Tag Archives: dispensary

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 2

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 


In the previous article, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) when a grower, processor or dispensary (user) questions a laboratory result. Now let us look behind this paperwork wall to the laboratory culture the user will encounter once their complaint is filtered past the first line of defense.

It is up to the client (processor, grower or dispensary) to determine the quality of the lab they use.In an ISO 17025 (2005 or 2017) and TNI accreditation, the laboratory must be organized into management, quality and technical areas. Each area can overlap as in the ISO 17025-2017 standard or be required to remain as separate sections in the laboratory as in the ISO 17025-2005 or TNI 2009 standards. ISO 17025 standards (e.g. 2005 and 2017) specifically require a separation of monetary benefits for laboratory results as it applies to the technical staff. This “conflict of interest” (CoI) is not always clearly defined in the laboratory’s day-to-day practices.

One example that I have experienced with this CoI separation violation goes back to my days as a laboratory troubleshooter in the 1990s. I was called into a laboratory that was failing to meet their Department of Defense (DoD) contract for volatile organic hydrocarbon analyses (VOAs) of soil samples by purge trap-gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. I was required to “fix” the problem. What I determined was:

  • The analytical chemists performing the VOAs analyses were high school graduates with no coursework in chemistry or biology.
  • There was no training program in place for these analysts in instrument use, instrument troubleshooting and interpretation of the analytical results.
  • The only training the analysts received was for simple instrument set-up and basic instrument computer software use. (e.g. Push this button and send results to clerks)
  • Clerks with a high school degree and no analytical chemistry training in the business office generated the final reports and certified them as accurate and complete.

None of the staff was technically competent to perform any in-depth VOAs analytical work nor was the clerical staff competent to certify the results reported.

When I pointed out these discrepancies to the laboratory management, they declined to make any changes. The laboratory management had a direct monetary interest in completing all analyses at the lowest costs within the time limit set by DoD. If the laboratory did not complete the analyses as per the DoD contract, DoD would cancel the contract and not pay the laboratory.

The DoD, in a “Double Blind” test sample, later caught this laboratory.. A Double Blind test sample is used to check to see if the laboratory is performing the tests correctly. The laboratory does not know it is a test sample. So if the laboratory is cheating, they will be caught.This does not mean that all laboratories have staff or management issues

Once the laboratory was caught by DoD with the Double Blind, laboratory management claimed they were unaware of this behavior and management fired all analytical staff performing VOAs and clerical staff reporting the VOAs results to show DoD that it was a rogue group of individuals and not the laboratory management. The fired staff members were denied unemployment benefits as they were fired with cause. So, the moral to this story is if the analytical staff and specifically the clerical staff had wanted to hold the laboratory management accountable for this conflict of interest, they may have been fired, but without cause. The staff would have kept their reputation for honesty and collected unemployment benefits.

I have witnessed the “CoI above repeatedly over the last 30+ years both in laboratories where I have been employed and as a consultant. The key laboratory culture problems that lead to these CoI issues can be distilled into the following categories:

  • Financial CoI: In the financial CoI, the laboratory management must turn out so many analytical test results per day to remain financially solvent. The philosophical change that comes over management is that the laboratory is not producing scientific results, but is instead just churning out tests. Therefore, the more tests the laboratory produces, the more money it makes. Any improvement in test output is to be looked upon favorably and anything that diminishes test output is bad. So, to put this in simple terms: “The laboratory will perform the analyses quickly and get the report sent to the user so the laboratory can be paid. Anything that slows this production down will not be tolerated!” To maximize the Return on Investment (RoI) for the laboratory, management will employ staff that outwardly mirrors this philosophy.
  • I Need This Job CoI: This is the CoI area that poor quality lab technical staff and clerical staff most readily falls into. As outlined in the example above, both the analytical staff and clerical staff lacked the educational credentials, the technical training to be proficient in the use of the analytical instruments, ability to identify problems performing the analytical methods or complications in reporting analytical results. That means they were locked into the positions they held in this specific laboratory. This lack of marketable skills placed pressure on these staff members to comply with all directives from management. What happened to them in the end was regrettable, but predictable. Management can prey on this type of staff limitation.
  • Lack of Interest or Care CoI: This form of CoI is the malaise that infects poor quality laboratories, but can reach a level in management, quality and technical areas as to produce a culture where everyone goes through the moves, but does not care about anything but receiving their paycheck. In my many years of laboratory troubleshooting this type of CoI is the most difficult to correct. Laboratories where I had to correct this problem required that I had to impress on the staff that their work mattered and that they were valued employees. I had to institute a rigorous training program, require staff quality milestones and enforce the quality of work results. During my years of laboratory troubleshooting, I only had to terminate three laboratory staff for poor work performance. Unfortunately after I left many of these laboratories, management drifted back to the problems listed above and the laboratory malaise returned. This proves that even though a laboratory staff can achieve quality performance, it can quickly dissolve with lax management.

So, what are the conclusions of this article?

  • Laboratory culture can place profit over scientific correctness, accuracy and precision.
  • Laboratory management sets the quality of staff that determines the analytical results and report quality the user receives.
  • Laboratory quality can vary from acceptable performance to unacceptable performance over the lifetime of the laboratory depending on management.
  • This does not mean that all laboratories have staff or management issues. It is up to the client (processor, grower or dispensary) to determine the quality of the lab they use.

The next article in this series will introduce the user to the specific Quality Control (QC) analyses that an acceptable laboratory should perform for the user’s sample. These QC analyses are not always performed by accredited laboratories as the specific state that regulates their cannabis program does not require them. The use of these QC samples is another example of how laboratory’s with poor quality systems construct another paper work wall.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 


This article is the first in a series that will look into the risks any user of laboratory services (growers, processors or dispensary owners) will face from the quality systems in place in the laboratory. I will discuss specific risk areas in clear and understandable language so as to not obscure the substance of the article series with abbreviations and nomenclature that is not familiar with the reader. Subjects of the articles that follow will focus on the specific laboratory certification or accreditation requirements and how the user may find out if their risks are addressed. As these articles are meant to be interactive with the reader, users are encouraged to send questions or suggested topics to the author.

This article will be an introduction to the typical laboratory process that generates the “paperwork wall” and how it might impact the user.My experience with laboratory certification or accreditation (difference between the two discussed later in this article) comes from over 30+ years in the environmental chemistry field. My experiences include working under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, FIFRA (pesticides) and ISO 17025 laboratory analyses and laboratory management. I have also received training to perform ISO 17025 and EPA Drinking Water audits. During this time I have been audited as a laboratory analyst/laboratory manager and have performed audits.

As such, I can open up the laboratory structure beyond the sterile “paperwork wall” that has been constructed to allow the user to see the quality of data that is used in final reports that can wreak havoc. This article will be an introduction to the typical laboratory process that generates the “paperwork wall” and how it might impact the user.

One of the common misconceptions that a user has with a “certified or accredited” laboratory is that procession of a certificate indicates that ALL laboratory analyses produced are accurate and precise. I liken this to the “paperwork wall” that laboratories produce when the user questions any results reported to them. The laboratory management assumes that they have answered the user complaint (i.e. a certified/accredited laboratory cannot make a mistake) and the user will not pursue further questions once the certificate is produced.Accreditation does not guarantee that the laboratory personnel can perform the analyses the user is paying for; just that the laboratory’s paperwork has been audited.

First off, let’s look at what the difference between the terms certified laboratory vs. accredited laboratory. These simple words mean specifically different types of laboratories. According to the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP):

  • Certification is used for verifying that personnel have adequate credentials to practice certain disciplines, as well as for verifying that products meet certain requirements.
  • Accreditation is used to verify that laboratories have an appropriate quality management system and can properly perform certain test methods (e.g., ANSI, ASTM, and ISO test methods) and calibration parameters according to their scopes of accreditation.

So, how does that impact the user?

  • If your state or 3rd party certificate only accredits a laboratory, then the accreditation agency only inspects the laboratory’s quality program as it applies to written documents and static equipment. (e.g. The quality manual is written and the standard operating procedures (SOPs) are in place).
  • Accreditation does not guarantee that the laboratory personnel can perform the analyses the user is paying for; just that the laboratory’s paperwork has been audited.
  • Certification on the other hand says that the laboratory personnel are qualified to perform the laboratory analyses and that the final laboratory results meet specific (certain) requirements. In other words, the laboratory’s quality plan and SOPs are met.

There are three different paths that are utilized by state cannabis control agencies to accredit or certify a cannabis laboratory.

  • ISO 17025: The ISO laboratory quality standard for laboratory accreditation is the most broadly used. ISO 17025 is an international standard and its implementation in the United States is regulated by ILAC. There are three 3rd party companies that audit for and award ISO 17025 accreditation certificates. They are Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation Inc., ANAB and A2LA.
  • TNI: The NELAC Institute standards are utilized by one state to handle their cannabis laboratory accreditation.
  • States: Some states have tried to blend an ISO 17025 requirement with their own state’s certification requirements to produce a mixed accreditation-certification program. But, this type of program may rely on two or more agencies (e.g. ISO 17025 3rd party auditors communicating with state auditors) to cover all specific laboratory areas.

PJLAIn two of the paths above, the final result is that the laboratory receives accreditation. That means that only the quality management system and the scope (e.g. SOPS, laboratory instruments, etc.) have been audited, not the laboratory personnel or their capabilities. The third pathway may produce a certified laboratory or may not.

To provide an example of where an accredited laboratory followed their paperwork but produced inadequate results:

  • I received a laboratory report for organic chemical analyses of a client’s process.
    • The laboratory results placed the user in noncompliance with the state and federal regulatory limits.
    • But, the laboratory result contained data flags (e.g. additional information that explains why the laboratory result failed the laboratory’s quality requirements).
    • The laboratory still received payment from the user as the laboratory performed the analyses.
  • I had to explain to the regulatory agency that some of the data flags when investigated showed:
    • The laboratory failed to use the approved analytical method.
    • The detection level for the regulatory chemical was so low that the laboratory had no instrument capable to see those chemicals at the concentrations reported by the laboratory.
  • The state regulators accepted the explanation I provided and the user was no longer under a regulatory administrative order.
  • But, when I presented this information to the accreditation agency that accredited this laboratory I was informed:
    • The laboratory flagged the data so it can be reported to the user.
    • If the user wanted more from the laboratory, then the user will have to outline their specific requirement in a quality contract with the laboratory. (i.e. If the laboratory identifies the problems then they can report the data no matter what happens to the user).

So now, what is being done behind the “paperwork wall”? Areas such as those listed below can impact the results received by the user.

  • Laboratory quality culture: What does the laboratory staff think about quality in their normal daily work?
  • Laboratory staff competence: What is the level of training and real world competence of the staff that actually works on the analyses?
  • Laboratory capabilities: Does the laboratory actually have the laboratory instruments and equipment that can perform the analyses the user needs?
  • Laboratory quality control parameters: What is in the quality manual and does it make sense?
  • Laboratory analytical method validation: Are the analytical methods used by the laboratory validated by approved statistical procedures?

What should the user have in place to limit their risks from laboratory analyses?

  • Failsafe sampling preparation plans: Make sure the user samples for the laboratory are collected correctly.
  • Failsafe’s on laboratory sample reports: Protect the user from bad laboratory reports.
  • User auditing of the laboratory: Go to the laboratory and see if the laboratory can pass muster.

What’s Next: The next article will go behind the laboratory “paperwork wall” to detail the culture that impacts the user results negatively and how that can be recognized. Follow-up articles will help users developing quality plans that identify risks and how to limit them.

EVIO Labs photo

EVIO Labs Expands Ahead of California Testing Deadline

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
EVIO Labs photo

In a few short weeks, the regulations in California’s cannabis market will expand to include more laboratory testing. The previous exemption for selling untested product will be eliminated come July 1st, meaning that every product on dispensary shelves will have to be tested for a number of contaminants.

EVIO labs photo
Pesticide testing, expanded residual solvent testing and foreign materials testing will be added come July 1st.

According to William Waldrop, chief executive officer and co-founder of EVIO Labs, the state is currently finalizing a revision to the existing emergency rules, which is designed to target the potential supply bottleneck situation. “To help alleviate the bottleneck, the state is eliminating the field duplicate test on every batch of cannabis or cannabis products,” says Waldrop. “This will give the labs additional bandwidth to process more batches for testing.” So one test per batch is the rule now and batch sizes will remain the same. This, of course, is contingent on the state finalizing that revision to the emergency regulations.

William Waldrop, chief executive officer and co-founder of EVIO Labs
William Waldrop, chief executive officer and co-founder of EVIO Labs

In addition to that change, the state will expand the types of testing requirements come July 1st.  New mandatory pesticide testing, expanded residual solvent testing and foreign materials testing are added in addition to the other tests already required.

With July 1st quickly approaching, many in California fear the rules could lead to a major market disruption, such as the previously mentioned bottleneck. Waldrop sees the elimination of duplicate testing as a preventative measure by the state. “It is a good move for the industry because it allows labs to test more batches, hopefully reducing the bottleneck come July,” says Waldrop. Still though, with only 26 licensed laboratories in the state as of March, testing facilities will have to meet higher demand, performing more tests and working with more clients.

EVIO Labs is preparing for this in a number of ways. They already have a lab in Berkeley and are working to expand their capacity for more analyses. In addition to their lab in Berkeley, the company is working to get three more locations operational as quickly as possible. “Right now, EVIO Labs is expanding through the identification of new market locations,” says Waldrop. “We have announced the acquisition of a facility in Humboldt and we are outfitting it for state-mandated testing. We have secured a location in LA, and licensing for LA just began as of June 1stso we are going through the local licensing process at this time. We are still moving through the licensing process for our facility in Costa Mesa as well.”

EVIO Labs photo
Labs will soon have to deal with higher demand, meaning more samples and more clients

“In the meantime, we have expanded capacity of personnel in our Berkeley facility to support our client base until these other locations come online,” says Waldrop. “We are refining our business, bringing on additional equipment and more resources.” While the rules haven’t been implemented yet, Waldrop says he’s seen an uptick in business with licensed operators requesting more testing for the new July 1st standards.

While some might feel a bit panicky about how the new standards could disrupt the market, Waldrop says his clients are looking forward to it. “Our clients are very happy with the proposed new rules, because it reduces the cost of testing per batch, which will inherently reduce wholesale costs, making cannabis more affordable for patients and recreational users.”

Pennsylvania Medical Cannabis Program Blossoms

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis program may be young, but the industry in that state is off to a burgeoning start. Back in 2016, the state legalized medical cannabis. In 2017, the PA Department of Health began accepting applications for licenses and announced the first 12 winning applications. On February 15th, 2018, medical cannabis became available for more than 17,000 patients that registered in the program.

In March of this year, Governor Tom Wolf announced two more dispensaries were approved to operate as well as another grower/processor licensee. At that time, the press release indicated more than 21,000 patients have registered to participate in the medical cannabis program.

Then in April, Governor Wolf announced Phase Two of their medical cannabis program, allowing the industry to grow even more. That allowed for 13 new grower/processor permits and 23 new primary dispensary permits, according to a press release, which moved the total up to 25 grower/processors licensees and 50 dispensary licensees.

Just weeks later after that announcement, the PA Department of Health adjusted their program to allow patients access to whole plant, dried flower and opened up more qualifying conditions. The qualifying conditions added to the list now include cancer remission therapy as well as opioid-addiction therapy, which are two very notable additions. According to an April 6threport, 28,508 patients and 2495 caregivers registered with the program.

On May 15th, Governor Wolf approved eight universities to participate in a groundbreaking program, allowing Pennsylvania to take the first steps towards clinical research for medical cannabis. This research program would be the first of its kind in the country, allowing research institutions to explore the drug. The excitement was put on hold, however, when a Pennsylvania judge halted the program with an injunction. A handful of growers and dispensary owners in PA filed suit to stop the program on grounds that it violated the original intent of the law. State Representative Kathy Watson from Bucks County, the author of the research program, called the suit “pathetic because it’s all about the money.” We’ll follow closely with any new developments as they come.

Steve Schain, Esq. practicing at the Hoban law Group

Steven Schain, Esq., senior attorney at Hoban Law Group, a global cannabis law firm, represents multiple cannabis-related businesses in Pennsylvania. He says the program’s roll out has been fast with solid growth. “Within two years of the legislation’s enactment, Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program has exceeded expectations with controlled, sustainable and quality growth,” says Schain. “The Pennsylvania Department of Health established ambitious goals, which they met timely and created a statewide program servicing over 10,000 patients in record time. Looming ahead is New Jersey’s adult use program, the anticipated robustness of which could undermine vigorous sales in southeastern Pennsylvania’s marijuana-related businesses.”

On May 30th, Philadelphia welcomed their first medical cannabis dispensary, with a location opening up their doors to patients in Fishtown. Now reports are coming in that say more than 37,000 patients have registered to date, with over 16,000 who have received their ID cards and medical cannabis at a dispensary.

Even though the research program might be on hold for now, Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis program is growing at a fast pace. The market there has blossomed in just a few short months to a whopping 37,000-registered patients, according to a press release form Governor Wolf’s office. Some say an additional 200,000 patients could qualify. With the second phase in sight, it seems Pennsylvania is on track to become a hotbed for business and research, developing into a massive medical cannabis marketplace soon. Stay tuned for more updates.

Cannabis Report

German Health Insurer Issues First Look at Impact of Medical Cannabis

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
Cannabis Report

If anyone (read Auslanders) had any illusions that the German take on medical cannabis was going to be casual or unscientific if not painstakingly documented, think again.

Techniker Krankenkasse (or TK as it is referred to by the locals) is one of Germany’s largest public health insurance companies. In other words, it is a private company that is required to provide so called “statutory” health insurance which covers 90% of Germans.

As such, they are also on the front lines now of the medical cannabis debate. Approximately one year after the new law requiring public health insurance companies like TK to reimburse cannabis claims went into effect, the company has just issued what would surely be a best-seller if it were being sold.All of the medical cannabis now being prescribed and reimbursed is coming from abroad.

The Cannabis Report, as it is titled, produced with the help of professors at the University of Bremen, is also the first of its kind. In its pages, along with the corporate summary produced for the recent press conference in Berlin, are several fascinating snapshots of what is going on.

By the numbers.

The Cannabis Report

For those who cannot understand German, this summary by Business Insider is quite educational. Here are the major takeaways: There are now almost 16,000 German patients who are receiving some kind of medical cannabis by prescription. From a doctor. These patients are also paying about $12 for their monthly supplies – even if they have to wait for reimbursement. This is in contrast to the 1,100 patients who managed to obtain cannabis by prescription and pay for it themselves before the law changed last spring.

Do the math and that is a 1,450% uptick. Add in the additional 15,000 left out of this report who are getting cannabis prescribed but their claims turned down, and that is an even more amazing story.

Cannabis ReportHere is the next obvious fact: All of the medical cannabis now being prescribed and reimbursed is coming from abroad. A significant amount is still coming from Holland. The rest? Canada.

For that reason, the cost of medical cannabis is a major concern, along with the medical efficacy of cannabis and the authors’ frustrations about dosing.

The most interesting takeaway? Chronic pain and spasticity arehigh on the list of prescriptions (MS is currently the only condition which is “on label” for cannabis). So is Epilepsy and AIDS. Most interestingly are the high numbers for ADD. This is also highly significant in a country where amphetamine prescriptions for the same are almost unheard of.

TK, like the other health insurers who have started to provide numbers, also approved approximately two thirds of the requests they received. And it has cost them $2.7 million. That bill will begin to reduce as Germany cultivates medical cannabis domestically. However, the tender bid, which now apparently includes 11 contenders, is still undecided, with growing apparently pushed off now until (at the earliest) sometime next summer.

The bottom line, however, in the report from Socium, a university-based think tank that focuses on social inequality, is that cannabis is a drug that should also be treated like any other medication. Even though study authors conclude that so far, they do not find cannabis to be as “effective” as other drugs, they clearly state that the drug does help patients.

An Equally Interesting Industry Snapshot

Flip to page 20, however, and the authors also confirm something else. The top companies providing medical cannabis to German publicly insured patients who are getting reimbursed are Bedrocan, Aurora andCanopy. Aurora’s brands clock in at the highest percentage of THC, although their German importer Pedianos, clearly offers a range of products that start at less than 1% and increase to 22%. MedCann GmbH (renamed Spektrum last year) is essentially providing the rest, and ranges of THC at least, that go from 5.4%-16.5%. They also provide the products with the highest percentages of CBD.

Page 20 of the Cannabis Report produced by TK
Page 20 of the Cannabis Report produced by TK

Unlike the other companies, Canopy’s “brands” are also showing up in ostensibly both medical and government reports (Houndstooth, Penelope, Princeton and Argyle). This is interesting primarily because the German government (and regulatory requirements) tends to genericize medications as much as possible.

Dosing, Impact, Results

The next page of the report is also fascinating. Namely a snapshot of what kind of cannabis is being prescribed and at what doses. Patients who are obtaining cannabis flower are getting up to 3 grams a day. Dronabinol, in stark contrast (which is still the only form of the drug many German patients are able to get), is listed at 30mg.

Unlike any corporate report so far, the study also discusses consumption methods (including, charmingly, tea). It is impossible to forget, reading this, how German and structured this data collection has clearly been. There are several fairly stern referrals to the fact that cannabis should not just be prescribed for “vague” (read psychological) conditions but rather aspecific symptomology (muscle spasms and severe pain).

There is also great interest in how flower differs from pills. And how long the effects last (according to the authors, effects kick in about 2-15 minutes after dosing and last for 4 hours). This is, of course, an accurate picture of what happens to just about every patient, in every country. What is striking, particularly to anyone with an American perspective, is how (refreshingly) clinical much of this basic data collection and discussion is.

And no matter how much the authors call for more research, they clearly have observed that cannabis can have positive, and in many cases, dramatic impacts on patients. According to the handy graphs which are understandable to English speakers, study authors find significant evidence that the drug significantly helps patients with severe pain and or muscle spasms – see MS and Epilepsy, AIDS patients with wasting syndrome and paraplegics (wheelchair bound individuals). Authors list the “strong possibility” that the drug can help with Tourette’s and ADHD. Fascinatingly, however, so far, German researchers are not impressed with the efficacy of the drug for Glaucoma. “Psychological” and psychiatric conditions are also low on the list.

Regardless, this is an important line in the sand. As is the clear evidence that cannabis has efficacy as medication.

The great German cannabis science experiment, in other words, is well underway. And further, already starting to confirm that while many questions remain, and more research is required, this is a drug that is not only here to stay, but now within reach of the vast majority of the population.

Curaleafprocessing

Curaleaf Florida Earns SQF Certification

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
Curaleafprocessing

Last week, Curaleaf, a medical cannabis producer and processor in Miami, Florida, announced they have earned the Safe Quality Food (SQF) Level II certification. In the press release, they claim they are the first and only medical cannabis company in the state to achieve that certification.

That SQF certification is a program recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), which is a global collaborative effort to get food companies practicing food safety management on the same high quality standards around the world. GFSI is a major international food quality and safety program where some of the largest food manufacturers and processors in the world participate.

Curaleafprocessing
The processing area at Curaleaf Florida headquarters

Curaleaf’s products include a line of low-THC and full strength medical cannabis products. They have dispensaries in Miami, Lake Worth, Fort Myers and St. Petersburg, as well as delivery of products from Jacksonville south to Key West.

According to Lindsay Jones, president of Curaleaf Florida, patients ask frequently about the level of safety of cannabis products. “Every day patients express interest and assurance of wanting to know that the foods and medicines they consume are safe and of the best quality available,” says Jones. “This SQF Level II certification that Curaleaf has earned is particularly important for patients and demonstrates that our medical marijuana processing expertise delivers superior quality products for patients in need across Florida.”

Florida’s regulations on medical cannabis producers and processors actually require a form of certification demonstrating proper food safety protocols. “Within 12 months after licensure, a medical marijuana treatment center must demonstrate to the department that all of its processing facilities have passed a Food Safety Good Manufacturing Practices, such as Global Food Safety Initiative or equivalent, inspection by a nationally accredited certifying body,” reads Rule 9 in the 2017 Florida Statute. Edibles producers in Florida “must hold a permit to operate as a food establishment pursuant to chapter 500, the Florida Food Safety Act, and must comply with all the requirements for food establishments pursuant to chapter 500 and any rules adopted thereunder.” The rules also lay out requirements for packaging, dosage and sanitation rules for storage, display and dispensing of edible products.

Looking at SQF Level II certification and GFSI could be a step in the right direction for many cannabis infused product manufacturers, as they are some of the more recognized programs in the food industry.

Cannabis Science Conference

Cannabis Science Conference is the world’s largest and most technical cannabis science expo. Our conference pulls together cannabis industry experts, instrument manufacturers, testing labs, research scientists, medical practitioners, policy makers and interested novices. Our annual event is aimed at improving cannabis science. Join us in Portland, Oregon, for an exciting conference with keynotes, presentations, round table discussions and exhibits. At our inaugural event we hosted over 750 attendees from all over the world! Our second event hosted over 2,000 attendees from over 24 countries!!!

Massachusetts Prepares for Adult-Use

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last month, the Cannabis Control Commission, the regulatory body overseeing Massachusetts’ newest industry, finalized their regulations for the market. At the beginning of this month, the state began accepting applications for business licenses. Now with the full implementation of adult-use sales on the horizon, businesses, regulators, consumers and local governments are preparing themselves for the legalization of adult-use cannabis. Sales are expected to begin June 1st.

On March 29th, the Cannabis Control Commission announced their finalized rules were filed, published and took effect. Leading up to the filing, the Commission reports they held 10 listening sessions, received roughly 500 public comments and conducted 7 hearings for roughly 150 policy decisions. The license categories that businesses can apply for include cultivator, craft marijuana cooperative, microbusiness, product manufacturer, independent testing laboratory, storefront retailer, third-party transporter, existing licensee transporter, and research facility, according to the press release.

What separates Massachusetts’ rules from other states’ rules are a few of the license categories as well as environmental regulations, as Kris Kane highlights in this Forbes article. Experimental policies, like the microbusiness and craft marijuana co-op licenses, Kane says, are some tactics the Commission hopes may help those affected by the drug war and those who don’t have the capital and funding required for the larger license types.This is a groundbreaking reform previously unseen in states that have legalized cannabis. 

The Commission will also establish a Social Equity Program, as outlined in the final rules (section 17 of 500.105). That program is designed to help those who have been arrested of a cannabis-related crime previously or lived in a neighborhood adversely affected by the drug war. “The committee makes specific recommendations as to the use of community reinvestment funds in the areas of programming, restorative justice, jail diversion, workforce development, industry-specific technical assistance, and mentoring services, in areas of disproportionate impact,” reads one excerpt from the rules (section 500.002) identifying the need for a Citizen Review Committee, which advises on the implementation of that Social Equity Program.

This is a groundbreaking reform previously unseen in states that have legalized cannabis. Massachusetts may very well be the first state to actively help victims of the prohibition of cannabis.Some municipalities are hesitant and skeptical, while others are fully embracing the new industry with open arms.

For environmental rules, Kane notes the Commission is taking unprecedented steps to address energy usage in the cultivation process, pushing the industry to think about environmental sustainability in their bottom line and as part of their routine regulatory compliance. He says the Commission mandates a 36 watts-per-square-foot maximum for indoor cannabis cultivators.

On Monday, April 2nd the state began accepting applications for businesses seeking licensure. Within a few days, nearly 200 businesses have applied. That number is expected to grow significantly over the next few weeks.

While businesses continue applying for licenses, local governments are preparing in their own way. Some municipalities are hesitant and skeptical, while others are fully embracing the new industry with open arms.

A couple weeks ago, the City Council of Springfield, Massachusetts passed a six-month moratorium on cannabis sales, citing the need for more time to draft local regulations for businesses first. “I believe the moratorium is in place to make sure that we get it right the first time,” Councilor Adam Gomez, chairman of the council’s Economic Development Committee told MassLive. “We don’t have a chance to get it right the second time. The residents of Springfield supported this.” There are also talks of a potential temporary ban in Truro, MA.

Meanwhile in the city of Attleboro, ABC6 News reports Mayor Paul Heroux is “working to make his city marijuana friendly as city councilors work to draft regulation ordinances.” In Peabody, two businesses just received approval to begin operating as medical dispensaries.

PA flag

Pennsylvania Adjusts Medical Cannabis Program

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
PA flag

On Monday, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine announced plans to allow patients access to whole plant, dried flower, as well as more qualifying conditions. The move reverses the previous rule permitting dispensaries to sell only processed forms of cannabis, which some say limited access and kept costs high for patients.

According to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), the Department of Health approved changes to the program at a hearing on Monday, which were recommended by the Advisory Board last week. While smoking remains theoretically prohibited, patients can now access the flower for vaporization.

The medical cannabis program in Pennsylvania has only been functional for a few months now; patients began getting access to the drug back in February of 2018. In a press release, MPP says only a small number of cultivators and dispensaries are currently operating. This fact, coupled with the need to purchase processed forms of cannabis, has created product shortages and costly medicine for patients.

It is expected that this move could help alleviate some of those problems in the state’s new program. “Allowing cannabis in its natural, flower form and expanding the list of qualifying conditions will have a huge positive impact on seriously ill Pennsylvanians,” says Becky Dansky, legislative counsel for the Marijuana Policy Project, who helped lead the legalization effort in Pennsylvania’s legislature. “By being able to provide medical marijuana in plant form, producers will be able to get medicine into the hands of patients much more quickly and for much lower cost to patients,” says Dansky. “This is vitally important for patient access right now while the program is still getting off the ground and production is not yet at full capacity. We hope these rules are promulgated as quickly as possible so even more patients will be able to find relief.”

The qualifying conditions added to the list for patients seeking medical cannabis is set to include cancer remission therapy as well as opioid-addiction therapy, which are two very notable additions. With more qualifying conditions and a potentially cheaper form of medicine, these changes could improve the program’s efficacy in treating patients.

Is There a Looming Supply Bottleneck in California?

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

California’s regulated adult use cannabis market has been up and running for around four months now and rumors of a potential supply bottleneck on the horizon are beginning to circulate. There are a number of factors that could have an impact on the cannabis supply in the market, most of which stem from changes in the distribution channels now that the state is implementing new regulations.

Those include a slow rollout in licensing cannabis businesses, new testing requirements, the supply carryover period prior to January 1stas well as new labeling and packaging regulations. In this piece, we are going to examine some of those rumors, see if there might be some truth to them and provide some guidance for what businesses can do to prepare for this.

A Slow Start to Licensing

This one is perhaps the most obvious factor to impact the supply chain in California. Much of the delays in licensing cannabis businesses came from the issue of local control, where businesses needed to get approval from their municipality before getting a state license. In the first month of the new market, it took Los Angeles weeks longer than other counties to begin licensing dispensaries. Whereas San Diego retailers saw a massive influx of customers right away, forcing them to buy up product to meet the high demand. Smaller producers also had trouble getting licenses as quickly as some of the larger ones.

Basically it all boils down to a slow start for the new market, according to Diane Czarkowski, co-founder of Canna Advisors. “The state is requiring businesses to get their local licenses before they can get their state license and that will create a delay in operators being able to bring products to market,” says Czarkowski. She says this is pretty typical of new markets, or when a market experiences dramatic changes quickly. “It could be a brand-new market, like in Hawaii, where the operators were ready with product, but there were no labs to test the products, which caused delays.” In addition to the licensing roll out being slow to start, the temporary licenses initially awarded to businesses are set to expire soon, by the end of April.

Stricter Rules to Come

The same logic goes for the testing regulations. New testing and labeling requirements, according to the Bureau of Cannabis Control regulating the market, will be phased in throughout 2018.

CA cannabis testing chart
California’s plan for phasing in testing requirements.

The state has already phased in cannabinoids, moisture content, residual solvent, pesticide, microbial impurities and homogeneity testing to some extent. On July 1st, the state will add additional residual solvent and pesticide testing as well as foreign material testing. At the end of 2018, they plan on requiring terpenoids, mycotoxins, heavy metals and water activity testing. All of those tests cost money and all of those tests could impact suppliers’ ability to bring product to market. “Oftentimes regulations require different types of testing to be done to products without recognizing that adequately completing those tests requires different methods, equipment, and standards,” says Czarkowski. “Most labs do not have all of the necessary components, and they are very costly. Producers could wait weeks to get test results back before they know if they can sell their products.”

Back when we spoke with Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, about the upcoming changes to the California market, he voiced his concerns with the coming testing rules. “A lot of testing labs are concerned they are unable to test at the state’s threshold for some of these contaminants and pesticides; the detection limits seem very low,” says Drayton. “The testing portion will take years to work out, I am sure we will remove and add different pesticides and contaminants to the list.” California’s testing industry is, however, capable of adapting to changing rules, as they’ve done in the past on more than one occasion. It should be noted that many labs in the state are on the cutting edge of testing cannabis, working with The Bureau to implement the new rules.

roybingham
Roy Bingham, CEO of BDS Analytics

Cannabis products made prior to December 31st, 2017, did not need to comply with the stricter testing rules that are coming in the next few months. This carryover period allowed dispensaries to have products on the shelves when the new market launched in the beginning of 2018. Retailers knew this rule meant they needed to stockpile product in the event of a supply bottleneck, and it appears much of that product is now sold and running out, according to Roy Bingham, founder and chief executive officer of BDS Analytics. “The true impact of licenses is starting to be felt since the carryover from December buying prior to the licensed market has been sold,” says Bingham. “Some of the major brands have consciously not applied for licenses. Some of that has to do with the flexibility the government has given them to wait.”

A fourth reason for a potential bottleneck could also come from packaging and labeling rules. “There will have to be many modifications to products to ensure they follow the new potency regulations, and many formulations will have to be modified in order to meet new regulations,” says Czarkowski. Distributor licenses, according to The Bureau, have a number of compliance documentation requirements, such as arranging for all product testing, quality assurance and packaging and label accuracy. Everything has to be packaged before it gets to a dispensary, which is a new rule California businesses need to comply with.

Pricing is the Indicator

There are a handful of reasons why prices could increase; some of them are more defined than others, the biggest factor being the tax burden passed on to consumers, where reports showed up to a 40% increase from last year. A price increase in the future could also come from The Bureau implementing testing regulations throughout 2018, as mentioned previously.

If prices were to surge enormously and very quickly, that might be an indicator that a shortage is fast approaching. A dramatic increase in price over this year could squeeze margins for smaller producers, forcing retailers to pass that burden on to consumers as well.“So yes, the rumors are true.”

According to Roy Bingham, there has been a significant increase in pricing in all categories at the retail level. “In January and February, we are seeing about 10% increases per month in average retail prices,” says Bingham. “If we look at concentrates in California during 2017, they averaged about $34 by the end of the year, whereas it was about $31 at the start of 2017. So in January, prices have increased up to $38, which is a bit above trend, but in fact we were seeing a trend upwards before January 1st as well.” Comparing that with edibles pricing, Bingham says we see a clear jump at the start of 2018. “It was basically flat in 2017, averaging $14 roughly almost straight-line across, dipped in December, then in January it jumped to $17 and then to $18 in February, a big increase and significantly more than concentrates,” says Bingham. He also says flower was hovering around $9 per gram in December 2017, but surged above $10 in February 2018.

According to Cannabis Benchmarks, the California wholesale averages surged in the summer of 2017 up to $1,631 by September, then reached their lowest point in December, with their spot index at $1,368. The Cannabis Benchmarks report underlines some important reasons for the changes in pricing, but they also attribute it to the new licensing system.

“Increasing operating expenses for businesses preparing to enter California’s licensed system in 2018 were key to propping up supply side rates in the first six months of 2017. New compliance requirements were being instituted to varying degrees by local governments, while market participants warily eyed draft regulations from state officials for guidance as to how to prepare their sites and facilities to meet under-construction regulatory mandates.”

Their report highlights some very important aspects of the supply chain. “Again, it is likely that the increased costs faced by operators up and down the supply chain exert some upward pressure on wholesale rates, preventing them from steep year-over-year declines that were observed in some of the other major Western markets,” reads the Cannabis Benchmarks report.

So How Can Businesses Prepare?

Well to start, producers should make sure their operations and product are clean and safe. Making sure your product will pass a pesticide test should be top of mind. Dispensaries should also be wise in selecting their suppliers, performing supplier quality audits or some form of verification that they meet your standards is key in a consistent supply chain.

Dr. Jon Vaught, chief executive officer of Front Range Biosciences, believes tissue culture could be a viable solution for some California producers. Using tissue culture, as a form of propagation instead of mothers and clones can be cleaner, cheaper and more efficient, thus allowing growers to keep up with demand and prevent a shortage.

Dr. Jon Vaught headshot
Dr. Jon Vaught, CEO of Front Range Biosciences

Dr. Vaught says growers could look to tissue culture as a means to “mitigate risk to their supply chain and mitigate the risk of potential loss and improve their ability to efficiently grow their plant.” Maintaining a disease-free, sterile environment is a huge advantage in the cannabis market. “The real use of tissue culture is to provide disease free, clean, certified material, that has gone through a QA program,” says Dr. Vaught. “In greenhouses, the ability to control your environment is also critical because your margin of error is high. Variations in sunlight, weather, humidity all of these things have an impact in your plants. Technology can help monitor this.”

We’ve covered the basics of tissue culture previously on CIJ, with Dr. Hope Jones chief science officer of C4 Laboratories. She echoes many of Dr. Vaught’s points, firmly believing that, having existed for decades, tissue culture is an effective propagation tool for advanced breeders or growers looking to scale up.It is a complex supply chain that requires systems thinking.

It is important to note they don’t think growers should try this at home. Work with professionals, get the necessary funding, the training and facilities required if this is a project that interest you. “There’s a pretty big barrier to entry there,” Dr. Vaught urges. “The ability to manage thousands or millions of plants in a greenhouse increases risk, whereas in the lab, you’ve got a safe, secure, sterile environment, reducing risk of disease, making things easier to manage. The producers most successful at large scale are controlling those variables to the T.”

Ultimately, one segment of the market can’t prevent a bottleneck. It is a complex supply chain that requires systems thinking. Regulators need to work with producers, manufacturers, retailers, distributors, patients, consumers and laboratories to keep an eye on the overall supply chain flow.

Diane Czarkowski says the California market should prepare for this now if they haven’t already. “We have seen supply issues in every market going through a change. Other potential bottlenecks will occur because former distribution channels will be required to change,” says Czarkowski. “So yes, the rumors are true.”