Department of Health Defends Hemp Food Prohibition Amid Industry Outcry in South Africa

Breakdown of what the health department’s representatives said.

25March 2025 Update Cannabis, Hemp Products | Motsoaledi to lift ban: Myrtle Clarke weighs in

Key Points Discussed:

1. Background and Context:
   • The THC limit in South Africa remains at 0.2%, despite expectations it would increase to 2%. This has not been updated.
   • A recent prohibition (referred to as a “blanket ban” by Cheeba) prevents hemp from being classified as a foodstuff unless it complies with strict labelling, hygiene, and safety regulations under the Foodstuffs Act.
2. Cheeba’s Position:
   • Cheeba supports regulation, consumer protection, proper labeling, and safety standards but argues the hemp ban is an overreach.
   • Hemp (non-psychoactive, THC below 0.2%) is distinct from THC-rich edibles and CBD products, yet it’s been lumped into the same regulatory framework.
   • The ban undermines hemp farmers (1,500 in South Africa) and the industry, especially in rural areas, by destroying the market for hemp-based food products (e.g., hemp protein, seeds, oil), which are low-tech and globally recognized as nutritious.
3. Department of Health’s Position (Dr. Anban Pillay & Penny Campbell):
   • The prohibition isn’t a total ban but a regulatory measure. Products with THC or CBD (or marketed as such) cannot be called foodstuffs unless they meet Foodstuffs Act requirements.
   • Hemp can be a foodstuff if it complies with regulations, has no THC/CBD, and avoids misleading cannabis-related labelling.
   • The goal is consumer safety, child protection, and proper oversight, not to outlaw hemp outright.
   • They claim a lack of evidence for hemp’s nutritional value in South Africa, despite global trends, and note hemp was historically industrialized for fibre, not food.
4. Points of Contention:
   • Blanket Ban vs. Prohibition: Cheeba sees it as a blanket ban that halts hemp food sales; the Department insists it’s a labelling/safety issue, not an outright ban.
   • Lack of Consultation: Cheeba highlights no industry dialogue preceded the decision, suggesting overreach or ignorance.
   • Global Trends: Cheeba argues the ban contradicts international acceptance of hemp as a food source (e.g., protein-rich, non-psychoactive), while the Department questions local evidence.
   • Impact on Farmers: The ban severely limits hemp farmers’ economic opportunities, a point the Department doesn’t directly address.
5. Process and Next Steps:
   • The Minister of Health is reviewing concerns raised by Cheeba and others, with a response expected.
   • Broader cannabis legislation (beyond the Department of Health) is still pending across government departments.

Conclusions:

• Regulatory Intent vs. Practical Impact: The Department aims to regulate, not ban, hemp in food, but the current rules effectively stop sales due to non-compliance with labeling and oversight requirements, creating a de facto ban.
• Industry Frustration: Cheeba and the hemp industry feel blindsided and misunderstood, seeing the policy as illogical and economically damaging, especially for rural farmers.
• Dialogue Opened: The Department’s participation is a step forward from past refusals, signaling potential for future negotiation.
• Unresolved Tension: No immediate resolution was reached. The hemp ban stands, but pressure is mounting on the Minister to reconsider, with hopes of retracting or reworking the policy.
• Need for Clarity: Both sides agree on the need for regulation, but the Department’s framework doesn’t yet accommodate hemp’s unique status as a non-psychoactive food, leaving the industry in limbo until further action is taken.

This part of the webinar highlights a disconnect between policy intent and industry needs, with a call for better consultation and alignment with global hemp trends. The ball is now with the Minister of Health to respond.