Broken Coast Cannabis Ltd., a cannabis business located on Vancouver Island, issued a voluntary recall of three cannabis lots due to the detection of pesticides. According to the safety alert published on Health Canada’s website, the voluntary Type III recall follows an inspection of the facility back in March of this year.
A Type III recall means those products are not likely to cause negative health effects. Sampling of those three cannabis lots found a cannabis oil product in July to contain low levels of Myclobutanil and Spinosad.
Upon further testing, a cannabis leaf sample was found to contain 0.017 parts-per-million of Myclobutanil. A third party laboratory confirmed the presence of that fungicide, leading them to recall three lots of dried cannabis sold between July and December of 2016, according to that safety alert.
Spinosad, an insecticide, and Myclobutanil, a fungicide, are not authorized for use with cannabis plants per the Pest Control Products Act, however they are approved for use in food production. The health risks of ingesting either of those two chemicals are well documented. “Health Canada has not received adverse reaction reports related to Broken Coast Cannabis Ltd.’s products sold affected by the recall,” reads the safety alert. “Health Canada recommends that any individual affected by the recall immediately stop using the recalled product and to contact Broken Coast Cannabis Ltd., at the following number 1-888-486-7579.”
Last week, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published a bulletin, outlining new temporary testing requirements effective immediately until May 30th of next year. The changes to the rules come in the wake of product shortages, higher prices and even some claims of cultivators reverting back to the black market to stay afloat.
According to the bulletin, these temporary regulations are meant to still protect public health and safety, but are “aimed at lowering the testing burden for producers and processors based on concerns and input from the marijuana industry.” The temporary rules, applying to both medical and retail products, are a Band-Aid fix while the OHA works on a permanent solution to the testing backlog.
Here are some key takeaways from the rule changes:
THC and CBD amounts on the label must be the value calculated by a laboratory, plus or minus 5%.
A harvest lot can include more than one strain.
Cannabis harvested within a 48-hour period, using the same growing and curing processes can be included in one harvest lot.
Edibles processors can include up to 1000 units of product in a batch for testing.
The size of a process lot submitted for testing for concentrates, extracts or other non-edible products will be the maximum size for future sampling and testing.
Different batches of the same strain can be combined for testing potency.
Samples can be combined from a number of batches in a harvest lot for pesticide testing if the weight of all the batches doesn’t exceed ten pounds. This also means that if that combined sample fails a pesticide test, all of the batches fail the test and need to be disposed.
Butanol, Propanol and Ethanol are no longer on the solvent list.
The maximum concentration limit for THC and CBD testing can have up to a 5% variance.
Process validation is replaced by one control study.
After OHA has certified a control study, it is valid for a year unless there is an SOP or ingredient change.
During the control study, sample increments are tested separately for homogeneity across batches, but when the control study is certified, sample increments can be combined.
Failing a test
Test reports must clearly show if a test fails or passes.
Producers can request a reanalysis after a failed test no later than a week after receiving failed test results and that reanalysis must happen within 30 days.
The office of Gov. Kate Brown along with the OHA, Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) issued a letter in late November, serving as a reminder of the regulations regarding pesticide use and testing. It says in bold that it is illegal to use any pesticide not on the ODA’s cannabis and pesticide guide list. The letter states that failed pesticide tests are referred to ODA for investigation, which means producers that fail those tests could face punitive measures such as fines.
The letter also clarifies a major part of the pesticide rules involving the action level, or the measured amount of pesticides in a product that the OHA deems potentially dangerous. “Despite cannabis producers receiving test results below OHA pesticide action levels for cannabis (set in OHA rule), producers may still be in violation of the Oregon Pesticide Control Act if any levels of illegal pesticides are detected.” This is crucial information for producers who might have phased out use of pesticides in the past or might have began operations in a facility where pesticides were used previously. A laboratory detecting even a trace amount in the parts-per-billion range of banned pesticides, like Myclobutanil, would mean the producer is in violation of the Pesticide Control Act and could face thousands of dollars in fines. The approved pesticides on the list are generally intended for food products, exempt from a tolerance and are considered low risk.
As regulators work to accredit more laboratories and flesh out issues with the industry, Oregon’s cannabis market enters a period of marked uncertainty.
Legal marijuana sales are expected to hit $6.7 billion in 2016, with the market expected to climb to $21.8 billion in sales by 2020. As legal cannabis sales rise, cannabis labels are quickly becoming one of the fastest growing markets for label manufacturers.
An Industry Gaining Legitimacy
Since California first legalized medical cannabis in 1996, the cannabis industry has grown considerably. Voters in four states legalized recreational cannabis last week on Election Day, including California, which is currently the world’s 6th largest economy. Voters in another four states legalized medical cannabis as well, bringing the total to 28 states with some form of legalization measure.
Legal cannabis has primarily consisted of dispensaries selling cannabis flower or leaves (ready-to-smoke marijuana) in pouches or childproof containers. Regulations have essentially required two cannabis labels for the pouches: a branded label on the front and a regulatory label on the back. Many dispensaries also use pre-printed pouches.
Similar to the way alcohol labels must contain information for alcohol content, the informational labels that sit on the backs of pouches are legally required to provide certain accurate information, including:
Net weight in grams
Lab name and test number confirmation
And cannabis flower labels are just the beginning. Many smoke-free product categories are emerging with similar labeling requirements. These often allow for increased branding opportunities that will afford better profit margins for label suppliers. Some of the many products in this young category include:
Edibles — such as dark chocolates, baked goods, snack crackers and teas infused with cannabis.
Topicals — such as pain-relieving lotions and creams.
Tinctures — cannabis-infused oils that are applied in drops to the tongue.
Bottom line: For label and packaging suppliers, cannabis represents one of the fastest growing market opportunities today and the opportunities extend way beyond labeling for the flower itself.
As more and more states move toward legalization and regulation, uneven laws in different states are increasingly governing the market. Businesses must respond to ever-changing requirements, including labeling standards. While many dispensaries have gotten away with minimalist labels, states are increasingly demanding dispensaries meet more stringent legal requirements. For example, Oregon passed new labeling requirements this year and products that failed to meet them by October 1, 2016 were not allowed on store shelves.
Label suppliers entering the market must keep abreast of the changing regulations and be able to help brands navigate them. They need to work to understand the intricacies of this new market, rather than simply looking to redirect the capabilities they already possess. See the original post here.