Tag Archives: report

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.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 3

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 last two articles, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) paperwork wall used if a grower, processor or dispensary (user/client) questioned a laboratory result and the conflicts of interest that exist in laboratory culture. Now I will discuss the second line of defense that a laboratory will present to the user in the paperwork wall: Quality Control (QC) results.

Do not be discouraged by the analytical jargon of the next few articles. I suggest that you go immediately to the conclusions to get the meat of this article and then read the rest of it to set you on the path to see the forest for the trees.

QC in a laboratory consists of a series of samples run by the laboratory to determine the accuracy and precision of a specific batch of samples. So, to start off, let’s look at the definitions of accuracy and precision.QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

According to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater:

Accuracy: estimate of how close a measured value is to the true value; includes expressions for bias and precision.

Precision: a measure of the degree of agreement among replicate analyses of a sample.

A reputable laboratory will measure the Accuracy and Precision of QC samples in a batch of user samples and record these values in both the analytical test report issued to the user and in control charts kept by the laboratory. These control charts can be reviewed by the user if they are requested by the user. These control charts record:

Accuracy (means) chart: The accuracy chart for QC samples (e.g., LRB, CCV, LFBs, LFMs, and surrogates) is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements of the analyte of interest.

Precision (range) chart: The precision chart also is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements (e.g., %RSD or RPD) for replicate of duplicate analyses of the analyte of interest.

Now, let’s look at what should be run in a sample batch for cannabis analyses. The typical cannabis sample would have analyses for cannabinoids, terpenes, microbiological, organic compounds, pesticides and heavy metals.

Each compound listed above would require a specific validated analytical method for the type of matrix being analyzed. Examples of specific matrixes are:

  • Cannabis buds, leaves, oil
  • Edibles, such as Chocolates, Baked Goods, Gummies, Candies and Lozenges, etc.
  • Vaping liquids
  • Tinctures
  • Topicals, such as lotions, creams, etc.

Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.

Also, both ISO 17025-2005 and ISO 17025-2017 require the use of a validated method.

ISO 17025-2005: When it is necessary to use methods not covered by standard methods, these shall be subject to agreement with the customer and shall include a clear specification of the customer’s requirements and the purpose of the test and/or calibration. The method developed shall have been validated appropriately before use.

ISO 17025-2017: The laboratory shall validate non-standard methods, laboratory-developed methods and standard methods used outside their intended scope or otherwise modified. The validation shall be as extensive as is necessary to meet the needs of the given application or field of application.

Validation procedures can be found in a diverse number of analytical chemistry associations (such as AOACand ASTM) but the State of California has directed users and laboratories to the FDA manual “Guidelines for the Validation of Chemical Methods for the FDA FVM Program, 2nd Edition, 2015

The laboratory must have on file for user review the following minimum results in an analytical statistical report validating their method:

  • accuracy,
  • limit of quantitation,
  • ruggedness,
  • precision,The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts.
  • linearity (or other calibration model),
  • confirmation of identity
  • selectivity,
  • range,
  • spike recovery.
  • limit of detection,
  • measurement uncertainty,

The interpretation of an analytical statistical report will be discussed in detail in the next article. Once the validated method has been selected for the specific matrix, then a sample batch is prepared for analysis.

Sample Batch: A sample batch is defined as a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of twenty (20) analytical samples run during a normal analyst’s daily shift. A LRB, LFB, LFM, LFMD, and CCV will be run with each sample batch. Failure of any QC sample in sample batch will require a corrective action and may require the sample batch to be reanalyzed. The definitions of the specific QC samples are described later.

The typical sample batch would be set as:

  • Instrument Start Up
  • Calibration zero
  • Calibration Standards, Quadratic
  • LRB
  • LFB
  • Sample used for LFM/LFMD
  • LFM
  • LFMD
  • Samples (First half of batch)
  • CCV
  • Samples (Second half of batch)
  • CCV

The QC samples are defined as:

Calibration Blank: A volume of reagent water acidified with the same acid matrix as in the calibration standards. The calibration blank is a zero standard and is used to calibrate the ammonia analyzer

Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV): A calibration standard, which is analyzed periodically to verify the accuracy of the existing calibration for those analytes.

Calibration Standard: A solution prepared from the dilution of stock standard solutions. These solutions are used to calibrate the instrument response with respect to analyte concentration

Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): An aliquot of reagent water or other blank matrix to which known quantities of the method analytes and all the preservation compounds are added. The LFB is processed and analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the methodology is in control, and whether the laboratory is capable of making accurate and precise measurements.

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix/Duplicate (LFM/LFMD) also called Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD): An aliquot of an environmental sample to which known quantities of ammonia is added in the laboratory. The LFM is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix contributes bias to the analytical results. The background concentrations of the analytes in the sample matrix must be determined in a separate aliquot and the measured values in the LFM corrected for background concentrations (Section 9.1.3).Laboratories must validate their methods.

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB): A volume of reagent water or other blank matrix that is processed exactly as a sample including exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents and reagents, sample preservatives, surrogates and internal standards that are used in the extraction and analysis batches. The LRB is used to determine if the method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Once a sample batch is completed, then some of the QC results are provided in the user’s analytical report and all of the QC results should be recorded in the control charts identified in the accuracy and precision section above.

But having created a batch and performing QC sample analyses, the validity of the user’s analytical results is still not guaranteed. Key conclusion points to consider are:

  1. Laboratories must validate their methods.
  2. Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.
  3. QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts. Areas to look at will be covered in the next few articles in this series.

Rob Adelson
Soapbox

Collaborative Health Model to Advance Cannabis Research

By Rob Adelson
No Comments
Rob Adelson

The projected growth of the legal cannabis market is astounding. According to a report from BDS Analytics, the industry is expected to grow from $9.2B to $47.3B in 2027 in North America, with medical cannabis contributing 33% of that overall growth. While this number is impressive for an industry still in its infancy, I have reason to believe it can be much higher.

In the pharmaceutical industry, treatment of pain and insomnia represent an annual revenue exceeding $140B; concurrently, studies have shown cannabis to be an effective treatment for both conditions. If medical cannabis can capture 10% of that revenue over the next ten years, it essentially doubles the current estimates mentioned above.

So, what stands in our way? Education.

To gain acceptance from the medical community, physicians need to better understand the plant and its therapeutic benefits. To do so, they need more substantial data to prove cannabis’ efficacy before prescribing it to their patients. However, federal illegalities have prevented government-mandated clinical studies, but I believe there’s another way.

By adopting a collaborative health care model, patients and caregivers can work together to track the effectiveness of their cannabis treatments and share their learnings with the larger medical community.  With the right tools in place, we can fast-track the research process and provide physicians and politicians with the information they need to make this medicine more approachable and accessible to those who could benefit from it.

By harnessing the power of the community, we can apply learnings from one patient’s cannabis use to help countless others.The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was a five-year study consisting of approximately 2500 patients with back and spine conditions. Participants entered qualitative data into an online portal, including post-surgical results and patient outcomes, to provide a comprehensive insight into treatment methods and their efficacy. Today, others suffering with those same conditions can enter their personal information into an online calculator and receive a prospective treatment plan. Together, patients and their doctors can view results and build a customized plan using more informed decisions about the available treatment options.

Another example comes from OpenNotes– an exploratory study that provides patients with full access to their medical files and the opportunity to input comments about their doctor visits and prognosis and make corrections related to the care they received. Results showed that this process helped patients retain a better understanding of their condition which improved their decision making and resulted in increased adherence to treatment plan protocols because they had greater trust with their doctors.Not only will this improve the patient experience by providing a safer, more sustainable treatment option, it also provides a very significant financial opportunity.

I believe the cannabis industry can take a leadership role in empowering patients to become active participants in their own treatment, while also sharing knowledge with the larger patient and physician communities. In fact, this core belief was the reason I founded Resolve Digital Health. Data-empowered patients not only make better decisions but also enjoy a greater feeling of control over their treatment. The power of collaborative healthcare grows exponentially when the data is shared to educate a broader group. By harnessing the power of the community, we can apply learnings from one patient’s cannabis use to help countless others.

Businesses within the cannabis industry can also leverage this data to create new products and services. For example, insights as to what products work best for certain conditions can help LP’s improve their product offerings and guide recommendations from dispensaries. Through product innovation, companies can make cannabis more accessible to a larger group of patients, who may be currently taking pharmaceuticals. Not only will this improve the patient experience by providing a safer, more sustainable treatment option, it also provides a very significant financial opportunity.

Ultimately, knowledge is power. When patients are empowered to make educated decisions about their health care and doctors are more tuned into the patient-tested cannabis treatment options, it’s a win-win for everyone.

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.

German Media Reports Dramatic Increase in Cannabis Patients Covered by Insurance

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

German media is now reporting that in the first 10 months of medical cannabis reform, over 13,000 applications for medical cannabis have been received by the largest three public health insurance companies. Most of the applications were received (and processed) by AOK who received 7,600 applications. Barmer received 3,200 applications. Krankenkassen Techniker (or TK as it is widely referred to here) received approximately 2,200 applications.

The reality is that most patients still rely on the black market.Between 62-64% of those who applied at the big three were also reimbursed. That means that there are already close to 10,000 patients, if not slightly more, covered under some kind of reimbursed cannabis scheme in Germany (where cannabis costs only $10 per month as a co-paid expense). When cannabis is not covered by health insurance, however, patients must pay out of pocket for the drug which can run as much as $3,000 for a single month’s supply.

This information is also being released, fascinatingly, not from the government, insurance companies or even advocacy groups. Instead it comes from a report produced by local media (the Rheinische Post in Dusseldorf). The media outlet surveyed the three top largest health insurance companies on the number of cannabis-as-medicine applications they have received since the cannabis law was reformed last year.

Home cultivation and recreational use, except in a few city trials now underway in places like Bremen, is still outlawed on a federal level. The new law also specifically prohibits patients from growing their own. And since the reform law passed last year, the prevailing story from patients is the difficulties they have had in not only finding a doctor willing to prescribe cannabis, but also getting their health insurers to reimburse them for huge out of pocket expenses that most of the chronically ill can never hope to afford.

The reality is that most patients still rely on the black market. It is still easier to get cannabis this way. And far cheaper – unless of course approved by health insurance.

What Does This Mean For The Bigger Picture?

Despite the fact that many in the mainstream German media are still highly sceptical of the medical efficacy of cannabis, the tide is turning here too, rather dramatically. According to recent polls, about 57% of the country is ready for recreational reform. That means in the last four to five years, the majority of public opinion has also shifted. It is also clear that medical cannabis cannot be as easily dismissed as it once was. Here or anywhere.

What makes this even more interesting is the impact this now moving situation will have on the debate, particularly domestically, but also internationally.

The first is that Germany clearly has a huge number of potential patients. Local advocates put the real number here north of 1 million for conditions the drug is commonly prescribed for in other places. At the present time, the only doctors who are allowed to prescribe the drug must also have a special license to dispense such restricted “narcotics” as cannabis is now classified auf Deutsch. And the only “on-label” condition for cannabis is still Multiple Sclerosis. That means that cancer, AIDS, chronic pain and movement disorder patients, along with those who manage to get approved for PTSD, ADD, depression and other “psychological” disorders only get the drug approved as a measure of “last resort.” In other words, after all other drugs fail. That is a high bar to pass.

The second, as a result, is that these numbers appear artificially low for another reason. The government claimed upon passage of the cannabis reform legislation last year that it expected only 10,000 new patients a year for the first few years (and before domestic cultivation began). As these results already prove, there are clearly far more patients who want the drug than those who can get it. There are also more patients whose doctors are willing to write prescriptions for the drug than are getting reimbursed by public health insurance.Bottom line? No matter how slow it is in getting started, the medical cannabis market has arrived in Germany. The numbers will only grow from here.

Third, this entire debate is now happening at a time when Germany is re-examining its own health insurance policies. While 90% of the country is on much cheaper public healthcare, 10% of the country, mostly the self-employed, foreigners and high earners, have private coverage. This is highly expensive, and ends up trapping even Germans in a system that is unaffordable as they age. In fact, the issue is a big one in Berlin right now as particularly the SPD is pushing Chancellor Merkel and the CDU to finally address a growing problem.

The law last year mandated that public health insurance must cover cannabis if prescribed under the right conditions. That means that private health insurers have to cover it too.

On the cannabis front specifically, what this may indicate, however, is that the public health insurers are being tasked to only approve a certain pre-identified number of patients nationally in the early part of the cannabis program. Especially as all of the medical cannabis in the country is still imported – and most of that is still coming from Canada.

What these numbers clearly show however, beyond all the caveats, is that demand is starting to pick up. Cannabis as medicine has not entirely caught on in the mainstream, although Germans are clearly interested in the idea. Especially given all the noise and news from abroad on this front.

It also means that no matter how “anaemic” these numbers may seem in early 2018, it is a respectable kick-off to what many in the industry view as one of the world’s most lucrative medical cannabis markets. Counting the approximately 1,000 patients who received medical cannabis before the law changed last year, it is safe to say that the market is now up and running.

Bottom line? No matter how slow it is in getting started, the medical cannabis market has arrived in Germany. The numbers will only grow from here.

How Does This Compare To Other Countries?

But how does the German patient ramp up compare to other countries after significant reform has been passed?

In Canada, the cannabis-as-medication discussion is clearly mainstream as the country prepares to launch its recreational program later this summer. The medical program began in 2014. The most recently released figures as of the beginning of January 2018, show that medical cannabis has clearly caught on. Health Canada’s most recent figures show that by September of last year, there were 235,621 registered cannabis patients in the country. Significantly, this is also up dramatically from 174,503 registered patients as of just April 2017. The previous year, the total number of cannabis patients literally tripled in 2016. To put this in “historical perspective,” as of Q1 2015, about a year into the new medical law in Canada, there were “only” 23,930 patients (or about twice the number in Germany as of now). This growth is all the more impressive when one considers that there is no mandate for insurance coverage of the drug in Canada. That said, cannabis is far cheaper in Canada. It is of course covered domestically. Plus the licensed producers can mail order it directly to patients.

Israel’s path to medical cannabis access has been slower off the ground in terms of overall numbers, but it is has still dramatically expanded over the past decade too. In 2012, there were about 10,000 cannabis patients in Israel. That number more than doubled by 2016 to over 23,000 patients. This will continue to increase too. Israel’s medical cannabis is covered under national health insurance and patients must pay about $100 a month for their meds.

What Is The Official German Government Response To This News?

Marlene Mortler, German drug commissioner for the federal government and affiliated with the CSU, has issued comments that seem to be supportive of the continued program in Germany. “The growing number of permits shows how important it was to launch this law last year,” she said, while warning that medical cannabis is not a panacea.

MJ Freeway Hardships Linger

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

MJ Freeway, a seed-to-sale traceability software company with a number of government contracts, has been making headlines this year for all the wrong reasons. A series of security breaches, website crashes and implementation delays have beleaguered the software company throughout 2017.

Just this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported the company’s services crashed Saturday night and Monday afternoon. That article also mentions an anonymous hacker tried to sell sensitive information from the Washington and Nevada hacks in September. Back in April, when Pennsylvania awarded the state’s contract to MJ Freeway for its tracking system, Amy Poinsett, co-founder and chief executive officer of MJ Freeway told reporters “I think I can confidently say we are the most secure cannabis company in this particular industry.” It is safe to say this is now being called into question.

Earlier this week, New Cannabis Venture’s Alan Brochstein reported that MJ Freeway is unable to meet Washington’s October 31st deadline to integrate their software with the state, forcing customers to manually report data.

Roughly a month ago, Nevada suddenly cancelled their contract with MJ Freeway, just two years into their five-year deal. Back in June, the company’s source code was stolen and published online. And back in January of this year, the company’s sales and inventory system was the target of a cyber attack.

According to an email we obtained, all of MJFreeway’s clients in Spain experienced an online outage, but that services were restored within 24 hours. In an email sent to clients in Spain, the company told customers that the problems were the result of a system failure. “Our initial analysis indicates that this was a system failure and unfortunately none of the data was able to be successfully retrieved from the backup archive due to an error but we can assure you that none of your data was extracted or viewed at any moment,” reads the email. “We are extremely distressed regarding the event that occurred with the system and the service interruption that occurred yesterday. We recognize that this is a situation that is very serious and negatively impacts your club.” The email says that MJ Freeway is addressing those problems in a few ways, one of which being ongoing audits of their data backups. “The event has led us to reconstruct our “hosting environment” in Europe to use the latest technology from Amazon Web Services with the best redundancy, flexibility and security, using the highest stability measures in the AWS environment,” reads the email. While the site will be restored fully, according the email, historical data is lost. The company is working with their clients to help them get data back into the system. 

The Emerald Test Yields Positive Results for Cannabis Labs

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Emerald Scientific recently announced results for their latest round of the semi-annual Inter-Laboratory Comparison and Proficiency Test (ILC/PT), and the outcomes may bode well for one of the most vital quality and safety aspects of the cannabis industry. According to Cynthia Ludwig, director of technical services at the American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS), there are no official methods for cannabis testing from an internationally recognized non-profit organization known to provide ‘official methods’ to various industries, so method validation needs to be done in-house, which is very costly and time-consuming. Cannabis testing labs are charged with the difficult task of providing honest, consistent and accurate results for potency, pesticide residue, residual solvents and contaminants. AOCS partnered with Emerald Scientific in this round of ILC/PT and preformed the statistical analysis and reports. For the first time in The Emerald Test’s history, participants were able to review all of the raw data and were given a consensus mean, z-scores and kernel density plots in order to compare themselves to other participants.emerald test retail

rsz_emerald-scientific_letterhead-1Emerald Scientific’s ILC/PT program measures how accurately a cannabis lab performs along with comparing it to other labs for an indicator of variability and ways to improve, according to a press release. 46 cannabis laboratories participated in The Emerald Test’s latest round of proficiency testing for potency and residual solvents. Cynthia Ludwig sits on the advisory panel to give direction and industry insights, addressing specific needs for cannabis laboratories. Kirsten Blake, director of sales at Emerald Scientific, believes that proficiency testing is the first step in bringing consistency to cannabis analytics. “The goal is to create some level of industry standards for testing,” says Blake. Participants in the program are given data sets, judged by a consensus mean, so labs can see their score compared to the rest of the cannabis testing industry.

Steep_Hill_Washington_2016_Spring_Emerald_Test_Potency_award_badgeProficiency tests like The Emerald Test give labs the ability to view how consistent their results are compared to the industry’s results overall. According to Ludwig, the results were pleasantly surprising. “The results were better than expected across the board; the vast majority of labs were within the acceptable range,” says Ludwig. The test is anonymous so individual labs can participate freely. “The overall performance of the participating labs in the Potency and Solvent Residue Emerald Test were very encouraging,” says Ludwig. “All but a couple of labs had the majority of their results fall within two standard deviations of the consensus mean, which is generally accepted as being within the acceptable limits to most evaluators.” Although requirements for labs testing cannabis differ in each state, Ludwig says the results show the ability of these labs to competently perform the tests and generate reliable results. “Given the lack of harmonized regulations, this is a testament to the self-imposed quality standards the industry is trying to achieve.”

Reggie Gaudino, Ph.D., vice president of scientific operations and director of genetics at Steep Hill Laboratories. (photo credit: Preston Gannaway)
Reggie Gaudino, Ph.D., vice president of scientific operations and director of genetics at Steep Hill Laboratories. (photo credit: Preston Gannaway)

Among the laboratories that participated, Steep Hill Laboratories joined the test at two of their locations. Reggie Gaudino, Ph.D., vice president of scientific operations and director of genetics at Steep Hill Laboratories, believes that tests like the Emerald Test ensure that the cannabis labs are performing their function to the best of their ability, which is extraordinarily important. “We, and not just Steep Hill, but all testing labs, are the custodians of quality and safety for the cannabis industry,” says Gaudino. “If we are not doing our best to ensure the quality of our science is beyond reproach, then we are failing the consumer; if even one person gets sick or dies because a lab cut corners and tried to make extra money, that is one person too many.” Accurate testing comes from internal and external proficiency testing.

According to Gaudino, how cannabis labs perform in The Emerald Test can affect every aspect of cannabis consumption: “Correct dosing from potency analysis reports, identification of as many, if not all, active compounds known to enable the consumer to make a determination as to which strain, edible or concentrate would be most beneficial and assurance that there are no harmful chemicals or biological contaminants on cannabis or cannabis derivatives; all of it stems from being able to accurately test.” Gaudino is a major proponent of The Emerald Test because it provides some measure of consistency and accuracy in the cannabis industry. Until more consistent regulations for cannabis testing are formed on a national scale, self-imposed quality standards such as The Emerald Test helps labs, growers and consumers know they are getting reliable data.