posted on Quora.

"Which light is harmful for eyes?"

An example of a question which I was requested to answer was the following: "Which light is harmful for eyes?"   The answer is shown below.

The source of light is not relevant; it is the quantity of light that matters. Extremely intense light from a welding flash, or from the sun is harmful.

However it is important to recognize the often confused difference between HURT and HARM. There are many activities which will tire your eyes and make them hurt, but HARM is when permanent damage occurs. This is really only as described above.

The person who provided the answer above was a professional ophthalmologist (eye doctor).  Instead of answering the question, I chose to learn from the other answers provided.  Which is interesting since I do not have to answer every question asked of me.  On the flip side, I can learn from the question and answer.  I love learning.



Quora is a great website to learn from.  At the very least, the question and answers provided are a great opportunity to start a journey toward learning a greater amount about a given subject.  Simply by reading the question and answer might spark a learning journey that was previously not thought possible.  Enjoy and keep learning while asking questions about life.



Related Blog Posts:


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

FDA is failing at detecting salmonella cases at processing plants across the U.S.

Photo by Walter Otto on Unsplash

The American public relies on federal regulators to keep the food which is produced in the United States and imported/exported, safe for the public who will eventually consume it.  What happens when the regulatory agencies do not fulfill the promise as shown in the news when a disease outbreak occurs?  Evidently, not much.  Otherwise, the incentive to keep food pathogen-free would be a higher priority.  Recent news shows this to be the case which is cause for concern moving into the future.

According to a recent news brief in 'Politico Agriculture,' the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory staff are failing at detecting salmonella in ground turkey and chicken:

TRACKING POULTRY'S SALMONELLA PROGRESS: New USDA data shows more chicken processors met federal salmonella standards in 2018, while ground turkey plants took a step backward, Helena reports.

Significant portions of the poultry industry are still not meeting the Food Safety and Inspection Service's performance standards, which effectively set a cap on the percentage of samples per plant that test positive for salmonella. (The limit is 13.5 percent for ground turkey processors and 25 percent for ground chicken plants, for example.)

— Turkey trouble: The FSIS data shows more than 46 percent of ground turkey plants did not meet this standard last year, including 68 percent of larger plants (up from 47 percent in 2017).

— Nearly 66 percent of whole chicken plants reached USDA's highest level of compliance, or Category 1, a significant improvement over 2017.

As noted in the excerpt above, the food coming out of food processing plants need not be 'pathogen-free' which is surprising on one hand.  Normally, a typical American would think that any tainted poultry would be rejected.  The true inspections are usually underperforming the average American's expectation.


Of course, the average American has little clue as to the regulatory guidelines on such food coming out of the food processing plants.  Which is why I show the excerpt above.  The importance of properly handling the poultry or other meat or food is of great importance.  With the relaxed atmosphere at the regulatory agencies which has been promoted by President Trump, the duty falls on each of us to be extremely vigilante in cooking and handling our food at each step.


Education is the key to success.  Change might be slow at either the regulatory agency or poultry processing plants, but at least each of us can take immediate action to protect ourselves from harm and possibly getting food poisoning.  Reach out to your elected representative and express your concern about the relaxed nature of the regulatory system.  Ask what improvements are possible and under what timeline?  Take the time to learn about the issues and possible solutions.



Related Blog Posts:


 Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


One Unknown Fact Which Should Cause Consumers To Be Careful About Handling Meat Before Cooking!


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


New trend in the Thanksgiving Holiday for 2018? Smaller Turkeys?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

Where is the News Update on the 1 Million Wells across the Midwest which were Flooded?

Photo by Wade Austin Ellis on Unsplash

Flooding across the midwest last month has taken a large toll on the agricultural community.  In fact, some say much worse than the current U.S. - China trade war which is concurrently happening.  According to one report, the flooding has caused significant delays in barges carrying goods down the Mississippi River:

CHICAGO, April 25 (Reuters) - Farm supplier CHS Inc has dozens of loaded barges trapped on the flood-swollen Mississippi River near St. Louis - about 500 miles from the company's two Minnesota distribution hubs.

The barges can't move - or get crucial nutrients to corn farmers for the spring planting season - because river locks on the main U.S. artery for grain and fertilizer have been shuttered for weeks. High water presents a hazard for boats, barges and lock equipment.

Railroads have also been plagued by delays from winter weather and flooding in the western Midwest, further disrupting agricultural supply chains in the nation's bread basket.

The transportation woes are the latest headache for a U.S. agricultural sector reeling from years of slumping profits and the U.S.-China trade war, and they threaten to cut the number of acres of corn and wheat that can be planted this year.

The shipments impact the quality of the fertilizer among other parameters needed to ensure a healthy season of crops.  Agricultural companies are taking a massive hit on their bottom line.  Flooding across the Midwest has caused major concern for investors who try to determine the value of the company based on agricultural output.



As if that were not enough of a blow to the farming sector, many wells across the midwest were flooded during the massive storms which have now resulted in groundwater contamination by runoff from nearby farmland:

S.T. LOUIS (AP) — More than 1 million private wells that supply drinking water in mostly rural parts of the Midwest could face the risk of contamination from floodwater, posing a health concern that could linger long after the flooding subsides.

Major flooding along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and several smaller waterways has inundated states in the middle of America, from the Canadian border south to Kentucky. The National Weather Service has warned that with snowmelt in northern states only beginning, the threat of additional flooding persists well into spring. 

The high water and swift current carries raw sewage from overburdened treatment plants, animal waste and pesticides from farm fields, and spilled fuel.

“Whatever was on the land is in the water now,” said Steve May, assistant chief of the Missouri Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology.

Contaminated water can carry bacteria such as E. coli that can cause gastrointestinal illness, reproductive problems and neurological disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infants, young children, pregnant women, elderly people, and people with compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable.

The National Ground Water Association, a trade group for the industry that includes well systems, said there are 1.1 million private wells in 300 flooded counties in 10 states: Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota and Kentucky.

The process of recovery starts with input (financial aid) from the federal government.  Over the past month, the recovery has started to begin with public education to farmers and farming corporation.  Events like the webinar I hyperlinked.


The potential damage from flooding like that seen across the Midwest over the last few months is incomprehensible.  Obviously, the immediate threat is to the drinking water for millions of people.  Where are they supposed to get water from?  Why are we not hearing about the crisis out in the west?  The contaminated wells are not easily cleaned and need to be brought to the attention of other Americans.  These problems should be an opportunity to highlight the need for proper infrastructure spending and government support.  Instead, the story of flooding has taken a back seat to news about other significant problems which remain unchanged. 



 Related Blog Posts:



Soybean Farmers Are Storing Too Much Soybean, Although Chemical Industry Is Greenlighting Trade Deals?


How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?


Trade War Hurts Farmers -- From The Farmer's Mouth Directly


"Trade Not Aid" -- The Answer For Trade War!


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods

Do Trade Relations with other Countries really affect Food Prices here in the U.S.?

Photo by Elaine Casap on Unsplash

Trade discussions have been on or near the center stage of the national discussion lately in the news.  The escalating trade war with China is on the minds of the top policy advisors not to mention the economists who are interested in stabilizing economies throughout the world.  Another trade discussion which has drawn attention but not put on center stage are the trade talks between the U.S. and Mexico.  Below is an excerpt to drive home the point of how such trade discussions will have a direct impact on the food/produce that each of us purchase in our stores.



A recent newsletter from 'Politico Agriculture' points out that the price of tomatoes stand to increase by as much as 40% if a deal is not reached soon:

HIGHER PRICES IF U.S. ENDS TOMATO DEAL WITH MEXICO: American consumers could soon see tomato prices increase by at least 40 percent should the U.S. slap new duties on tomato imports from Mexico, according to a report by Arizona State University.

It estimates prices could rise from $2.87 to $4.21 per pound for certain tomatoes starting next month, when the Commerce Department intends to terminate a 23-year-old agreement with Mexico and reopen an anti-dumping investigation. The study was commissioned by the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, whose members are involved in production, sales and transportation of fresh fruits and vegetables grown in Mexico. More here from POLITICO's Oma Seddiq.

Each of us should be wary of such 'discussions' which are having a direct impact on our food prices -- and supply.  The next time that you find yourself shopping, take a look at the prices and see if any change for the worse over time due to limited supply.  These talks are supposedly getting the U.S. into a better trade deal for our side, but with rising food costs, I fail to see the benefit for the consumers of the United States.



Related Blog Posts:


Former FDA Director Asked Congress For Clarity Regarding CBD in Food Products


Soybean Farmers Are Storing Too Much Soybean, Although Chemical Industry Is Greenlighting Trade Deals?


How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?


Trade War Hurts Farmers -- From The Farmer's Mouth Directly


"Trade Not Aid" -- The Answer For Trade War!


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods

Former FDA Director Asked Congress For Clarity Regarding CBD in Food Products

Photo by Caleb Simpson on Unsplash

Open a magazine, visit any blog site, open a newspaper, and try not to find an article discussing the emerging trend of 'CBD' being infused in a wide range of products today.  The only enormous obstacle standing in the way of the future of 'CBD' among many is the regulation process by the Food and Drug Administration(FDA).  CBD is cannabidiol.  Here is an introduction to CBD from the Wikipedia page below:

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a phytocannabinoid discovered in 1940. It is one of some 113 identified cannabinoids in cannabis plants and accounts for up to 40% of the plant's extract.[7] As of 2018, preliminary clinical research on cannabidiol included studies of anxiety, cognition, movement disorders, and pain.[8]

Cannabidiol can be taken into the body in multiple ways, including by inhalation of cannabis smoke or vapor, as an aerosol spray into the cheek, and by mouth. It may be supplied as CBD oil containing only CBD as the active ingredient (no added tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] or terpenes), a full-plant CBD-dominant hemp extract oil, capsules, dried cannabis, or as a prescription liquid solution.[2] CBD does not have the same psychoactivity as THC,[9][10] and may affect the actions of THC.[7][8][9][11] Although in vitro studies indicate CBD may interact with different biological targets, including cannabinoid receptors and other neurotransmitter receptors,[9][12] as of 2018 the mechanism of action for its biological effects has not been determined.[8][9]

In the United States, the cannabidiol drug Epidiolex has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of two epilepsy disorders.[13] The side effects of long-term use of the drug include somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, fatigue, malaise, weakness, and sleeping problems.[2]

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has assigned Epidiolex a Schedule V classification and CBD extracted from marijuana a Schedule I drug classification; although, CBD extracted from hemp is a federally lawful substance due to section 10113 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 removing cannabinoids and extracts of hemp under 0.3% total THC from the Controlled Substances Act.[14][15][16] Cannabidiol is not scheduled under any United Nations drug control treaties and in 2018 the World Health Organization recommended that it remain unscheduled.[17]

The main issue as of present is that the federal government still lists cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, which makes possession of any of the drug illegal.  Until the Congress changes the listing (category), cannabis and all related derived components from the plant will be considered illegal.



Now, with that being said, the non-psychoactive component of cannabis is a distribution of cannabidiols.  There is a distribution of them inside each plant.  As noted above, there is recent clinical research that has suggested that there are therapeutic benefits to cannabidiol for a variety of ailments: anxiety, decreased appetite, epilepsy, IBS, fatigue, PTSD, and sleeping problems. In the above excerpt, the FDA is grappling with how to allow specific applications of CBD in treatments to patients.  Although, clarity is still widely needed from the federal government in moving forward.



In a future post, I will get into the specifics of cannabis in terms of dosage, infusion into products along with the analysis from a quality control standpoint.  For now, the focus is on the issues immediately facing Congress from the former FDA Director Scott Gottlieb.



Reporting from 'Politico Agriculture' provided an update to the current dilemma facing the Food and Drug Administration regarding CBD in products:

GOTTLIEB SEEKS CBD CLARITY FROM CONGRESS: The departing FDA commissioner told House appropriators on Wednesday his agency faces a "conundrum" in trying to create a regulatory framework for CBD — which has been reviewed as a drug but is increasingly being used in food products.

A new interagency working group announced this week will focus on potential legislative solutions for regulating the non-psychotropic substance derived from cannabis. One hypothetical framework, per Gottlieb, would allow lower concentrations of cannabidiol as a food additive and "more purified, high-concentration" CBD as an approved drug, your host reports.

Trending up: Interest in the market has spiked since Congress legalized industrial hemp production in the 2018 farm bill, H.R. 2 (115). So have health-related concerns from regulators and uncertainty among consumers, growers and manufacturers about the current rules.

The FDA so far has focused on targeting companies making questionable health claims about their CBD goods. Gottlieb, who is set to leave the Trump administration at the end of the week, pointed out that attempting to enforce every sale of a cannabidiol food product would strain his agency's resources.

Cannabis meets the campaign trail: Interest in broader cannabis issues is also blooming among 2020 presidential contenders, writes Pro Health Care's Paul Demko. Nearly every Democratic primary candidate so far has backed some form of marijuana legalization — a stark contrast from previous election cycles when such talk was verboten.

As of present, there is little regulation at the state level.  Although, states like California and Oregon have been very proactive in forming local laws which have started to be distributed among cannabis dispensaries (shops).  The purpose has been to start a conversation as the laws are created locally.  Since there is no guidance from the federal level.  Moving forward, as Congress provides more input in the form of the direction regulation is headed, then local municipalities will have the greater footing to stand on -- in terms of commercialization in your neighborhoods around the United States.



I mentioned above that in the future, I will write about the technical (scientific) issues facing the cannabis industry.  Over the last two years, I have been attending seminars and webinars along with interacting with scientific instrument companies to determine where the 'bottleneck' is occurring from an analysis standpoint.  As an instrument manager (working at a university -- in the chemistry department), I would like to train our graduating scientists to help advance the emerging field of the cannabis industry.  Which includes providing top-notch scientists who understand the problems of analyzing cannabis from product quality control to high-throughput testing.   More about this in the future.



If you are interested in reading more about the growing industry, here are two sources.  The first is Jeff Hill -- who writes on 'Medium' and has taken the last year plus to write extensively on regulatory and commercial affairs with regard to the cannabis industry.  I am more experienced from the scientific standpoint at the moment -- coming from a science background and training students on how to measure/process samples which are similar to cannabis samples.  Another source which might be good to read is the National Institute for Cannabis Investors website which is filled with short blog posts with relevant investing and regulatory information.



The above reading should be a good start to get familiar with the current issues are from a regulatory standpoint along with commercialization issues facing the cannabis industry.  I look forward to writing some on the science side of the aisle in the near future.



Related Blog Posts:


Have You Ever Heard A Song About Personalized Medicine? Here Is A Scientist Singing A Song.


The future: Making Medicines in your kitchen?

FDA Director Scott Gottlieb Addresses Public On Eliminating E-Cigarette Use Among Youths

The Futuristic Visit To The Physician Is Here!

NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science

NIAID Director Anthony Fauci: How Should We Communicate About Crises?

What is going on in the FDA for Fall 2018 - message from Director Scott Gottlieb

NIH Director Francis Collins Makes A Statement Regarding Sexual Harassment In Science