Tag Archives: Pesticide

emerald test retail

The Emerald Test Gets Record Lab Participation

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
emerald test retail

According to a press release released by Emerald Scientific, their spring Emerald Test had a 25% increase in participation over the fall 2017 test.

77 laboratories from 18 states and two foreign countries participated in the bi-annual Emerald Test, an inter-laboratory comparison and proficiency testing (PT) program. The program is a tool for labs to demonstrate their competence to existing clients, potential customers, regulatory agencies and accreditation bodies.

Overall, the company shipped 314 PT samples, with the majority in a hemp or hemp oil matrix. According to the press release, the new PTs including potency in hemp oil, STEC, Aspergillus Mold and Mycotoxins attracted a good deal of labs. “Many laboratories have been regular participants which speaks volumes about their commitment to quality assurance, regulatory compliance, and consumer safety,” says Ken Groggel, director of Emerald Scientific’s proficiency testing program. “The collegial attitude of open communication and shared experience increases our knowledge and ensures continued success for all involved. Our goal is to establish an industry benchmark for cannabis testing while providing valuable feedback to each laboratory’s quality assurance system.”

This marks the first time the Emerald Test used two potency PTs- the original in solution and a new hemp oil matrix. “Of the 62 labs that participated in the Potency PT, 48 took the PT in solution with 47 receiving an Emerald Badge,” reads the press release. “Another 23 labs took the PT in hemp oil, with 22 awarded an Emerald Badge. Nine labs took both PTs.”

39 labs took PTs in APC, Total Coliform, E. coli, Enterobacteriaceae and Yeast/Mold and 38 of those received the badge. 45 reported results for Salmonella and 42 of them were able to correctly identify the contaminated sample. 12 labs took the Aspergillus Mold PT and 11 of them were awarded the badge. 24 participated in the pesticides PT and 19 of them met criteria for the badge, while four of them did not report results.

The press release noted that the pesticides and residual solvents in hemp oil PTs were some of the more challenging tests in the spring program. 43 labs reported results for the residual solvents in hemp oil PT and only 31 received badges. The terpenes in hemp oil PT was also a challenging test where 21 labs participated and only 11 received the badge, marking the lowest passing rate of all the PTs.

The advisory panel for The Emerald Test consists of chemists, accreditation providers, laboratory owners, and other industry experts to keep it representative of industry needs. “The Emerald Test is the most comprehensive testing program in the world for the cannabis industry, but as the market grows more testing will be needed,” says Groggel. “We intend to continue introducing new proficiency tests while expanding the menu of matrix choices in response to laboratory requests and regulatory requirements.”

According to the press release, their fall program is open for enrollment until today. Testing begins in mid-October.

Massachusetts Regulators Crack Down On Pesticide Use

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Department of Health sent a cease-and-desist letter to Good Chemistry, a Colorado-based brand operating in Massachusetts with a dispensary in Worcester and a cultivation facility in Bellingham. The letter claimed Good Chemistry used unapproved pesticides and must close their operations in the state.

goodchem.exter
A Good Chemistry dispensary in Colorado

According to a Boston Globe article, the company used three pesticides (approved for use on organic food products by the federal government) that cannabis regulators in Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Colorado have all approved for use in cannabis cultivation. Previously, Massachusetts has allowed a number of pesticides to be used on cannabis, but since last year when the state’s Department of Agricultural Resources took over regulating pesticide use on cannabis, they decided to ban all pesticides.

Representatives from Good Chemistry insist the compounds used were safe and that the state is singling them out when the practice is widespread in the industry. “These organic compounds are safe all over the country, and they’re safe in Massachusetts,” Jim Smith, a lawyer for Good Chemistry, tells the Boston Globe. “For the state to single out Good Chemistry for using an industry-standard practice is absolutely wrong. It’s not acceptable — and we’re not going to destroy the crop, because it poses no risk to public safety whatsoever.”

Matthew Huron, CEO of Good Chemistry
Matthew Huron, CEO of Good Chemistry

Good Chemistry even disclosed to the state that they would use those pesticides when they applied for a cannabis business license. According to Telegram.com, a local Worcester publication, Matthew Huron, chief executive officer of Good Chemistry, is asking the state to reverse their decision. “The Department of Public Health has the discretion to amend or rescind their order to allow us to make the cannabis we’ve cultivated available to patients in the Worcester community,” says Huron. “Patients have let us know that they really benefited from Good Chemistry’s wide selection of high quality cannabis strains, and they would like access to it again as soon as possible. We’ve asked the state to incorporate the research, analysis and experience that led other states like Colorado, Nevada, Washington and Oregon to determine that the use of these cultivation methods are best practices and helps create healthier, contaminant-free cannabis for patients and the industry as a whole.”

On September 5, the Department of Public Health allowed Good Chemistry to amend the cease-and-desist so they could sell products from other producers in the state. “Many of our patients rely on our medicine we grow specifically and we now are only allowed to sell third party product,” Huron told Telegram.com.

LabVantage Launches Cannabis-Specific LIMS

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

LabVantage Solutions, known in other testing industries as a leader in laboratory information management systems (LIMS), has launched their own cannabis-specific LIMS. Unveiled at the Cannabis Science Conference in Portland, OR, the purpose-built software is designed specifically for cannabis testing and certification.

Here are a few key highlights of their system, taken from the press release:lab vantage logo

  • Available through perpetual licensing or SaaS
  • One platform for all tests, instruments, sample information, and results data, with option to embed ELN, LES, and other modules
  • Registers sample requests, including a portal for remote requests from growers and distributors
  • Fully audited sample lifecycle and audit trail
  • Certificates of Analysis customized for local regulatory requirements
  • Includes American Herbal Pharmacopoeia® tests for Cannabis Inforescense.
Bob Voelkner, vice president of sales and marketing
Bob Voelkner, vice president of sales and marketing

LabVantage says their system can support ISO/IEC 17025 compliance, ISO 9001:2015, 21 CFR Part 11 and Annex 11 and GLPs as well. According to Bob Voelkner, vice president of sales and marketing, it has a very open architecture as well as web services technology, which allows for integration with METRC and other traceability software platforms. “We know the testing methodologies these labs use, so the customer doesn’t have to create that from scratch,” says Voelkner. “This is meant to be out of the box and ready-to-use, so the customer can get up and running with minimal lag time.” LabVantage has actually been a provider of LIMS solutions for over 30 years and they serve a broad range of lab types.

A screenshot showing the details collected in a harvest lot

Voelkner says they’ve been working with clients at cannabis labs over the past few years to configure their LIMS for this space specifically. “The lab managers can modify workflows on their own without having to write code,” says Voelkner. “We have a well-established solution with a good track record, that’s been around for a while and is proven. Some other players that are brand new to the space may be new to LIMS and that may not be a good thing. We are a market leader in the global LIMS space with a proven product that is very well established and very powerful.” Voelkner adds that lab managers get to own their data, not LabVantage. “You own the data. It is your database and it is proprietary to you. It is yours to use as you see fit.”

Lab managers have the option to configure the system to adapt to new compliance issues themselves, or work with the LabVantage professional services team to build it out further. “This particular space is new and emerging, it is pretty dynamic — we see a lot of change happening,” says Voelkner. “We believe this space needs a highly flexible platform and this is a proven technology solution with a lot of configurability built into it.”

Dr. Ed Askew
Soapbox

Distillation Of Your Cannabis Extract: Ignorance Is Not Bliss

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

In a previous article I discussed the elephant in the room for clients of laboratory services- the possibility of errors, inaccurate testing and dishonesty.

Now, I will explain how the current “smoke and mirrors” of distillation claims are impacting the cannabis industry in the recreational and medical areas. We have all heard the saying, “ignorance is bliss.” But, the ignorance of how distillation really works is creating misinformation and misleading consumers.

That is, just because a cannabis extract has been distilled, doesn’t mean it is safer.There have been reports of people claiming that “Distilled cannabis productsthat are Category 2 distillate are pesticide free and phosphate free, while Category 1 has pesticides and phosphates, but within acceptable limits”

The problem is that these claims of Category 1 and Category 2 cannot be proven just by saying they are distilled. Ignorance of the physical chemistry rules of distillation will lead to increased concentrations of pesticides and other organic contaminants in the supposedly purified cannabis distillate. That is, just because a cannabis extract has been distilled, doesn’t mean it is safer.

So, let’s look at a basic physical chemistry explanation of the cannabis distillation process.

  • First off, you must have an extract to distill. This extract is produced by butane, carbon dioxide or ethanol extraction of cannabis botanical raw material. This extract is a tarry or waxy solid. It contains cannabinoids, terpenes and other botanical chemicals. It will also contain pesticides, organic chemicals and inorganic chemicals present in the raw material. The extraction process will concentrate all of these chemical compounds in the final extract.
  • Now you are ready to distill the extract. The extract is transferred to the vacuum distillation vessel. Vacuum distillation is typically used so as to prevent the decomposition of the cannabinoid products by thermal reactions or oxidation. Under a vacuum, the cannabinoids turn into a vapor at a lower temperature and oxygen is limited.
  • Part of the vacuum distillation apparatus is the distillation column. The dimensions of this column (length and width) along with the packing or design (theoretical plates) will determine the efficiency of distillation separation of each chemical compound. What this means is that the more theoretical plates in a column, the purer the chemical compound in the distillate. (e.g. Vigreux column = 2-5 theoretical plates, Oldershaw column = 10-15 plates, Sieve plate column = any number you can pay for).
  • The temperature and vacuum controls must be adjustable and accurate for all parts of the distillation apparatus. Failure to control the temperature and vacuum on any part to the apparatus will lead to:
    • Thermal destruction of the distillate
    • Oxidation of the distillate
    • Impure distillate

Now, you can see that a proper distillation apparatus is not something you throw together from a high school chemistry lab. But just having the proper equipment will not produce a pure cannabis product. The physical chemistry that takes place in any distillation is the percentage a chemical compound that occurs in the vapor phase compared to the percentage in liquid phase.So, how can you produce a cannabis distillate that is clean and pure?

For example, let’s look at whiskey distillation. In a simple pot still, alcohol is distilled over with some water to produce a mixture that is 25%-30% ethanol. Transferring this distillate to an additional series of pot stills concentrates this alcohol solution to a higher concentration of 85%-90% ethanol. So, each pot still is like a single theoretical plate in a distillation column.

But, if there are any chemical compounds that are soluble in the vapor produced, they will also be carried over with the vapor during distillation. This means that pesticides or other contaminants that are present in the cannabis extract can be carried over during distillation!

So, how can you produce a cannabis distillate that is clean and pure?

  • Produce a cannabis extract that has lower concentrations of bad chemicals. Since a lot of the cannabis extracts available for distillation are coming from grey-black market cannabis, the chances of contamination are high. So, the first thing to do is to set up an extraction cleanup procedure.
    • An example of this is to wash the raw extract to remove inorganic phosphates. Then recrystallize the washed extract to remove some of the pesticides.
  • Make sure that the distillation apparatus is set up to have proper temperature and vacuum controls. This will limit production of cannabis decomposition products in the final distillate.
  • Make sure your distillation apparatus has more than enough theoretical plates. This will make sure that your cannabis distillate has the purity needed.
  • Finally, make sure that the staff that operates the cannabis distillation processes are well trained and have the experience and knowledge to understand their work.

Inexperienced or under-trained individuals will produce inferior and contaminated product. Additional information of extract cleanup and effective vacuum distillation can be obtained by contacting the author.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 5

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

Protection in the Court of Public Opinion

In the last four articles, I have outlined areas that impact your operations as they apply to laboratory quality programs. But this article will take a different path. It will focus on protecting your crop and brand along with any business that utilizes your crop, such as dispensaries or edible manufactures in the court of public opinion.

Now, the elephant in the room for cannabis companies is the difference between rules written by the state and their enforcement by the state. There are many anecdotal stories out there that can be used as case studies in identifying ways to protect your brand. Remember, consumers and the media caught them, not the regulators.

Cheating in the cannabis industry: growers, dispensaries, edibles manufactures, etc. This includes:

  1. Finding laboratories that will produce results that the client wants (higher potency numbers)
  2. Not testing for a particular contaminant that may be present in the cannabis product.
  3. Selling failed crops on the gray or black market.
  4. Claiming to regulators that the state rules are unclear and cannot be followed (e.g. So, give me another chance, officer)

So why should you be worried? Because, even if the state where you operate fails to enforce its own rules, the final end-user of your product will hold you accountable! If you produce any cannabis product and fail to consider these end-users, you will be found out in the court of public opinion by either the media or by the even more effective word of mouth (e.g. Social Media).

So, let’s take a look at some recent examples of these problems:

  1. “Fungus In Medical Marijuana Eyed As Possible Cause In California Man’s Death”
  2. “Pesticides and Pot: What’s California Smoking?”
  3. Buyers beware: California cannabis sold Jan. 1 could be tainted”

Each of these reports lists contamination by microbial stains or pesticides as being rampant within the California market whose products are used for medical or recreational use. Just imagine the monetary losses these cannabis businesses faced for their recalled cannabis product when they got caught. Remember, consumers and the media caught them, not the regulators.Institute a quality program in your business immediately.

How can you be caught? There are many different ways:

  1. Consumer complaints to the media
  2. Secret shopper campaigns (more to come on that in the next article)
  3. Media investigations
  4. Social media campaigns

What are the effects on your business? Product recalls such as these two to hit the California market recently.

So, what should you do to produce an acceptable product and provide reasonable protection to your cannabis business? Institute a quality program in your business immediately. This quality program will include areas of quality assurance and quality control for at least these areas.

  1. Growing
  2. Processing or formulating
  3. Shipping
  4. Dispensing
  5. Security
  6. Training of staff
  7. Laboratory services

Setting up and supporting these programs requires that your upper management impose both a rigorous training program and make employee compliance mandatory. Otherwise, your business will have an unreasonable risk of failure in the future.

Further information on preparing and instituting these types of quality assurance and quality control programs within your business can be found at the author’s website.

Two Recalls Hit California Cannabis Market

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Just weeks ago, the first voluntary cannabis product recall occurred under California’s new regulations. According to an article on MJBizDaily.com by John Schroyer, the recall for their vaporizer cartridges affects almost 100 dispensaries in California.

Bloom Brands, the company issuing the voluntary recall, mentioned in a press release that batches sold between July 1-19, 2018 were contaminated with the pesticide Myclobutanil and therefore does not meet the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) standards. Below is an excerpt from the press release:

We are working closely with the BCC to remedy this issue and expect clean, compliant products to be back on shelves in three weeks…. At Bloom, we are continuing to work with the BCC and other partners to ensure that the space is properly regulated and safe for all customers. Transparency and safety remain our top concerns and we will provide updates as additional information becomes available. We apologize for any concern or inconvenience this serious misstep has caused. We thank you for your continued trust and confidence in our products.

Then, just days later, Lowell Herb Co. issued a voluntary recall on their pre-rolls. First reported by MJBizDaily.com, it appears the products initially passed multiple lab tests and was cleared for retail sales. Weeks after the batch passed tests, a laboratory reversed its decision, saying the products failed to pass the state’s testing standards. The contaminant in question was not mentioned.

The CCIA post calling out the BCC
The CCIA post calling out the BCC

Many seem to think these recalls are a product of the BCC’s unrealistic expectations in their lab testing rules. In a Facebook post days ago, the California Cannabis Industry Association called out the BCC for their unworkable rules. “The BCC has set testing standards that are nearly impossible to meet,” reads the post. “As a result recalls like this will be the norm and the industry will suffer a bottleneck in supply. Testing standards need to be realistic, not impossible.”

On July 13, California issued the first draft of their proposed permanent regulations, which would update and change the current emergency regulations. The proposed action levels for a batch to pass a pesticide test can be found on pages 105 and 106. The state’s regulatory bodies are holding public meetings on the proposed rules throughout August and stakeholders can also submit comments via email.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 4

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

In the last three articles, I discussed the laboratory’s responses or defenses used to reply to your questions about laboratory results that place stress on the success of your business. The Quality Control (QC) results can cause this stress if they are not run correctly to answer the following questions:

  1. Are the laboratory results really true?
  2. Can the laboratory accurately analyze sample products like my sample?
  3. Can the laboratory reproduce the sample results for my type of sample?

Now let’s discuss the most important QC test that will protect your crop and business. That QC sample is the Matrix Sample. In the last article in this series, you were introduced to many QC samples. The Matrix Sample and Duplicate were some of them. Take a look back at Part 3 to familiarize yourself with the definitions.

The key factors of these QC sample types are:

  1. Your sample is used to determine if the analysis used by the laboratory can extract the analyte that is being reported back to you. This is performed by the following steps:
    1. Your sample is analyzed by the laboratory as received.
    2. Then a sub-sample of your sample is spiked with a known concentration of the analyte you are looking for (e.g. pesticides, bacteria, organic chemicals, etc.).
    3. The difference between the sample with and without a spike indicates whether the laboratory can even find the analyte of concern and whether the percent recovery is acceptable.
    4. Examples of failures are from my experiences:
      1. Laboratory 1 spiked a known amount of a pesticide into a wastewater matrix. (e.g. Silver into final treatment process water). The laboratory failed to recover any of the spiked silver. Therefore the laboratory results for these types of sample were not reporting any silver, but silver may be present. This is where laboratory results would be false negatives and the laboratory method may not work on the matrix (your sample) correctly. .
      2. Laboratory 2 ran an analysis for a toxic compound (e.g. Cyanide in final waste treatment discharge). A known amount of cyanide was spiked into a matrix sample and 4 times the actual concentration of that cyanide spike was recovered. This is where laboratory results would be called false positives and the laboratory method may not work on the matrix (your sample) correctly.
  2. Can the laboratory reproduce the results they reported to you?
    1. The laboratory needs to repeat the matrix spike analysis to provide duplicate results. Then a comparison of the results from the first matrix spike with its duplicate results will show if the laboratory can duplicate their test on your sample.
      1. If the original matrix spike result and the duplicate show good agreement (e.g. 20% relative percent difference or lower). Then you can be relatively sure that the result you obtained from the laboratory is true.
      2. But, if the original matrix spike result and the duplicate do not show good agreement (e.g. greater than 20% relative percent difference). Then you can be sure that the result you obtained from the laboratory is not true and you should question the laboratory’s competence.

Now, the question is why a laboratory would not perform these matrix spike and duplicate QC samples? Well, the following may apply:

  1. These matrix samples take too much time.
  2. These matrix samples add a cost that the laboratory cannot recover.
  3. These matrix samples are too difficult for the laboratory staff to perform.
  4. Most importantly: Matrix samples show the laboratory cannot perform the analyses correctly on the matrix.

So, what types of cannabis matrices are out there? Some examples include bud, leaf, oils, extracts and edibles. Those are some of the matrices and each one has their own testing requirements. So, what should you require from your laboratory?

  1. The laboratory must use your sample for both a matrix spike and a duplicate QC sample.
  2. The percent recovery of both the matrix spike and the duplicate will be between 80% and 120%. If either of the QC samples fail, then you should be notified immediately and the samples reanalyzed.
  3. If the relative percent difference between the matrix spike and the duplicate will be 20% or less. If the QC samples fail, then you should be notified immediately and the samples should be reanalyzed.

The impact of questionable laboratory results on your business with failing or absent matrix spike and the duplicate QC samples can be prevented. It is paramount that you hold the laboratory responsible to produce results that are representative of your sample matrix and that are true.

The next article will focus on how your business will develop a quality plan for your laboratory service provider with a specific focus on the California Code Of Regulations, Title 16, Division 42. Bureau Of Cannabis Control requirements.

The Importance of Medical Cannabis Trials In Europe

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Calls for more testing have been a watchword of both cannabis reform advocates and opponents alike for many years.

However, now is a really good time for cannabis companies to consider sponsoring medical trials across Europe for their cannabis products. This is why:

The Current Environment On The Ground

Germany is Europe’s biggest consumer of both prescription medications and medical devices dispensed by prescription. It is, as a result, Europe’s most valuable drug market. And ground zero for every international cannabis company right now as a result.Targeting Germany for your latest pharmaceutical product is difficult no matter who you are.

Here, however, are a few problems that face every pharma manufacturer, far beyond cannabis. Targeting Germany for your latest pharmaceutical product is difficult no matter who you are.

  1. The vast majority by euro spending on all drugs and devices dispensed by prescription must be pre-approved. To add to this problem, before they can be prescribed, new drugs must get on the radar of doctors somehow. To put this in stark relief, the entire prescription drug and medical device annual spend is about 120 billion euros a year in Germany. Only 20 billion euros of that, however, may be obtained relatively easily (without pre-approval from an insurer). Preapproval also only comes when there is trialor other scientific evidence of efficacy.
  2. There are strict rules banning the advertising of prescription drugs to patients and highly limiting this outreach to doctors.
  3. There are strict rules prohibiting the use of the word “cannabis” to promote anything.
  4. There is a strong reliance on what is called “evidence-based medicine.” That means that large numbers of doctors and insurance company approvers need to see hard data that this drug or device actually works better than what is currently on the market.

How then, is a new drug supposed to get on the radar of those who prescribe the drug? Or patients?

If this sounds like an impossible situation to navigate, do not despair. There is a way out.

The Impact of the European Medicines Agency

This agency has been much in the news of late. Namely, the British do not want to exclude themselves from the regulatory umbrella of this organization.

Largely unknown outside Europe, this agency actually has a hugeinfluence on how drugs are brought into the region. Specifically, this is the EU-wide agency (aka the EMA) that both regulates all drugs within Europe, but has also, since 2016, been making clinical reports submitted by pharmaceutical companies, available to anyone who asks for them. That includes doctors, members of the public and of course, the industry itself.

In the middle of July, the agency also published a report on the success of its now three-year-old program, including the usage of its entry website. Conveniently written in English, it is possible to easily search new trial data, which, also now must be made public.

Medical trial data, in other words, that can be created by sponsored cannabis company backed trials.

It remains the best way to get patients, doctors and insurance companies familiar with new drugs. Or even new uses for old drugs in the case of cannabis.

Will Trials Move Legalization Discussions?

Of all the established cannabis companies now in operations with producton the ground, GW Pharmaceuticals has learned that this strategy can actually cut both ways.GW logo-2

However,there are no other cannabis companies in the position of GW Pharma – namely with a monopoly on a whole country (the UK), where it alone can legally grow cannabis crops and process the same into medication and further for very profitable export. In addition, even more disturbingly, and clearly an era that is coming to an end, the vast majority of British patients have been excluded from access to cannabis except in the case of GW Pharma products.

The current row over expanded medical use in the UK, in fact, was triggered by two things. The failure of the latest GW Pharma trial for drug resistant epilepsy in Eastern Europe. And the deliberate importation by several desperate families, of good old cannabis (CBD) oil into the UK. No medical processing required.

GW Pharma said their product Epidiolex (for the treatment of childhood epilepsy) is being considered by the European Medicines Agency

However, that is the UK.

Other cannabis companies can take a page out of the company’s handbook. All that is required for faster market entry, is a slightly altered recipe.

By sponsoring cannabis-related trials in each country they want to enter, starting with Germany, cannabis companies can literally put themselves on the medical map.

Why?

Because doctors, patients andother researchers will be easily able to see and access country-specific medical data on each use of cannabis covered by a trial, per EU country. All made possible, of course, by the new open door policy of the EMA.

Growing the Medical Market

While this may sound like an “expensive” proposition, there are really few other alternatives. And with no advertising budget, plus a marketing budget that must include outreach to everyone in the supply chain including doctors, distributors and even pharmacies, the trial approach in the end may be the most efficacious in broadening both the demand and market. Not to mention the cheaper option.

How such a trial strategy might be coordinated at a time when domestic cultivation is still on hold is still a question. However for those companies considering market entry and cultivation bid if not domestic processing strategies for their products is an industry strategy that will pay off in spades.

Its role in the legalization of cannabis as medicine, as well as the speedier introduction of new drugs overall into the European system,cannot be underestimated, even if it is currently underutilized by the cannabis industry specifically now.

Radojka Barycki picture

Food Safety: Do You Know What Is In Your Water?

By Radojka Barycki
No Comments
Radojka Barycki picture

Water is essential for life and it is an important part of agriculture and food manufacturing. Water has many uses in the cannabis industry. Among the most common uses are irrigation, ingredient/product processing and cleaning processes.

Water can be the carrier of pathogenic microorganisms and chemicals that can be transferred to food through agriculture and manufacturing practices. Poor quality water may have a negative impact in food processing and potentially on public health. Therefore, development and implementation of risk management plans that ensure the safety of water through the controls of hazardous constituents is essential to maintain the safety of agricultural and manufactured food or cannabis products.

Chemicals can enter the water stream through several sources such as storm water, direct discharge into fields and city water treatment plans.Although there no current regulations regarding the water used in cannabis cultivation and processing, it is highly recommended that the industry uses potable water as standard practice. Potable water is water that is safe for drinking and therefore for use in agriculture and food manufacturing. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the standards for water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA.)The regulations include the mandatory levels defined as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for each contaminant that can be found in water. Federal Drinking Water Standards are organized into six groups: Microorganisms, Disinfectants, Disinfection Byproducts, Inorganic Chemicals, Organic Chemicals and Radionuclides. The agriculture and food manufacturing industry use the SDWA as a standard to determine water potability. Therefore, water testing forms part of their routine programs. Sampling points for water sources are identified, and samples are taken and sent to a reputable laboratory to determine its quality and safety.

Microbiological Testing

Petri dish containing the fungus Aspergillus flavus
Petri dish containing the fungus Aspergillus flavus.
Photo courtesy of USDA ARS & Peggy Greb.

Determining the safety of the water through microbiological testing is very important. Pathogens of concern such as E. coli, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium parvum and Cyclospora sp. can be transmitted to food through water. These pathogens have been known to be lethal to humans, especially when a consumer’s immune system is compromised (e.g. cancer patients, elderly, etc.) If your water source is well, the local state agency may come to your facility and test the water regularly for indicator organisms such as coliforms. If the levels are outside the limit, a warning will be given to your company. If your water source is the city, regular testing at the facility for indicator microorganisms is recommended. In each case, an action plan must be in place if results are unfavorable to ensure that only potable water is used in the operations.

Chemical Testing (Disinfectants, Disinfection Byproducts, Inorganic Chemicals, Organic Chemicals and Radionuclides) 

Chemicals can enter the water stream through several sources such as storm water, direct discharge into fields and city water treatment plans. Although, there are several regulations governing the discharge of chemicals into storm water, fields and even into city water treatment plants, it is important that you test your incoming water for these chemicals on a regular basis. In addition, it is important that a risk assessment of your water source is conducted since you may be at a higher risk for certain components that require testing. For example, if your manufacturing facility is near an agricultural area, pesticides may enter the surface water (lakes, streams, and rivers) or the aquifer (ground water) through absorption into the ground or pollution. In this case, you may be at higher risk for Tetrahalomethanes (THMs), which are a byproduct of pesticides. Therefore, you should increase the testing for these components in comparison to other less likely to occur chemicals in this situation. Also, if your agriculture operation is near a nuclear plant, then radionuclides may become a higher risk than any of the other components.

GMPFinally, in addition to the implementation of risk management plans to ensure the safety of water, it is highly recommended that companies working in food manufacturing facilities become familiar with their water source to ensure adequate supply to carry on their operations, which is one of the requirements under the 21 CFR 117. Subpart B – Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) for food manufacturers under the Preventive Controls for Human Foods Rule that was enacted under the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2015. Also, adequate supply is part of the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) The EPA has created a program that allows you to conduct a risk assessment on your water source. This program is called Source Water Protection. It has six steps that are followed to develop a plan that not only protect sourcing but also ensures safety by identifying threats for the water supply. These six steps are:

  1. Delineate the Source Water Protection Area (SWPA): In this step a map of the land area that could contribute pollutants to the water is created. States are required to create these maps, so you should check with local and/or state offices for these.
  2. Inventory known and potential sources of contamination: Operations within the area may contribute contaminants into the water source. States usually delineates these operations in their maps as part of their efforts to ensure public safety. Some examples of operations that may contribute to contaminants into the water are: landfill, mining operations, nuclear plants, residential septic systems, golf courses, etc. When looking at these maps, be sure that you verify the identified sources by conducting your own survey. Some agencies may not have the resources to update the maps on a regular basis.
  3. Determine the susceptibility of the Public Water Source (PWS) to contaminate sources or activities within the SWPA: This is basically a risk assessment. In here you will characterize the risk based on the severity of the threat and the likelihood of the source water contamination. There are risk matrices that are used as tools for this purpose.
  4. Notify the public about threats identified in the contaminant source inventory and what they mean to the PWS: Create a communication plan to make the State and local agencies aware of any findings or accidents in your operation that may lead to contamination of the PWS.
  5. Implement management measures to prevent, reduce or eliminate risks to your water supply: Once risks are characterized, a plan must be developed and implemented to keep risks under control and ensure the safety of your water.
  6. Develop contingency planning strategies that address water supply contamination or service interruption emergencies: OSHA requires you to have an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP). This plans outlines what to do in case of an emergency to ensure the safety of the people working in the operation and the continuity of the business. This same approach should be taken when it comes to water supply. The main questions to ask are: a) What would we do if we find out the water has been contaminated? b) What plan is in place to keep the business running while ensure the safety of the products? c) How can we get the operation back up and running on site once the water source is re-stablished?

The main goal of all these programs is having safe water for the operations while keeping continuity of the business in case of water contamination.

German Public Health Insurer Takes First Look at Cannabis Coverage

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Techniker Krankenkassen (or TK as it is also frequently referred to) is one of Germany’s largest public or so-called “statutory” health insurance companies. It is companies like TK that provide health insurance to 90% of the German population.

TK is also on the front lines of the medical cannabis discussion. In fact, TK, along with other public health insurers AOK and Barmer, have processed the most cannabis prescriptions of all insurers so far in the first year after the law change. There are now approximately 15,000 patients who have received both a proper prescription and insurance approval coverage. That number is also up 5,000 since the beginning of just this year.

In a fascinating first look at the emerging medical market in Germany, TK, in association with the University of Bremen, has produced essentially the first accessible report on approvals, and patient demographics for this highly stigmatized drug.

Because it is in German, but also contains information critical to English-speaking audiences in countries where the medical issue is being approached more haphazardly (see the U.S. and Canada), Cannabis Industry Journal is providing a brief summary of the most important takeaways from TK’s Cannabis Report.

Patient demographics from the report

Most Patients Are Women

This is not exactly surprising in a system where symptomology rather than ability to pay is the driver of authorizations and care. This is also exactly the opposite trend when it comes to gender at least, that emerged in Colorado on the path to medical legalization circa 2010-2014. While chronic pain is still the most common reason for dispensation, the drug is going mostly to women, not men, in their forties, fifties and sixties.

Even Chronically Ill Patients Are Still not Getting Covered

This data is super interesting on the ground for both advocates and those who are now pushing forward on “doctor education” efforts that are springing up everywhere. The only condition for which cannabis was approved 100% was for patients suffering from terminal cancer pain from tumours. In other words, they were also either in hospice or hospital where this kind of drug can be expedited and approved quickly. Other conditions for which the drug was approved were both at far lower rates than might have been expected (see only a 70% approval rate for Epilepsy and a 33% approval rate for Depression).

Conditions and degrees of coverage chart from the report

Expect approval rates to change, particularly for established conditions where the drug clearly helps patients, even if there are still questions about dosing and which form of cannabis works best, along with improved research, data and even patient on boarding.

Also expect interesting data to come out of this market for patients with ADHD (or ADHS).

Imported Cannabis Is Very Expensive

A table showing the different medicines prescribed in Germany

TK and other public health insurers are also on the front lines of another issue not seen in any other legalizing cannabis country at the moment. An eye-wateringly high cost per patient. The biggest reason? Most of the medical cannabis in the market is being imported. This will change when more cannabis begins to enter the market from other EU countries (see Spain, the Baltics and Greece) and, yes, no matter how many elements of the German government are still fighting this one when it begins to be cultivated auf Deutschland.

Most German Patients Are Still Only Getting Dronabinol

If there was one thing that foreign investors should take a look at, it is this. One year after legalization, just over 1/3 of those who actually qualify for “medical cannabis” are in fact getting whole plant medication or a derivative (like Sativex).

This means only one thing. The market is continuing to grow exponentially over at least the next five to ten years.

piechart
Most German Patients Are Still Only Getting Dronabinol