Introduction:

In an attempt to reduce plastic waste in the cannabis industry, the Vermont Cannabis Control Board (CCB) has created a strict and total ban on all plastic packaging. This rule is harming Vermont manufacturers, increasing costs of retail cannabis products, and causing unintended environmental repercussions.

The industry needs an airtight and child resistant packaging solution to allow for healthy cannabis edibles made with no preservatives or harsh chemicals to exist in the Vermont marketplace. However, the strict restrictions upheld by the CCB has eliminated all possible solutions and they are refusing to consider some of the most sustainable packaging alternatives available today. 

Furthermore, the restrictions are severely increasing costs of material, which is a burden that not only falls on the manufacturers, but on end consumers as well. This causes consumers to shop for their products out of state or on the illicit market, severely damaging our burgeoning industry.

Through hours of research, we have found packaging solutions that would allow our market to flourish and create the most sustainable cannabis market in the world. However, the CCB is not willing to consider this larger picture and is upholding arbitrary restrictions that are causing an even greater environmental impact. Heavy glass packaging being shipped from overseas, most non plastic packaging arriving in plastic sleeves for sanitary protection, etc. --these are all current unaddressed issues resulting from their restrictions and causing a much greater carbon footprint. The CCB is therefore completely disregarding the reason for their own initiative: environmental sustainability. 

Despite many attempts at starting a conversation and implementing better guidelines for packaging, we have not been heard, and alternatives have not been provided. Amazing products are disappearing from store shelves, and unique product ideas will never see the light of day.

We desperately need your help to raise awareness on this issue before it results in permanent damages to our industry. Read the full letter below to educate yourself on the matter at hand and sign our petition today. We also encourage all businesses, consumers and other affected people to write a testimony in the comments.

We urge you to help us advocate this issue so that we may create positive change and create a fair and sustainable cannabis industry in the State of Vermont!

--

On Saturday October 1, 2022, the first adult-use cannabis products were legally sold in Vermont. For many of us, this was the culmination of years of hard work and intensive preparation. We all shared a similar dream of owning our own businesses, growing our brands, and bringing our individual products to the marketplace. As a community, we watched as the framework of legalization slowly took form in Montpelier over the course of many years and multiple legislative sessions. We participated in the discussions and debates surrounding S.54, which would eventually pass into law as Act 164 on October 7, 2020, containing the regulations which govern our industry. We watched as the State’s first Cannabis Control Board (“CCB”) was created and were introduced to the Members who would be responsible for overseeing our industry. We listened to the Board as they promulgated rules and regulations for our industry, and we gave our honest feedback. We learned what steps would need to be taken to obtain a license, and what rules would need to be followed once a license was issued. We started to raise money and to find suitable locations to make our products and run our business from. We fine-tuned our business plans, hired employees, obtained bank accounts, and purchased insurance. None of this was quick or easy. Many of us quit our jobs and devoted every waking moment to fulfilling our dreams. Starting a cannabis business is a serious commitment, not a “side-hustle” and not something that can be done on a part-time basis. Federal illegality has made the cannabis industry one of the most highly regulated and challenging business environments in which to function.

Thankfully, the Vermont Legislature created a regulatory framework where small businesses, with minimal financial resources and little existing infrastructure, could not only participate in the industry but had the real potential to thrive. Many of our businesses would not exist in other states, states where the cannabis laws were designed to give large businesses a distinct advantage in the marketplace, or where extremely high licensing costs are prohibitive to small operators. In comparison, Vermont’s commercial cannabis laws were drafted specifically to support small businesses to the greatest extent possible. Small tier cultivation licenses were given exemptions to some regulatory requirements, retail licenses were limited to one location, and no licensee could hold more than one of each type of license. As we enter the second year of adult-use sales, many of us agree that these laws have, for the most part, been effective in keeping our industry as local as it is. For that, we want to give our sincere gratitude to the multitude of legislatures, policymakers, advocates, and others who worked tirelessly to get Vermont’s cannabis industry off the ground.

As is common practice when working with administrative agencies, the Vermont Legislature delegated the task of adopting and implementing the specific details of industry regulation to the state’s Cannabis Control Board. 7 V.S.A. § 881 is the statute which formally grants the CCB the authority to make legally binding rules and enumerates the broad regulations which must be addressed by these rules. The CCB fulfilled this task by creating Title 26 of the Code of Vermont Rules, more commonly known as “Rules 1-5”. Unfortunately, this included the ban on all plastic packaging, which is where we have encountered a serious and insurmountable problem, a problem which threatens the livelihood of most, if not all, Vermont cannabis product manufacturers. It is this problem that we are seeking your help to overcome. 

The purpose of this letter is to address this well-intentioned, but poorly executed policy, which fails to achieve its intended purpose and places enormous financial burdens on Vermont’s cannabis product manufacturers.

The Board’s absolute ban on all plastic packaging, including bio-degradable plastics, plant-based plastics, and other non-hydrocarbon-based plastics, has created an unsustainable situation for small manufacturers. This policy exceeds the authority granted to the Board and is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of supporting the small businesses which make up the overwhelming majority of the Vermont cannabis industry. 

The concept of environmental sustainability is one that we as a community unanimously support. The cannabis industry, in particular, has historically faced challenges in this area, exacerbated by the regulatory packaging requirements imposed by many states, especially in the early days of legalization. Cannabis products were often required to be wrapped in plastic, then placed in a hard plastic child-proof container, then given to the consumer in a sealable plastic bag, resulting in an inordinate amount of waste. Over the past several years, many states have taken steps to reduce this waste by amending their state laws to require less “security” packaging and allowing other forms of product packaging. As an example, most states no longer require cannabis products to be placed in sealable plastic bags after being sold. These are common sense steps, which we as an industry fully support and encourage.

Plastics, especially hydrocarbon-based plastics, should be phased out and replaced with more environmentally sustainable alternatives in every aspect of commerce as is feasible, but the CCB has simply taken it too far. 

What's more, the Board’s rash and impulsive decision to ban all plastic packaging fails to take into consideration a multitude of factors which, in turn, leads to serious questions about the policy’s overall effectiveness.

It is true that the use of petrochemical-based plastics in packaging of consumer products is of environmental concern as they are inert and will persist for possibly thousands of years. This has caused the Board to ban the use of non-compostable plastics for the packaging of cannabis products.

Not only have traditional petrochemical plastics been banned, including polyethylene (HDPE/LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyamide (nylon), polyesters, but the board has even banned the use of industrially compostable plastics like polylactic acid (PLA) as they do not break down readily in a landfill. While the intentions of this ban aim to have a positive environmental impact, this decision has been made with little regard for the practical requirements of packaging or the inevitable and unintended environmental consequences which have manifested.

Currently, there is only one company that offers a material that satisfies the Board’s current criteria: HumidiCo's polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA). The only solution offered is a 53/400 child resistant jar closure. These can only be used with glass jars, which are mainly shipped from overseas. For the year of 2023, there was a compostable pouch that allowed for much more flexibility of products that did not fit in jars and required a hermetically sealed environment. However, this solution has been deemed unacceptable due to the child resistant mechanism being merely industrially compostable, not home compostable.

In pursuit of making Vermont's cannabis industry more sustainable, the board has focused singularly on one criterion: degradability in a landfill. This is a fallacy; there are other factors of equal or greater import regarding environmental impact. Petrochemical based plastics are not perfectly inert and begin to break down when exposed to UV and oxygen forming microplastic particulates that pervade not only our environment, but all biological organisms and tissues, humans included. This is not of concern with industrially compostable plastics like PLA. Instead of monomers being hydrocarbons or petrochemical derivatives, lactic acid is the ultimate degradation product of PLA, which is a common biological metabolite that does not interfere with natural systems. While this may not degrade as quickly as home compostable solutions, it is still a better alternative compared to traditional plastics. Especially since this is a solution that is offered by numerous vendors in a variety of shapes and sizes and meets the current requirements for cannabis products.

Even more notable is the environmental impacts of the alternatives, which have not been considered. Since these packaging criteria are nearly impossible to work with, most products unsurprisingly utilize glass jars and Humidi.com lids. The mining of silica and forging of glass are energy intensive and pollutive. Nearly all glass packaging comes from overseas and is much heavier per unit, further increasing the environmental impact. These factors alone can easily eclipse the benefits of using the degradable lid the glass jars are paired with.

While many people share the concern regarding the degradability of petrochemical plastics, the board has clearly demonstrated that it is incapable of making decisions that consider both the broader environmental implications of such draconian restrictions, and the practical requirements of the industry that they regulate. The lack of consideration of the degradation process of compostable plastics and the environmental impacts of glass manufacturing is part and parcel of this issue. 

Edible and concentrate packaging require some kind of child resistant mechanism. This generally comprises a compliant mechanism that deforms when force is applied; few alternatives exist where this mechanism is 100% plastic free. Many edible products also require being hermetically sealed to preserve shelf life.

Here are the personal accounts of three small-scale Vermont cannabis product manufacturers and the problems they have faced as a direct result of the CCB’s outright ban on all plastic packaging. 

Marissa Dunn – Altitude Drops, LLC

“I manufacture a chocolate bar, and due to the ban on plastic I was obligated to find non-plastic packaging. Chocolate can be incredibly sensitive even when tempered perfectly. Moisture, air, heat and cold can all impact its integrity. When I first ordered the child-proof paper boxes were $1.79 per box with a MQO (minimum quantity order) of 1000. Less than six months later MQOs had increased to 5,000 and the price had increased to $2.90. This is for UNPRINTED boxes that are then hand wrapped in a label, bringing the packaging cost up to closer to $3.50 per unit, and that's not including my labor cost for the wrapping. I ended up removing my chocolate from the market mid-year due to pricing and food safety concerns with packaging not being airtight, this significantly impacted my annual revenue.

I eventually built up enough revenue to where I could take the risk of ordering pre-printed boxes from China, this is a gamble the first time as you never have proof you will ever see anything unless you spend big bucks to have a broker do the deal. Not only is it a gamble but it is a nerve-wracking long term process as it takes a minimum of 2-3 months to receive the packaging once the money is spent. The MQO's are high due to the product being shipped from China, not really worth paying tariffs for 1,000 units, so there is a second gamble that you may be stuck with a bunch of packaging that will not work should a regulation change, an ingredient in the recipe, etc. It also takes up an enormous amount of storage space. Each individual box comes wrapped in a plastic sleeve, creating a ton of plastic waste (in addition to the fossil fuels used to get it from China to Vermont). I would love the opportunity to support a circular economy in Vermont and receive packaging that is made and printed here.

I also had a hard candy that was tested and approved. I registered it and had labels, and everything printed and only then found that there was no airtight packaging available that could keep them safe from humidity and so I never sold them on the market even though there was a cry from the industry for hard candy. These kept great in an airtight container, I had a bunch in a mason jar for over a year exposed to heat, cold and sunshine with no issues, however all packaging options available to me left them a melting mess of sugary goo and ruined the product completely.” 

Robert Connolly, Tir Na nOg Edibles, LLC

“We manufacture a variety of cannabis edibles, mainly gummies, but have in the past done hard candy and mints. In the beginning we embraced the packaging ban and found and ordered child resistant cardboard slide boxes from All Packaging that were not only plastic free but made in the USA, reducing carbon emissions for transport as well as being made with renewable energy. The issue, however, came, as so many things do, with Vermont’s diverse seasons as the weather grew colder and the air drier the gummies began to dry out in a matter of days and as the hard candy moved from a cold vehicle to a warm dispensary it pulled moisture from the air melting it into a gooey solid lump. We tried wrapping the Gummies and hard candy in cellophane and that mitigated the issue a little but only in that we were able to get a month of shelf stability. We tried adding natural humectants to our recipe and they unfortunately left a lot to be desired, and we personally had no desire to add any humectants that were not natural. This left us with 8000+ slide boxes (the MOQ (minimum order) was 12,000 at $1.64 each that we could not use as well as all the products we had to take back. This cost us $15,000.00 at a time when we were just starting out and continued to be a financial burden even after that because of the impact of IRS Code 280(e). We can only write off the cost of goods sold; no goods sold in the boxes, therefore no write off. We looked to go into jars with a HumidiCo lid and pressure seal, but at the time there were shortages and we found that even they did not keep our product as fresh as we would like. We searched and searched and found several bags that were not only child resistant, but met several international standards for home composability, however the CCB rejected them for various reasons.

Finally, after looking for several options, we relented and went with the SafelyLock bags, and you know what? They were great! They met our needs for food safety, for shelf stability, and for ease of transport. They were great, while the waiver on them lasted that is. Since the waiver was not renewed, we have spent over 200 hours looking for an alternative, emailing CEOs of several different companies, and really digging into trying to find an alternative that is not just another edible in another glass jar. Tins are sold out for months at a time and are not airtight once you remove the plastic seal to make them CCB compliant, cardboard tubes are not airtight and from a food safety standpoint not super hygienic. In the meantime, while looking for an alternative we have had to let several products fall out of registration for a lack of packaging options. This has led to revenue loss, as well as the loss of valuable real estate on store shelves that we fought tooth and nail for over the last year.

If we are forced to use glass jars as a last resort it will cost us $10,000.00 to redesign all our labels. It will also double the cost of our packaging, currently $.84 per unit with label, up to $1.64 for a jar, lid, label, and pressure seal, cutting even further into our already slim margins, as well as the unknown cost and revenue loss of completely rebuilding our branding as customers have to find us again. No one is asking for a free-for-all on plastics here, there are bags we have found that are home compostable under normal conditions, that meet Australian requirements for home composting (which are among the strictest in the world), which provide the necessary oxygen and moisture protection, and are much less expensive than even the SafelyLock bags.”

Anonymous entry from a Vermont Cannabis Manufacturer

“Manufacturing in Vermont has always faced a unique set of challenges. Being a small State with tax codes that are not super business friendly, manufacturing here is expensive, and it is extremely difficult to compete on price with any out-of-state manufacturer. Out of this challenge arose an industry centered around craft and high quality. The golden opportunity that continues to elevate our small manufacturers. The "made in Vermont" brand holds weight in our State and beyond. With tourism being a huge driver of our economy, this is an essential factor in succeeding as a community.

Products that are farm to table, locally grown, free range, cruelty free, grass fed, organic, traditionally crafted, unique and inventive, free from additives & preservatives (commonly used by large manufacturers seeking long shelf life on products)...these are all competitive edges that businesses here use to justify a higher price tag. People are willing to pay for products that are healthier for them, and they choose to support businesses that do good in the world. This is something that is very unique and special about Vermont. 

This standard should be upheld in the cannabis industry as well, should it not? If we are to create a sustainable industry where customers choose to buy Vermont made cannabis products instead of products from surrounding states, we have to give them a reason to. And the way to do this, is by differentiating our products from what you will find out of state. The craft industry is strong, and we have already seen so much creativity from our cannabis businesses. 

However, some of Vermont's most unique edibles products are vanishing from shelves due to the Vermont Cannabis Control Board's total ban on plastic packaging.

In order to make products that are free from additives and preservatives, the only way to preserve shelf life is with completely air-tight packaging. This has been difficult as there is no pouch packaging option for edibles. Jars don't necessarily fit every product type, and many product ideas we have heard about have never come to fruition simply because there is no pouch packaging that is available. For example, a cinnamon bun, and other larger sized baked goods; these can have a long shelf life if stored in an airtight environment, but without one available, this product will never even have the ability to hit the market.

Creativity, innovation, products made without harmful ingredients...the ban on all pouch packaging is preventing manufacturers from holding true to the Vermont Brand. We do not wish to compromise the quality of our ingredients, and we believe that we are capable of finding solutions to allow our state to flourish with unique products while reducing our environmental impact. 

Jars and HumidiCo lids are not more sustainable than some of the alternatives we have found through hours of research. Each alternative we asked for has been shut down by the Vermont CCB. We only ask for the chance to be heard and to be given solutions that meet everyone's goals, environmental and practical."

 

The enabling statute which grants regulatory authority to the CCB, 7 V.S.A. § 881, clearly states the requirements for product manufacturers and the only mention of product packaging involves requirements for opaque, child-resistant packaging. Nowhere in the enabling statute does the Legislature give the Board authority to arbitrarily ban all plastics. If there are to be regulations concerning plastic packaging in the Vermont cannabis industry, it is our belief that the decision should come directly from the Legislature, after listening to the community, soliciting testimony from experts on the subject matter, and taking the time necessary to craft a reasonable and effective policy.

Recently, a CCB member responded to an email regarding the plastic ban from a concerned licensee by stating. “We’re going around the country talking to other state control boards about what we’re doing…We are the tiny spark that is helping the country change how we think about packaging cannabis and cannabis products.” We have to ask, it is the job of the CCB to travel around the county advocating for their own personal agendas, or is it their job to work with us, the licensees who make up the industry, to find a solution that will both accomplish the goal of sustainability, and at the same time take into consideration the realities that we, as small business owners, face on a daily basis trying to keep our heads above water. While it may be nice to see the members of the Cannabis Control Board on the front page of the newspaper preaching about their “first-in-the nation” ban on all plastics, it is a lot less pleasant to read about all of the small Vermont cannabis companies going out of business as a result on page two.

We, the undersigned, ask that you please share this message and help us to convince the Vermont Cannabis Control Board to take a more measured and rational approach to environmental sustainability. We are willing to discuss a variety of ideas and approaches that would be equally, if not more, effective, and which would not create an impossible burden for small businesses. We would also ask to be included in any future decisions that would have such a dramatic impact on our livelihoods, as opposed to being ignored while such decisions are made unilaterally, with no regard for the consequences.

Thank you for your time.