The delisting of cannabis as a controlled narcotic in Thailand on June 9, 2022, was a breakthrough moment for the industry.  Not only are farmers and others in the industry elated that such a step was taken, it has triggered the establishment of an abundance of cannabis dispensaries in Bangkok and other popular domestic and international tourist destinations in Thailand, including Chiang Mai, Pattaya, Phuket, and many islands. Vulnerable populations, such as children, accessing cannabis has also become a hot-button issue. Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) was initially criticized by some for its policy of allowing cannabis to be sold with few restrictions. On June 17, 2022, the MOPH followed up with the Announcement Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) under the Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Act, which seemed to implement a viable mechanism to regulate cannabis dispensaries. This announcement contained prohibitions on selling cannabis to vulnerable populations (minors, expectant women, and breastfeeding mothers) and on smoking cannabis in public. Furthermore, the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act includes provisions related to sales and distribution channels and advertisements for particular dispensaries. However, the draft act has been delayed due to disagreements among some political parties during the reading of the legislation, and is unlikely to be implemented in 2022 as had been widely expected.  The tug-of-war among the political parties has caused concerns about whether the country’s recent liberalized cannabis policy will be revisited and cannabis relisted as a narcotic. With this uncertainty over when the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act will be implemented, the MOPH has focused on identifying gaps in current regulation that might allow the misuse of cannabis. The minister of the MOPH has announced that the MOPH announcement of June 17, 2022, will be repealed and replaced by the November 11, 2022, Announcement Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis).

Following the delisting of cannabis grown in Thailand as a narcotic substance on June 9, 2022, many have explored the applications of cannabis in various fields, including medicine, healthcare, food products, cosmetics, and animal feed. For example, a poultry farm in northern Thailand conducted an experiment jointly with Chiang Mai University, mixing crushed cannabis into poultry feed and water. The experiment showed several benefits of this cannabis feed. Birds that were fed cannabis had lower mortality rates and achieved superior body mass, with increased levels of protein, fat, and moisture in the meat, leading to this method of organic bird farming yielding higher profits. Despite the results of this experiment, the mechanisms and action of cannabis in animal feed are still not yet fully understood, and there are concerns about the possible effects on human health of consuming cannabis-fed poultry. Until recently, cannabis regulations focused solely on the safety of use by humans, and there were no regulations on the use of cannabis in animals. However, on October 11, 2022, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) published Notification Re: Guidelines on the Use of Hemp and Marijuana as Especially Controlled Animal Feed or Their Use as Ingredients in Especially Controlled Animal Feed in the Government Gazette. In general, the DLD notification requires that animal feed containing cannabis be shown to benefit the animals without causing concern for their safety. According to the Animal Feed Quality Control Act B.E. 2558 (2015), especially controlled animal feed must be registered before it can be manufactured domestically or imported into Thailand. The DLD notification lays down the following evaluation criteria for registration of animal feed containing cannabis: It is prohibited to use cannabis (both hemp and marijuana) apexes (i.e., leaf tips), inflorescence, or seeds—including extracts from apexes, inflorescence, or seeds—as especially controlled animal

Interest in organic farming, soil health, and regenerative agriculture has increased rapidly in recent years, and the demand for biological and organic fertilizers has accordingly undergone dramatic growth. Biological fertilizers contain specific levels of microorganisms (such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria); organic fertilizers similarly contain microorganisms and typically come from animals and plants, such as livestock manure and crop residues. Although responsible fertilizer use is still necessary to prevent unintended effects, these “living fertilizers” can boost yields and promote plant productivity without many of the adverse environmental effects and safety concerns of chemical fertilizers. This makes them highly sought after for organic farming, and prized by agricultural operators looking to promote soil health as a bedrock of sustainable agricultural practices. As the global trade for organic and biological fertilizers has scaled up, producers and agribusiness companies have expanded organic and biological fertilizer offerings to new markets. Not only do different countries have their own regulations for fertilizers in general, but they also often have specific requirements and rules for biological and organic fertilizers. This guide provides fertilizer producers and traders with an overview of the legal landscape for these fertilizers in three major Southeast Asian markets so that businesses can make their fertilizers available and foster sustainable agricultural practices in the region. The full Biological and Organic Fertilizers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam guide can be downloaded through the button below.

Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the