 We have this meeting is being recorded and or transcribed right now and we have a pick a little role here with Julie and Bryn Nellie Nellie okay and among the advisory committee members Tim Wessel, Ingrid Jonas, Dr. Levine is expected right? As far as I know yes. Okay and so in and for the NACB it's Danika and Gina myself. Do we have any are there any members who may want to comment later on? Okay great and I don't think we have any public comments to deal with. Not yet but you know what let's do this if you don't mind let's go here we do have two sets of minutes that have been sent out. Mark if you'd like to see if we can get those approved? Sure we've been trying to catch up on these minutes of September 20 if everyone's had a chance to take a look could we get a motion to approve? I can make that motion. Alright Tim Wessel moves and Ingrid are you able to second? All in favor? And the minutes for the 23rd one of our last week meetings do we have a motion to to approve the minutes? Thanks Ingrid. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Mark if you don't mind may I just hop in on the public comments from last time they are noted in here Tim thank you for providing those we did go over them with the subcommittee group and they were discussed so as an FYI and they have been loaded by Nellie into the system so that they are on record just to let you know so what I would like to do is as we do each week remind members of the public that we don't have any written public comments for today if you'd like to make public comments you may do so at ccb.vermont.gov via their public input form which is very easy to find. Mark anything you want to add? No I don't. Why don't you pick up the conversation where we left off last week? I know you weren't with us on Monday but I would like to open the floor to ask if the package example reviews if you have any questions about those or if you found them helpful as we work on the anatomy of a package for Vermont. Yeah I looked them over and they were very helpful thank you don't have any specific comments right now. Okay no problem at all so I'm gonna just keep moving over we're gonna go to warning symbols okay. And this is Mark Levine I'm on only by phone for a bit but I'll keep myself on mute because I'll be driving part of it too. All right excellent. Welcome and so that everyone on here is aware in case you didn't note this the discussions that we have today will be incorporated into a deck for the Department of Health so today's discussions will go into basically the compilation of everything that we've done here and we'll be putting forth what the committee would like the Department of Health to see and so we can talk about that what that might look like if you'd like in the end but for the for the members of the subcommittee there are there will be no surprises it will be nothing that you have not seen but it will be condensed into really where we are now if that makes sense for everybody so let's move on to warning symbols. So what we did was place these two warning symbols the main and Massachusetts warning symbol with the subcommittee requested more realistic lease and so you're going to see this two ways this first is what we call a white knockout so this is the contained THC and not safe for kids. What I will add in here is you'll see some new package samples in two slides and what I would like to share with everyone is a reminder that when you when we have packages that have color on them that sometimes colors may get lost so there's a couple of considerations and that is if there's just one symbol or if there may be two symbols that are the same symbol but used based on the color of the package so I'm just going to put that out there the branding guidelines for main only use one color which is the white knockout and we will be sharing those and the files with the Department of Health today as well so this as requested with the more realistic lease you can see over here and and please note there is not parity between the logo symbols at this time on these because they were already locked but this is an example and also by height of three different packages from both Michigan and Illinois that display the the warning symbol and then what I'd like to do before I go to comment is based on colors and what packages may look like we created a couple of fake packages and we also changed the color of one of the packages to yellow so that you could see what bright colors may look like with warning symbols and this is truly for effect and I'm gonna open the floor up I know Dr. Levine you're on the phone but but Tim and Ingrid if you can see these or if you had the opportunity would welcome your feedback thank you Ingrid Tim any thoughts yeah I think these look fine to me I don't really have huge thoughts it's when you get to the yellow and maybe I'll have a thought yeah no problem at all so that takes us to the yellow and that is next so there are the yellow and red symbols as well and not throw like I mentioned another choice in there because we do need to to get to a comfort level with warning symbols other states often have one that is either black and white or black and white and red and then one that might be in green or another color and that and then they give guidance on that that may be more than the control board or everyone wants to consider at this point but we can put these options forth with the with the Department of Health as well and get their input and Julie you mentioned that you had some packages from Maine and Massachusetts I do is there and showcase those and something with lots of you can see down in the corner there we go so that is a blue package with the main and mass symbol on it and you can you know that that white knockout stands out so kind of a light color package this is sort of a multicolor package that has that on it and then actually here's a white package it's not on the front this is a water it's not on the front of this package it's on the back with the warning symbol and it's red and white Julie would you show the multicolor package again the the middle one that you did does that have a red outline on it I can't really tell yeah okay okay thank you and thank you for that your item Julie will take some photos of those and off for break in our Navy States packages any yeah I'm pretty happy with the way they get displayed it makes me feel like the red is is a must you know I'm I'm less concerned with the yellow idea now that I've seen all of these but I guess I don't carry their way if the consensus is it should also be yellow center but I think the white as long as it's assured that the white won't be replaced by the package cover itself right knockout I guess is the term right yeah the nice thing about this and the way that that main put their guidelines together they have one document it has both of these symbols and then tells you exactly the dimensions that they should be in addition to providing all the files for immediate download so that does you know help in that capacity as well let me show you the yellow anyway Tim on some packages so that is again not parody because they were already locked but those are the yellow and the red and then where it becomes you know the important consideration as well is when colors do come into play again these are fake packages except for the one in the middle but that's you know what what the red and and yellow would look like so I'm going to flip here there it is in white with parody and there it is with red and yellow with parody in size okay I like both I feel like the yellow popped out a little bit more certainly makes a point but I don't feel super strongly about yellow just the white knockout they both being affected okay very good Tim anything yeah just again that I think the red border is a must and the yellow is a nice to have but I don't know if there's other considerations that would make it tough on people to reproduce it so one additional item that I think is important to note is in some of the other states it is not unusual for the product fact label that is printed and stuck on to the package to have that on there's a specifically black and white but that would be an addition to versus and in place of so there may be some considerations Julie on the board for us as it relates to as it does relate to anything that might be printed on the product fact that there may be an instance where it's just an additional warning but may need to be in black and white because of the way those are printed so we will definitely note that as well so thank you everyone for your feedback we'll put both of these four to the Department of Health for their review and we'll also be supplying them with photos of Maine and Maine's guidelines for licensees to use when it comes to their packages so everyone's feeling good about this one correct I just want to be sure I feel like we have a win okay fantastic excellent Julie were you gonna say something no I was just nodding my head okay fantastic so um you know I think this is just really a synopsis to put together for everyone is as for where we've been and what we may want to consider moving forward you know the warning language for packages really have got to be concise and the purchaser have got to be able to read it and we've seen time and time again where sometimes those are not able to be read Julie do you feel like you could read the warning labels on the ones from Maine and Massachusetts their written warning I will give it a try I did not bring my reading glasses with me okay so this one that I showed before the blue package on the back says well on the front it says past mandatory testing and then the warning on the back says there may be health risks associated with the use of this product there may be additional health risks associated with the use of this product for women who are pregnant and breastfeeding or planning on becoming pregnant do not drive a motor vehicle or operate heavy machinery while using this product so that that is this this blue box and then different with the with the water I thought was interesting is that it says all of the same things but it also says it's against the law to drive or operate machinery when under the influence of this product so it's a slightly it's slightly different okay but the good thing is you can read it without your reading glasses on and I was not able to do these are reading glasses with packages from the other state it was it was very difficult to do so the so took you for that one additional item that I do want to put out there for the board is as much a committee is as much as everyone likes bullet points that may be an unrealistic way to put a warning symbol on a package just due to the size of it which is why we're seeing so many of them in paragraph form but again just want to put that out there one of the other considerations is to break apart the warning language we've seen two warnings so that there's a special call out I'll show that in just a moment where it gives special attention to children and also to pregnant or breastfeeding women one that would more than likely cause some angst in the retail environment but any package that is smaller than five inches in length no matter what you do is going to have crushed and condensed font sizes so for scale I'll flip back here these packages and the back of them are our forward you can see like this one is seven this one was close to seven and this one was six so I do want to put that forth that that is something of importance is size when it does come to readability I'll go back then the next thing is having a QR code on each package that would take someone to additional health and safety information I did see today I was reading New York they already have their safety flyer which is three pages long together I will circulate that out to the group but there would be opportunity to take someone to a place where they can get additional information and then we'll put any additional recommendations or considerations based on any feedback we received today but is anyone have any thoughts on any of these especially as it relates to warnings and it's okay if you don't not yet you know okay fantastic I just appreciate all the input today so there is a draft recommendation that could be edited by any of you but also the Department of Health and that is this two ways to look at it based on the package evaluation that we've done one would be where all languages together this is a cannabis product this this is a cannabis sorry I'm missing a word I'll fix that this is a cannabis product that has not been analyzed or approved by the Food and Drug Administration FDA for use by individuals 21 of age and older or registered qualifying patient only keep this product away from children do not use the fragment of breastfeeding the effects of cannabis may be delayed by two hours or more cannabis can impair concentration coordination and judgment it is against the law to drive or operate machinery when under the influence of this product and then the phone number for the National Poison Control Center a second way to look at it is to take out the children and breastfeeding from the paragraph and give it its own call-out box now whether this is the actual warning statement or not it definitely does get us started and follows what is needed with the statute so even if you may not agree with the language do you have some thoughts or considerations on how you're seeing this here yeah I think you know that they're both reasonable ways to to approach it I personally for some reason I always like the like the bolded in the middle okay I said and I'm not sure why but I just feel like you get to it sooner and you're less likely to avoid it somehow okay it's just my own personal opinion you know what everything is subjective so I think it's very important that that you share your opinion because there is an element where your eye goes right here to keep this product away from children in the middle there I mean so there's really two schools of thought but but that is a very valid point and thank you for your feedback in great thoughts yeah I agree that there's something about the bold in the center that gives you a place to start and then it's serious and so it you know I don't know there's something about the way that I move over the information more so than view number two okay again I agree I'm not really sure why but that one seems to I get that one more okay that's great and wonderful I appreciate that so will is there anything in the language that gives you thought it seems like it's pretty standard language warning language you know not only for cat is up is my playing tricks or it's the same amount of text but the one on the right looks less jammed up to me it yeah and it's because we did remove you know a piece of it so it it takes the size now a little bit as well but we can certainly put both forward and see what the Department of Health thinks and they may edit and rewrite the whole thing and that is perfectly you know acceptable and would be fantastic because then we would know it follows but is anybody opposed to giving them both options okay fantastic thank you Julie any consideration here someone just handed me a California product that had a little bit different of a warning that I thought was interesting because we've talked about this before about it being a sketch so the first line of the California warning is that it's a schedule one controlled substance you know we can let the Department of Health weigh in on that but I know that there was some discussion on that including yeah absolutely and thank you for providing that information that is a California package right there so absolutely it is noted for them thank you very much and for anyone who would like to review additional packages especially if you're a member of the public this will be available online okay we started out with some tasks from Monday but honestly I think what this is going to come down to is you know what we don't have to go through unless you have your top two packages or things that you thought were best represented the warning situation and and the warning symbols but it sounds like and please correct me if I'm wrong that the biggest thing is readability and parity in the symbols is there anything for the subcommittee members that I may be missing from that or mark that I may be missing that readability and parity whatever it is okay would anybody like to comment anything further on this before we move on we're actually moving at a good pace so I want to make sure everybody is is getting their say or their contributions in I think I just want to do because I'm not sure somewhere along the way it was dropped that we were putting not putting VT in the in the warning symbol which I'm fine with but was that ever talked about that or just sort of a consensus vibe you know what I what I had in my notes was that we could remove VT and it's from a few times back it could certainly be added the thing that I would say is if we were to put the VT in there then we may want to drop the word contains THC which is implied because at that point you will we will shrink the font even more to add VT and it could lessen the size of the symbol but it is certainly something that that could be done yeah I just I guess I was just I thought it was unnecessary I've seen that California does it right maybe I don't know if I have other states too but I just was kind of curious what the what the purpose of doing that is to to brand it to the state using a warning symbol like I just don't quite dive with me and I'm not recommending that we go back to that idea but I was just kind of curious why they would do that in the first place yeah I I tend to agree I feel like and I could be wrong but they I feel like it's a way of almost advertising it's like free advertising on some level where I feel like we're focused on getting the information out there about the facts about this product and what it contains and to put Vermont on there seems irrelevant to this mission of a warning well in addition a lot is going to be on the package somewhere anyway because it will have to be more than likely based on all the fact labels and everything else so so absolutely what we're trying to do very good thank you dr. Levine so great so what we are going to do for our next steps is we've already talked about this we've gotten feedback we've gotten some considerations we're going to lock some of this stuff up or I should say put it all together and hand it over to the Department of Health for their consideration and so I'll be sharing with with you and them some of the safety flyers from other states as well and their language because that is part of the SA 907 the safety information flyer so we'll be providing some examples of those for everyone to see and I do believe that the Department of Health input is going to be incredibly helpful to us so there are still some charges that we have as far as our October 20th deadline and we can do these on Monday we have some of this already but that is what those guidelines may look like overall which we really would need to wait for the Department of Health's language back but there is the opportunity to come to Consensus and Agreement on ways to mitigate and reduce youth exposure which is one of the challenges because there are some items that can be considered that may not be part of the statute which includes you know no dispensaries within 1000 feet of a school youth center or daycare center it's not saying that that's what's going to happen but there is opportunity for the subcommittee to put those types of recommendations forward age-gating which has to happen anyways with the with a cannabis style website but also with any other types of things but then that's those ways that we can limit youth exposure and then I believe let me go back to the beginning slide for our regulations regarding advertising and marketing that limit youth exposure that's a key piece packaging and labeling that and the warning language is what's going to the Department of Health and then the consideration of the dispensary as a food manufacturing establishment which would key in on oversight and one of the things I think with that being one of the points that I would like to raise with the committee is if we go to Illinois this particular one this is where it had a label on it that basically says this is an edible but it was made in a cannabis environment so and not is not considered a food even though I it probably has 50 to 100 calories in it so that is something I would like everyone to give some some consideration to as well for us to talk about next week is ways to limit youth exposure will recirculate some of that and then also whether or not edibles are part of our considered food or dispensary and that means that Mark and I more than likely will go beyond just what we have here to find out what it looks like in other states as well but these are what will go into our recommendations for the 20th mark you want to add anything you're on mute at least to the youth side because you definitely have so much experience in that as well I think all you know the real key thing for youth limiting youth exposure is is in your is in your advertising standards which we've covered and also and compliance mechanisms at the retail level which you know we can talk about but it's also being covered by the compliance committee compliance and enforcement so I think we just need to make sure that what we're recommending is part of that a broader package which is you know could include those three parts that's a really good point on the compliance and enforcement mark I know you're on that that subcommittee as well as an advisor to that just that sound right to everyone that we go back to those things next week I will say the advertising guidelines we can have some of that but I still think that the Department of Health weigh-in is going to be paramount to how some of this stuff finally ends in final shaping and their thoughts and considerations sound right for everyone sure does thank you and thank you and thank you all for you know this process it's a lot it's a lot of information and a lot of things to go over unless there are any additional items from the subcommittee that you'd like to bring up or raise a point on Julie we can actually move to public comments so before we do that anything else dr. Levine Tim or Ingrid that you'd like to to note and very good thank you so much for your input and your guidance yes sir dr. Levine I was just gonna say I'm okay is there a I know we want the stuff to come back from my department in as timely way as possible but is there a definite timeline you'd want to give ahead of time so I can try to help that happen absolutely we we owe our written report on October 20th however you'll have the big bulk of it today dr. Levine for the team and then Monday if we tackle advertising and limiting youth exposure some of the language may end up in that as well but we could pass that on to you so I would say looking at a calendar let me get into one or I would like for if there is any way that could be back in our hands by the 8 so that we could circulate it to the subcommittee anything that they have and then we could wrap up the week of the 11th that would give us that's just over a week is that too aggressive dr. Levine or do you feel like that's something we could do at least on this first set I'll try to get that happening okay fantastic I'll get that other over to you today like I mentioned now that we know these pieces and we can also take it piecemeal so that we can put the reports together the substance is there so it definitely will give us some opportunity do we have and thank you so much dr. Levine do we have any public comments julie anybody like to add anything my name is Taylor carpenter thank you guys for today I just wanted to have one comment about just the packaging and just the five inches the five inches minimum regulation and I just want to just maybe challenge you to maybe look deeper into like you know some of the really high volume products we're going to see in some of the stores here are going to be you know concentrates vapes and perils which are all under five inches I mean when you just look at a tiny bit so I just want to challenge and and maybe think more about that because we're going to be adding a lot of waste I mean if we're putting these these products that are just you know really small into a lot of cardboard and a lot of packaging it's going to create a lot of waste and and it's just kind of unnecessary so I just maybe challenge you to think about some of that smaller stuff because I think 50% of the the products coming out of the store are going to be in in things that are smaller than five inches so just wanted to challenge to maybe think a little bit about that and then I think my part of the e-bow had a little comment as well yeah yeah kind of the same thing you know a lot of the packages are small if you look at the jar like Julie has over here it's definitely smaller than three inches and just take that into consideration when we're thinking of the verbiage for the warning labels um and the warning symbols as well you know I really like personally I like the triangle without the not safe for kids I think I think that's sufficient but it's also just something to think about when you know we have these small packages and there's a lot of information to put on there including the the cultivation dates the harvest dates which were you know really important for consumers um so yeah I mean we're I think we're in a good place but just take those things into consideration you know as we're moving forward thank you yeah thank you appreciate it and for the members of the public one thing I will say the five inch piece is not in the statute that is not an edict that and just to be clear if it were a package like a pouch in order to read and see everything that's kind of what and be able to legibly see it which is why it's there so it's just a consideration set but thank you so much for your comment thank you fantastic Mr. Gorman I think we are um ready to adjourn all right do we do we have a motion to adjourn I can make a motion okay Jim seconding act all favor the meeting is adjourned for the day and we'll reconvene next Monday