The Cannabis Tower Of Babel: Challenges of Concept Disparity

When different markets have a different understanding of key concepts, be it because of lack of definition within its regulations, or because of lack of interest from the parties to find common ground and homologous terminologies, we create true disparity. It is a major issue that has been looming over the cannabis industry since its inception. 

This is not only about misunderstandings and confusion. The lack of a common terminology can create significant challenges. Different markets (or worse yet, different segments of the same market) may use different phrasing for the same thing, or may have different ones for certain business, regulatory or quality terms. 

Not only do we make it difficult to communicate with our counterparts in other markets, and ultimately hinder our ability to do business effectively, but when products and services are unable to cross between segments and markets, and therefore can’t be accessed by certain groups of people, this business discrepancy becomes a social and health disparity as well. 

Concept disparity not only means that we might have to explain our products differently in each market, at best creating a time-consuming and expensive approach. It can also lead to frustration, confusion, and even demoralization, as customers struggle to understand a product or category because they're used to a different definition or bombarded by so much different information, it’s hard to know which stands true.

This disparity can also be an issue within a single market. Lack of clarity between regulatory bodies and businesses means a continuous uphill battle to understand and implement regulations, as well as actively participate in its accountability. 

In the cannabis industry, it is not difficult to find such regulatory and concept disparity; starting with the primary terminology between “hemp” and “cannabis” and between “cannabis” and “marijuana” (often interchangeable, especially in North America). The issue with hemp, in particular, is that every country (legislation) has their own definition of it or lack thereof even. 

In Mexico, the word hemp (or its Spanish translation, cañamo) is actually non-existent in our current laws or regulations. We often confuse its use between “industrial uses of cannabis” and “cannabis below X percentage of THC, the psychoactive compound,” the former a term that produces its own misunderstandings; and the latter, a regulatory definition that varies between countries and regions. The problem here is that we began using the term hemp as business lingo, when not even from a regulatory standpoint is it standardized.

There are a number of reasons why having different concepts for the same thing can be bad for our industry. First, it can lead to confusion among consumers; if they don't know what they're supposed to be looking for, they may not be able to find what they want, or get something entirely different from what they need if they lack proper counsel. Second, even if we overcome the initial confusion, we would be treading delicate ground, where “regulatory gray areas” arise that can create a more in-depth problem: lack of accountability and indulging the unregulated markets. Finally, it can make it difficult to track down problems or issues with those products; that is, quality control, traceability and pharmacovigilance. If multiple concepts are being used in an “official” capacity, it can be hard to pinpoint where the issue is coming from.

The other good example of this in our industry is product labeling and classification. In Mexico, and elsewhere really, there’s an abundance of gray and black market cannabis offerings; the same product (presentation, active ingredients and concentration) can be often found interchangeably as either a supplement or medication on the unregulated market. 

Not only that, but the lack of proper labeling and classification guidelines specifically targeted to cannabis-based products (and, really, the lack of government surveillance on such products), leads to the appearance of bad actors, with full intention to deceive, approaching unsuspecting customers with outrageous medical and commercial claims, with no oversight or accountability. The not-so-recent “CBD craze” in Mexico has flooded our social media and marketplaces. 

So, how can we overcome this regulatory and conceptual disparity?

Standardization should be a common goal for our industry. It’s not just about using clear and concise language when communicating with customers, but also establishing the rules of the game when interfacing between the regulatory authorities and businesses. 

Experience has shown us that the only way to achieve this is through consensus within the same industry, meaning companies and businesses need to step up their game and let go of our common lethargy, waiting for our own governments and our own regulatory bodies to come up with guidelines or rules as a way to excuse our own inaction. 

By establishing common in-market guidelines and terminology related to cannabis, which should be enforced by and of itself, we will be able to move our industry forward and stop relying on less than dependable government bodies, while still interacting with them and abiding by quality standards and legality.  

A standardized cannabis industry will have consistent effects, allowing users to easily compare products beyond their own branding and marketing (which is quite difficult to achieve today). This will ensure that all products carry accurate labeling, making it easy for consumers to identify dangerous and illicit products. Increased standardization will also move to improve the quality of cannabis products in general, helping the industry overall.

This should not be a one-sided effort; standardization will come once we realize we need to find common ground, get our egos in check, and organize the cannabis industry from within. Nonprofit associations, like the Cannabis Industry Promotion Group (Grupo Promotor de la Industria del Cannabis - GPIC), might be a good start.