Brussels – A food product containing natural cannabidiol (CBD) cannot be certified as organic if its placing on the market within the EU has not been authorised. This has been ruled by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the challenge brought by the French Hemp Trade Association (Syndicat professionnel du chanvre) against the communication from the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (National Institute for Origin and Quality, INAO) to certification bodies in the organic farming sector. In INAO’s view, neither products based on natural cannabidiol (CBD) – except hemp oil not enriched with CBD – nor food products enriched with CBD are eligible for organic certification. Furthermore, CBD must not be present in the composition of certified organic food products.
The trade union challenged the Institute’s position to the French Council of State, which referred the matter to the Court of Justice, regarding the possibility of certifying CBD as originating from organic farming because, “being extracted from hemp plant, an agricultural plant…it could fall into the category of ‘processed agricultural products intended for use as food,’ within the meaning of Regulations on organic production.” However, although the European Commission regarded CBD as a ‘novel food’, “it did not authorise CBD to be placed on the EU market as a food.”
In its judgment today (5 November), “the Court considers that CBD cannot obtain organic farming certification until it is authorised to be placed on the
market.” The judges in Luxembourg note that ‘processed agricultural products intended for use as food’ include “any product intended to be ingested or reasonably likely to be ingested by humans.” This therefore includes “both novel foods, regardless of whether or not they are authorised to be placed on the market, and products that
are injurious to health or unfit for human consumption, which are prohibited.” At the same time, however, “the Court emphasises that organic certification cannot be separated from the rules applicable to the
marketing of the products concerned”, because it “contributes to the promotion of those products and
conveys, in the eyes of consumers, a positive image of quality and approval.”
In this context, “certifying a product which has not been authorised to be placed on the market could hinder the
protection of human health and consumer interests.” This is because “authorisation of a novel food implies, in particular, that it does
not pose any safety risk to human health in the light of the available scientific evidence, that its intended use does not
mislead the consumer and that, where it replaces another food, its consumption is not nutritionally disadvantageous.” Finally, the Court considers that this interpretation also applies where “such products, which have not been authorised to
be placed on the market in the European Union, are intended for sale in third countries” because “such marketing could harm the
reputation of the certification and undermine consumer confidence in products benefiting from that certification.”
