According to a press release published last week, SC Labs is in the midst of a multi-state expansion under new leadership. The company hired Jeff Journey as their new CEO, coming from a VP position at Thermo Fisher Scientific.
Jeff Journey, the new CEO of SC Labs
Last year, in what seemed like an initial move to establish the lab on a coast-to-coast level, SC Labs developed a hemp testing panel that covers a number of contaminants on a national regulatory level. The hemp testing panel they developed purportedly meets testing standards in states that require contaminant levels below a certain action limit.
Then in February of this year, the company announced a partnership with Colorado-based Agricor and Botanacor Laboratories, with the goal of establishing a national testing network, offering comprehensive cannabis and hemp lab testing. All three of those organizations are certified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for compliance testing required for hemp products.
In the press release that was published last week, they hinted at another announcement coming soon: a new partnership with Michigan-based Can-Lab. This, coupled with hints at further expansion and their current presence in California, Colorado and Oregon, means Journey will have his hands full and his sights set on nationwide cannabis testing.
“We’re looking forward to partnering with cannabis and hemp brands at every stage of the supply chain to share our innovative and forward-thinking scientific expertise so they can deliver safe products to the marketplace,” says Journey. “As cannabis legalization expands across the country, the testing industry is rapidly shifting and scaling to meet both market and regulatory demands.”
The leadership team will still have a few familiar faces, such as Jeff Gray as chief innovation officer and Josh Wurzer as chief operating officer. “The most important assets we can offer as a multi-state operator are scientific expertise, financial stability, and unquestionable integrity, the principles on which SC Labs has long stood for and will continue to provide to our valued customers,” says Journey.
Aurum Labs, a cannabis testing laboratory based in Durango, Colorado, announced last week that they have become certified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for all of the compliance testing required for hemp products. The press release says they are the first independent lab that is actually based in the state to receive the CDPHE certification for every compliance test.
Last year, Colorado rolled out hemp testing regulations that are some of the most comprehensive in the world. The required pesticide screening includes testing for more than 100 different types of pesticides. The new rules, along with the certification requirement, make it difficult for labs to enter the market, with only eleven total labs certified by the CDPHE for various hemp compliance panels and only five certified for every type of test, according to the department’s website.
Most of the companies on that list certified to conduct hemp compliance testing are familiar labs with large footprints, such as Eurofins, Kaycha Labs, Columbia Labs, SC Labs, InfiniteCAL and ACS Labs. Most of these labs are out of state and by the looks of it, only four independent, Colorado-based labs are certified so far: Aurum Labs, Gobi Analytical, Botanacor Labs and Minova Labs. Gobi and Minova, however, are not yet certified for pesticide testing, while Aurum appears to be certified for all compliance testing. Botanacor Labs, based in Denver, was certified back in June of 2021 to every compliance test except for pesticides.
“It’s difficult to compete with these large, private-equity-funded labs, but Aurum is passionate about serving the evolving hemp industry” Liz Mason, director of operations at Aurum Labs, said in a press release. “We are committed to staying on the scientific forefront to give the most comprehensive services to our clients.”
Back in December of 2021, The Pennsylvania Department of Health sent emails to registered medical cannabis patients, notifying them of a safety review being conducted on ingredients found in cannabis vape products.
Then in February this year, the state’s health agency sent a third email. This one notified patients that they were recalling more than 650 products and ingredients. “As you know, the Department recently conducted a statewide review of all vaporized medical marijuana products containing added ingredients,” reads the email to patients. “After finishing this review, the Department has determined that certain vaporized medical marijuana products containing some added ingredients have not been approved for inhalation by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
The recall generated a lot of controversy for the state’s medical cannabis market, leaving patients, dispensaries, processors and other cannabis businesses with little guidance from the state’s health department. Cannabis companies in Pennsylvania, like Curaleaf, Jushi and Trulieve, formed a coalition and sued the state’s health department in February, alleging that regulators ordered the recall preemptively and did so without going through the proper channels, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
On June 2, the coalition of cannabis companies won and a judge stopped the recall. The very next day, the health department took issue with the judge’s decision and filed an appeal with the PA Supreme Court. For now though, as the appeal makes its way to Pennsylvania’s top court, the recall is lifted and dispensaries can restock their shelves with vape products.
Elevating Edibles: Defining the Next Cannabis Experience
Sam Rose, Director of Operations, Herve
Attendees will learn during this session:
Luxury edibles and form factor: Moving away from get high first and think about what you’re consuming second, a pivot from sugar filled, bad tasting edibles to delicious and refined ingredients. Non-juvenile form factors, healthier options, efficacy
Concentrates and infusion: Providing the consumer with the right high using the right ratios and concentrates. Bioavailability, highlighting the plant, absorption method (sublingual)
Giving the consumer what they NEED not what they WANT: We’re at a fragile point in time where people are either trying cannabis for the first time or experimenting with it again for the first time in a long time. We need to make sure these people have a good experience and not scare them away. High MG edibles and high % Flower is not the way to do this – the how high for cheap model is really toxic for the industry. We need to educate, we need to provide clean low dose edibles and more curated flower.
TechTalk: Millipore Sigma
Dr. Sunil P. Badal, Senior Scientist, Innovations/Advanced Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma
Cannabis Beverages: The Rise of a New Market & a New Consumer Christiane Campbell, Partner, Duane Morris, LLP
Attendees will learn during this session:
The current landscape and regulatory red tape surrounding cannabis beverage brands
Selecting and adopting a cannabis beverage brand
Protecting a cannabis beverage brand
TechTalk: Berlin Packaging
Julie Saltzman, Director of Cannabis Business Development, Berlin Packaging
One Symbol to Rule Them All! Harmonization is Finally Here! Darwin Millard, Owner & Founder, TSOC LLC, ASTM Subcommittee Co-Chair
A picture is worth 1000 words, but with a hogbog of “universal” symbols, is something getting lost in translation? ASTM International’s new standard, ASTM D8441/8441M, Specification for an International Symbol for Identifying Consumer Products Containing Intoxicating Cannabinoids, serves to establish a truly harmonized international warning symbol. Learn about the significance and use of this all-important standard from one of the members of ASTM Committee D37 on Cannabis who helped developed it.
Leafreport released the findings from their expansive CBD testing study that revealed some pretty alarming results. According to their study, only 7% of CBD brands they sampled actually conduct legitimate contamination testing for pesticides, heavy metals and microbial contamination.
Leafreport is an Israeli company founded in 2019 that does product reviews, independent testing and provides educational resources for consumers. The company produces studies on CBD products in the market and reports their results on its website. Back in 2020, the watchdog company conducted independent lab testing on 22 different CBD-infused beverages and found a lot of inconsistencies with the actual amount of CBD found in the beverage and what the product’s label claimed.
In this latest study, finalized in late May of 2022, the consumer advocacy group found a lot of inconsistencies throughout the CBD market. For their study, they reviewed 4,384 products from 188 brands, with the goal of looking at overall transparency in the CBD products market. Judging by the results they share, the CBD market is unsurprisingly not very transparent.
Here are some highlights from this most recent study:
20% of the brands reviewed didn’t carry out any purity tests to check for the presence of microbes, pesticides, or heavy metals. In 2021, 25% of the brands Leafreport reviewed didn’t carry out any purity tests.
42% of brands test almost all of their products for potency (90%-100% accurate) and share their third-party lab results with consumers — the same as in 2021.
Only 12% of brands had all their products fall within acceptable potency variance limits.
88% of brands that tested their products for potency had at least one product test beyond the 10% variance for potency, in comparison to 84% in 2021.
28% of brands didn’t carry out any testing at all for pesticides (such as glyphosate), 26% didn’t test for the presence of any heavy metals (such as arsenic), and 24% didn’t test for microbes (like bacteria).
Two brands carried out no lab testing at all for either purity or potency, compared to 3 brands in 2021.
Protecting Consumer Health: The Need for More Stringent Lab Testing Rules
Milan Patel, CEO, PathogenDx
In this session, Milan Patel discusses:
The current problems with testing in the cannabis industry. (Loose regulation and enforcement, allowing operators without scruples to endanger consumers, E.G. increasing moisture to products to increase weight, while also increasing risk of mold.
Potential solutions to this problem. (Bring more attention to the problem, states need to follow CGMP for recreational markets, companies should test at every step of the supply chain)
Why this matters (beyond protecting consumers, this will help protect the reputation of the industry and individual companies within it.)
TechTalk: Millipore Sigma
Maria Nelson, Technical Consultant, AOAC International
Why Use an Accredited Laboratory to Test your Cannabis
Tracy Szerszen, President & Operations Manager, Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation (PJLA)
This presentation will educate listeners on the various aspects laboratories must meet in order to obtain ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. This will include an overview of what the ISO/IEC 17025 standard mandates on laboratories, the accreditation process and timelines as well as best practices to become prepared for an assessment. Utilizing an accredited laboratory is critical to this market resulting in less retesting and reliable results to support safe products.
How Authenticity Testing Can Help Cannabis Businesses
Dr. Arun Krishnamurthy, NMR Spectroscopist, Purity-IQ
Metrc combines a software platform with radio frequency identification technology to track plants and cannabis products from seed to sale. The track-and-trace model quickly became adopted by dozens of states to regulate their cannabis markets over the years, becoming an important standard in the industry.
With government contracts in nineteen states and counting, Metrc has become an omnipresent fixture in the United States cannabis market. States work with Metrc to provide their market’s traceability software for the entire supply chain, which helps prevent diversion to the black market, offers security and safety, aids in recalls and regulatory compliance tools.
We sat down with Michael Johnson, CEO of Metrc, to discuss retail challenges, regulations, cybersecurity, compliance and more.
Aaron Green: What are the major compliance challenges retailers face?
Michael Johnson: Major compliance challenges that retailers face will vary from state to state, however, we do see common themes across state lines. Financial services, for instance, has been a historical industry hurdle, as most big banks and credit card companies deny access to their network, making it difficult for retailers across the board – from bank account setup to limited customer and patient payment options to security issues when managing a cash-only retail business. The tides are starting to change with more credit unions and state-chartered banks opening their doors to the industry, along with new payment technologies for consumers to use instead of cash.
Michael Johnson, CEO of Metrc
We also see common operational challenges, including inventory management issues due to human error, lack of consistent quality assurance, and product theft. Retailers regularly face strict packaging, labeling, and product safety laws along with requirements for public health, storage and sanitation procedures and additional layers of security and surveillance.
Finally, access to compliant and retail-friendly technology systems is important as it can have a major operational impact. If a retailer can choose, selecting the right platform will manage all their operational needs – from ID-scanning at check-in to inventory management to banking – while properly integrating with their state’s track-and-trace technology. That’s a major benefit and one that Flowhub brings to the industry, alongside Metrc.
Aaron: How does compliance for retailers differ from cultivators and manufacturers?
Michael: It is important to note that proactive compliance sits at the center of cannabis regulation. Not only does it ensure the maintenance of license(s) and overall businesses, it helps expand and enhance the industry as a whole. As a highly regulated sector, transparent and consistent compliance initiatives provide the necessary foundation for a safe and secure environment, strengthening all levels of the supply chain and the industry at large.
All industry players must adhere to specific licensing and documentation requirements – an expired or illegal license may lead to serious fines and carries the potential of losing the business. In a handful of states, employees may need a license as well. Real estate also comes into play for all license holders, with special cannabis zoning restrictions, such as requiring distance limits between select institutions.
Since retailers are customer- and/or patient-facing, they may experience unique operational requirements compared to cultivators and manufacturers, including ID-checking policies, customer or patient delivery laws, additional packaging and labeling rules, strict dispensation regulations, in-store and on-shelf product placement, retail signage, and product promotion rules, and more.
Just like retail, cultivation and manufacturing compliance will also vary across states, but with a host of additional compliance requirements to keep in mind – for example, biological, chemical, and physical hazards are something that play a larger role at facility operations, which are subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules. Other compliance issues to highlight on the cultivation and manufacturing side include state requirements on inventory reporting, security patrols, waste removal, and meticulous logging.
Aaron: What is your process for evaluating vendor integrations?
Michael: At Metrc, we maintain an efficient and consistent process for evaluating vendor integrations – an example of our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of legal cannabis markets.
First, integrators petition access into specific instance(s) by filling out a form with their basic information (business name, software name, contact info, etc.), along with any state-required agreements that must be signed. The integrator is then given a set of steps to perform in each instance requested. The steps provided are then evaluated by our API Support team. When all steps are performed accurately, the integrator is added into production and an API key is generated for their use. Licensees must also issue the TPI a User API key to gain access to the API. Overall, the process is a combination of meeting state, Metrc, and licensee requirements.
Aaron: Can you address the cybersecurity landscape METRC faces? What is METRC’s process for dealing with cybersecurity threats?
Michael: Cybersecurity threats are shared across industries and although not unique to Metrc or the cannabis sector, cybersecurity threats and the value of data continues to change. Maintaining strict safeguards around data privacy and the security is a top priority at Metrc and we keep a constant pulse on changes in the cybersecurity landscape, to maintain this safeguard for our customers, industry users, and Metrc as a whole.
Aaron: What trends in cannabis regulation are you following?
Michael: Cannabis rules and regulations are ever evolving, which is why it is vitally important for anyone in the industry to stay up to date. Examples of some we are following closely at Metrc include the SAFE Banking Act, Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, and Cannabis Administration Opportunity Act (CAOA); and more generally federal legalization, public health protection, and environmental regulations.
Aaron: What’s next for METRC?
Michael: We continue to expand our customer and user feedback loop to ensure our roadmap meets the unique needs of markets and an overall evolving industry/regulatory landscape. Examples include continued performance improvements, more robust analytics capabilities, user-driven functionality updates, and exploring the design of a more sustainable RFID tag.
By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright No Comments
Some states, like California, Colorado and Washington, have welcomed cannabis with open arms while others have taken a while to come to the party (or haven’t gotten there yet). Missouri, whose licensed sales only began in October 2020, is one of the late arrivals.
Perhaps it’s in the nature of the people of the Show Me State to wait for proof that something is a good thing rather than being early adopters. Even Missouri’s nickname came into being as a statement of skepticism when Missouri Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, in an 1899 speech in Philadelphia, said, “Your frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.” (Not surprisingly, perhaps, Missouri’s state animal is the Missouri Mule).
Missouri legalized the use of medical cannabis on December 6, 2018. Compared to many other states, Missouri’s definition of what constitutes medicinal use is more tightly defined. For example, most medical cannabis states allow “anxiety” as an acceptable condition for a prescription; Missouri does not.1
Current Status of Adult Use Cannabis
St. Louis, Missouri
Missouri is now locked in a battle to legalize adult use cannabis, with the group Legal Missouri 2022, among others, working hard to put the measure on the ballot this year. At the same time, Representative Ron Hicks (R) is pushing to legalize recreational purchases with his Cannabis Freedom Act. “I want the legislature to be able to handle it so that when there are problems and things need to be changed, it can be changed,” Hicks said.2 Missouri Governor Mike Parson (R), who has been against recreational usage, has stated he would “much rather have the legislators have that discussion out here and see if there is a solution other than doing the ballot initiative.” Parson added, “If it got on the ballot, it’s probably going to pass.”3
Cannabis Business in Missouri: Only Cost of Goods Sold Deduction
Missouri has maintained its state tax code to be in conformity with Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which disallows deductions and credits for expenditures connected with the illegal sale of drugs, stating:
No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business … consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law.4
This is true for both corporation5 and individuals6 in Missouri.
Governor Mike Parson recently vetoed a bill to eliminate conformity with I.R.C. Section 280E. Eliminating conformity would have lowered the tax burden on medical cannabis businesses, and increased Missouri’s competitiveness.7
State Sales and Cannabis Taxes
Missouri taxes retail sales at 4% of the purchase price.8 In addition, Missouri taxes retail sales of medical cannabis another 4% of the retail price.9,10 The medical cannabis tax is collected by dispensary facilities who then remit it to the Department of Revenue using Form 5808.11
Tax compliance is burdensome in Missouri, with dispensaries having to file returns monthly, even when they have no tax to report.12 Missouri also doesn’t allow cannabis businesses to pay their taxes in cash.13
No Tax on Tax
It’s important to note that Missouri doesn’t charges sales tax on cannabis tax nor cannabis tax on cannabis tax (unlike high-tax states like California). Under Missouri’s law, the tax is “separate from, and in addition to, any general state and local sales and use taxes that apply to retail sales.”14 Under Missouri’s sales tax law, “ Tax collected as a part of a sale should not be included in gross receipts.”15 Missouri has not specified whether the medical tax constitutes tax collected as a part of a sale; however, its regulations state that gross receipts from the sale of cigarettes do not include the amount of the sale price that represents the state cigarette tax.16 If the medical tax is analogous to the cigarette tax, gross receipts from the sale of medical cannabis likely excludes the amount paid as medical cannabis tax.
If the Legislature-Sponsored Cannabis Freedom Act Passes
If the Cannabis Freedom Act passes, Missouri will have a number of additional interesting changes. The bill would only allow for double the number of current medical cannabis licensees to serve the adult use market. It would also allow for people with non-violent convictions to petition the courts to have their record expunged (cleared).
Adult Use Taxes
The Act would allow the Department of Revenue to set an adult-use tax of up to 12%. There would be no such tax on medical cannabis sales.17
Normal Tax Deductions Allowed for Businesses
Licensed businesses would also be able to make tax deductions with the state up to the amount that they’d otherwise be eligible for under federal law if they were operating in a federally legal industry.18
Amendment Added to Act
In a move seen by many as a bid to derail the Cannabis Freedom Act, Representative Nick Schroer (R) amended the Act to bar transgender women from accessing no-interest loans for women- and minority-owned cannabis businesses, adding that only women who are “biologically” female would be eligible for the benefit. In the end, this addition may have the effect of scuttling the bill.19
Multiple Efforts to Place Cannabis on the Ballot
Even if the Act doesn’t pass, there are multiple efforts to place cannabis before the voters, including one by Representative Shamed Dogan (R), the group Legal Missouri 2022, which got medical cannabis passed by voters in 2018, and Fair Access Missouri.20
Comparison to Neighboring Oklahoma
Oklahoma, like Missouri, has not legalized the use of recreational cannabis, only medical cannabis. Also, Oklahoma taxes sales of tangible personal property (except newspapers and periodicals) at 4.5%, which is close to Missouri’s 4%.21 Tax is imposed on gross receipts or gross proceeds.22 Gross receipts (or gross proceeds) = Total amount of consideration, whether received in cash or otherwise. Credit is allowed for returns of merchandise.23
Oklahoma taxes retail medical cannabis sales at 7% of the gross amount received by the seller.24 Like Missouri, it has not specified any exemptions from the medical cannabis tax. Oklahoma’s medical cannabis tax base is the same as Missouri’s. Oklahoma’s medical tax rate is higher than Missouri’s. Therefore, Missouri’s tax treatment of medical cannabis is even better than Oklahoma’s.
Note, however, that Oklahoma has made it explicit that there is no tax-on-tax. “The 7% gross receipts tax is not part of the gross receipts for purposes of calculating the sales tax due, if the tax is shown separately from the price of the medical marijuana.”25
Oklahomans appear to be far more favorably disposed towards cannabis than Missouri, however. 2021 cannabis sales per person in Missouri was approximately $34, while Oklahoma boasted an impressive $210 per person, besting even California, which had $111/per person in cannabis sales.26
The Hidden Opportunity
Although Missouri only began licensed sales in October 2020, the state’s monthly sales has shown a strong upward curve. By the end of June 2021, monthly sales were just above $16 million. That number had shot up to $29 million per month for December 2021, and almost $37 million for April 2022.27 Patient enrollment is also increasing significantly.28
The best move, many experts believe, is to get into the medical market now, before the inevitable happens and adult use is approved. Competition is low at the moment, due to the lack of medical licensed dispensaries in the state. Although obtaining a license can be difficult, the current lack of competition, as well as the opportunity to gain a foothold in the cannabis industry before recreational purchases are approved, could provide a 10 times revenue increase from current medicinal sales levels.
Tyler Williams, founder of St. Louis-based Cannabis Safety and Quality and one of the St. Louis Business Journal’s 2021 40 Under 40, is optimistic about the future of Missouri cannabis. The state, he says, has been left “with only a few cannabis growers and manufacturers with a head start over the impending recreational market that is likely to come within the next couple of years.”29
The Bottom Line
The State of Missouri’s treatment of legal cannabis has been mixed, but the demand for the product by many residents of the state is unquestioned. If an entrepreneur has the foresight to get involved before all the wrinkles of legalization have been resolved, there is a possibility for very strong return on investment.
Cannabis testing to detect microbial contamination is complicated. It may not be rocket science, but it is life science, which means it’s a moving target, or at least, it should be, as we acquire more and more information about how the world we live in works. We are lucky to be able to carry out that examination in ever increasing detail. For instance, the science of genomics1 was born over 80 years ago, and just twenty years ago, genetics was still a black box. We’ve made tremendous progress since those early days, but we still have a long way to go, to be sure.
Much of that progress is due to our ability to build more accurate tools, a technological ladder, if you will, that raises our awareness, expertise, and knowledge to new levels. When a new process or technology appears, we compare it against accepted practice to create a new paradigm and make the necessary adjustments. But people have to be willing to change. In the cannabis industry, rapid change is a constant, first because that is the nature of a nascent industry, and second because in the absence of some universal and unimpeachable standard, it’s difficult to know who’s right. Especially when the old, reliable reference method (i.e. plating, which is basically growing microorganisms on the surface of a nutritional medium) is deeply flawed in its application to cannabis testing vs. molecular methods (i.e., quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or qPCR for short).
Dr. Sherman Hom, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Medicinal Genomics
Plating systems have been used faithfully for close to 130 years in the food industry, and has performed reasonably well.2 But cannabis isn’t food and can’t be tested as if it were. In fact, plating methods have a host of major disadvantages that only show up when they’re used to detect cannabis pathogens. They are, in no particular order:
A single plating system can’t enumerate a group of microorganisms and/or detect specific bacterial and fungal pathogens. This is further complicated by the fact that better than 98% of the microbes in the world do not form colonies.3 And there is no ONE UNIVERSAL bacterial or fungal SELECTIVE agar plate that will allow the growth of all bacteria or all fungal strains. For example, the 5 genus species of fungal strains implicated in powderly mildew DO NOT plate at all.
Cannabinoids, which can represent 10-30% of a cannabis flower’s weight, have been shown to have antibacterial activity.4 Antibiotics inhibit the growth of bacteria and in some cases kill it altogether. Salmonella species & shiga toxin producing coli (STEC) bacteria, in particular, are very sensitive to antibiotics, which leads to either a false negative result or lower total counts on plates vs. qPCR methods.
Plating methods cannot detect bacterial and fungal endophytes that live a part or all of their life cycle inside a cannabis plant.5,6 Examples of endophytes are the Aspergillus pathogens (A. flavus, A. fumigatus, A. niger, and A. terreus). Methods to break open the plant cells to access these endophytes to prepare them for plating methods also lyse these microbial cells, thereby killing endophytic cells in the process. That’s why these endophytes will never form colonies, which leads to either false negative results or lower total counts on plates vs. qPCR methods.
Selective plating media for molds, such as Dichloran Rose-Bengal Chloramphenicol (DRBC) actually reduces mold growth—especially Aspergillus—by as much as 5-fold.This delivers false negative results for this dangerous human pathogen. In other words, although the DRBC medium is typically used to reduce bacteria; it comes at the cost of missing 5-fold more yeast and molds than Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) + Chloramphenicol or molecular methods. These observations were derived from study results of the AOAC emergency response validation.7
Finally, we’ve recently identified four bacterial species, which are human pathogens associated with cannabis that do not grow at the plating system incubation temperature typically used.8 They are Aeromonas hydrophila, Pantoea agglomerans, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Rahnella aquatilis. This lowers total counts on plates qPCR methods.
So why is plating still so popular? Better yet, why is it still the recommended method for many state regulators? Beats me. But I can hazard a couple of guesses.
A yeast and mold plate test
First, research on cannabis has been restricted for the better part of the last 70 years, and it’s impossible to construct a body of scientific knowledge by keeping everyone in the dark. Ten years ago, as one of the first government-employed scientists to study cannabis, I was tapped to start the first cannabis testing lab at the New Jersey Dept. of Health and we had to build it from ground zero. Nobody knew anything about cannabis then.
Second, because of a shortage of cannabis-trained experts, members of many regulatory bodies come from the food industry—where they’ve used plating almost exclusively. So, when it comes time to draft cannabis microbial testing regulations, plating is the default method. After all, it worked for them before and they’re comfortable with recommending it for their state’s cannabis regulations.
Finally, there’s a certain amount of discomfort in not being right. Going into this completely new area—remember, the legal cannabis industry didn’t even exist 10 years ago—we human beings like to have a little certainty to fall back on. The trouble is, falling back on what we did before stifles badly needed progress. This is a case where, if you’re comfortable with your old methods and you’re sure of your results, you’re probably wrong.
So let’s accept the fact that we’re all in this uncharted territory together. We don’t yet know everything about cannabis we need to know, but we do know some things, and we already have some pretty good tools, based on real science, that happen to work really well. Let’s use them to help light our way.
References
J. Weissenbach. The rise of genomics. Comptes Rendu Biologies, 339 (7-8), 231-239 (2016).
R. Koch. 1882. Die Aetiologie der Tuberculose. Berliner Klinische Wochenschrift, 19, 221-230 (1882).
W. Wade. Unculturable bacteria—the uncharacterized organisms that cause oral infections. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(2), 91-93 (2002).
J.A. Karas, L.J.M. Wong, O.K.A. Paulin, A. C. Mazeh, M.H. Hussein, J. Li, and T. Vekov. Antibiotics, 9(7), 406 (2020).
M. Taghinasab and S. Jabaji, Cannabis microbiome and the role of endophytes in modulating the production of secondary metabolites: an overview. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 355, 1-16 (2020).
P. Kusari, S. Kusari, M. Spiteller and O. Kayser, Endophytic fungi harbored in Cannabis sativa L.: diversity and potential as biocontrol agents against host plant-specific phytopathogens. Fungal Diversity 60, 137–151 (2013).
K. McKernan, Y. Helbert, L. Kane, N. Houde, L. Zhang, S. McLaughlin, Whole genome sequencing of colonies derived from cannabis flowers & the impact of media selection on benchmarking total yeast & mold detection tools, https://f1000research.com/articles/10-624 (2021).
K. McKernan, Y. Helbert, L. Kane, L. Zhang, N. Houde, A. Bennett, J. Silva, H. Ebling, and S. McLaughlin, Pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae require multiple culture temperatures for detection in Cannabis sativa L. OSF Preprints, https://osf.io/j3msk/, (2022)
Just over a month ago, a handful of dispensaries in New Jersey began selling cannabis to adults over the age of 21. The state issued licenses for adult use sales to seven alternative treatment centers (ATCs), otherwise known as medical cannabis businesses already established in the state. In total, thirteen dispensaries in the state started selling cannabis to adults over 21.
The seven companies awarded adult use licenses were Ascend, Curaleaf, GTI, Acreage, Verano, Columbia Care and TerrAscend. The state’s roll out created a lot of controversy over allowing already established, larger medical cannabis businesses and multi state operators to begin adult use sales before smaller businesses and social equity applicants get licensed.
Sales totals in the first month of New Jersey’s adult use market
Earlier this week, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) held a public meeting where regulators discussed progress, sales totals so far, conditional license applications and more. According to the meeting notes, between April 21 and May 21, retailers in New Jersey did $24,201,875 in cannabis sales with 212,433 transactions. During the meeting, regulators considered 46 conditional license applications and four testing lab license applications.
According to NJ.com, six new dispensaries were awarded licenses to begin adult use sales. Of the six new retail locations, Curaleaf opened their Edgewater location to adult use customers and Ayr Wellness received approval to begin adult use sales at all three of their medical locations in Eatontown, Union and Woodbridge. Ascend and TerrAscend also received approval to begin adult use sales act their locations in Montclair and Lodi, respectively.
About two weeks ago, the CRC testified before the state’s Senate Judiciary Meeting to share progress on the legal cannabis market, just over a year after the CRC was established. Jeff Brown, executive director of the CRC, discussed the agency’s goals and some challenges ahead of them. Brown says the CRC will be focusing on additional rules for adult use, modernizing the medical rules, enforcing regulatory compliance and information sharing in the near future. He also mentioned a couple challenges the industry is currently facing that they wish to address, including: expanding access to capital for entrepreneurs , removing impediments to finding real estate, educating municipalities to open up opportunities for applicants and ensuring medicinal cannabis access is unimpeded by recreational sales.
“We have made great strides in all of these efforts, and when we look at how New Jersey compares against other states, we fair pretty well,” Brown told lawmakers. “Beginning recreational sales on 4/21/22 was an important milestone. But it doesn’t mark the end of the process, it marks an important step in a multi-year effort to establish New Jersey as the premier cannabis market on the East Coast.”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
“We’re looking forward to partnering with cannabis and hemp brands at every stage of the supply chain to share our innovative and forward-thinking scientific expertise so they can deliver safe products to the marketplace,” says Journey. “As cannabis legalization expands across the country, the testing industry is rapidly shifting and scaling to meet both market and regulatory demands.”
