Rationale

WORK ITEM: WK98790 D37.91 Project Number: 91-2026-07 Revision to ASTM D8270 — Standard Terminology for Cannabis Topic: full-spectrum and broad-spectrum as adjectives Introduction and Planned Approach — These definitions are proposed revisions to D8270. They are intended to serve as the shared terminology for the following D37 standards anticipated for future development: -Specification for full-spectrum, and broad-spectrum products — will establish analytical and documentation specifications. -Classification Standard for raw and formulated cannabinoid substances — will use full-spectrum and broad-spectrum as classification criteria. -Standard Guide for market utilization of the classification system — will reference these definitions for labeling guidance. These definitions were developed in collaboration with the Cannabinoid and Cannabinoid Product Characterization Initiative, which includes active work item WK94595 addressing the quality of purified semi-synthetic and synthetic cannabinoid ingredients. Significance and Rationale for both Full-Spectrum and Board-Spectrum 1. Purpose — the terms full-spectrum, and broad-spectrum are among the most commonly used product descriptors in the hemp and cannabis [consumer] products marketplace. They appear on product labels, marketing materials, and regulatory filings. These terms lack uniform legal definitions and have been applied inconsistently across the industry. 2. Full-spectrum and broad-spectrum function grammatically as adjectives — they modify a noun (e.g., full-spectrum extract, broad-spectrum product, full-spectrum CBD oil). Defining them as adjectives, rather than as standalone noun phrases, is more consistent with actual usage and more flexible as a drafting tool: a single adjective applies to any product noun the term modifies, without needing separate entries for every noun combination. Placing these definitions in D8270 makes them available to all D37 standards — including the planned Classification Standard, and Technical Specification for formulated cannabis products — without requiring each standard to carry its own duplicative definitions. 3. Consumer and Patient Impact — Inconsistent use of these terms creates material risk of mislabeling and consumer deception, and devalues the terminology for product differentiation. The scientific distinction between a product derived from whole-plant extraction and one formulated from isolated or converted cannabinoid components is pharmacologically meaningful in light of the entourage effect hypothesis. 4. Market Context for Semi-Synthetic Cannabinoids — Cannabinoid products containing semi-synthetic (converted) and synthetic (artificial) cannabinoids are being sold into the global consumer marketplace and authorities having jurisdiction cannot reliably differentiate between cannabinoid types. This revision to D8270 addresses a dimension of that problem: a product containing semi-synthetic or synthetic cannabinoids may not be described as full-spectrum or broad-spectrum, regardless of its analytical cannabinoid profile. 5. Regulatory Gap — Governmental statutes and regulations currently lack clear definitions for full-spectrum and broad-spectrum products.