After a delay due to their proficiency testing program roll out, the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) will now require all medical infused products and concentrates be tested for potency and homogeneity, starting November 1st, 2017.
After November 1st, all production batches of concentrates from medical product manufacturers will need to have a potency test before being sold, transferred or processed. The same goes for medical infused products, such as edibles and topicals. The homogeneity test refers to making sure THC or other active ingredients are distributed evenly throughout the product.
According to Alex Valvassori, author of a regulatory compliance-focused blog post on Complia’s website, these new testing requirements could lead to a surge in pricing, passed on to patients. He also recommends dispensaries take a close look at labels coming in from suppliers. They need to make sure potency data is listed clearly on the label to stay compliant.
Production batches created before November 1st are not required to meet the new testing regulations, but any and all batches after that date will be required to perform those tests.
Laboratories throughout the world and in a variety of industries get accredited to demonstrate their competency. In the cannabis industry, some states are beginning to require it and many labs get accredited even if their state doesn’t require it. So what does accreditation mean and why is it so important?
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a standard-setting organization that works to promote industrial and commercial standards. The standards set by ISO are designed to help prove a product’s safety and quality to a certain minimum level.
The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard sets specific requirements to demonstrate the competence of a lab for carrying out tests. It essentially shows customers or regulators that a lab has the skills and scientific know-how to perform testing, certifying the lab is capable. Accreditation means certifying a lab to that standard and is synonymous with both quality and competence of an organization.
The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), founded in 1978, is a non-profit, internationally recognized accreditation body in the United States that offers laboratory and laboratory-related accreditation services and training. They have worked in the cannabis industry to accredit a number of cannabis laboratories to the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard. In this series of articles, we sit down with experts from A2LA to learn more about cannabis lab accreditation, why it’s so important and some of the challenges labs face when seeking accreditation.
In the first part of this series, we sit down with Michelle Bradac, senior accreditation officer at A2LA, to learn the basics. Michelle earned a bachelor’s degree in Biology at Towson State University and then attended Hood College, earning a master’s certificate in Regulatory Compliance in Biomedical Science. She has worked at A2LA for eight years, assisting in the accreditation of food testing, environmental testing and cannabis testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025, as well as performing quality system assessments. She also facilitates a number of accreditation programs including Field Sampling Measurement Organizations, STAC (Air Emissions) and Cannabis Testing. Bradac is also a member of the ASTM Cannabis Working Group and the ACIL Cannabis Working Group.
In the next part of this series, we will hear about specific requirements in states, some of the benefits of using ISO/IEC 17025 and the influx of start-up or novice testing laboratories.
CannabisIndustryJournal: What is Laboratory Accreditation?
Michelle Bradac: Laboratory accreditation is a formal means of determining and recognizing the technical competence of laboratories to perform specific types of testing, via the use of an independent third party accreditation body. It provides laboratory users a mechanism to identify and select reliable testing organizations. Use of ISO/IEC 17025 as a basis for laboratory accreditation is internationally recognized as THE conformity assessment standard to which laboratories are accredited; it is used in the USA by both Public (State, local, federal (FDA, USDA, CDC, DoD and EPA) and private laboratories for testing of foods & feeds, drugs, cosmetics, tobacco, natural products and cannabis (among other materials and products).
CIJ: How does laboratory accreditation benefit the cannabis testing laboratory?
Michelle: It provides a framework for continuous improvement and self-correction where the cannabis testing laboratory data management system is independently reviewed and blinded sample Proficiency Testing is encouraged.
CIJ: How does laboratory accreditation benefit the medical cannabis recommending physician?
Michelle: The physician gains a greater degree of assurance that the material provided by the dispensary is what the label says it is. This is especially important in working with patients that are immunocompromised where heavy metals, residual solvents and harmful pesticides could have negative health consequences.
CIJ: How does the testing of medical cannabis by an accredited laboratory benefit the patient?
Michelle: The patient gains increased confidence that the label accurately reflects the potency and chemical properties of the product.
CIJ: What specific challenges does A2LA face in accrediting cannabis testing laboratories?
Michelle: Much of the typical infrastructure is lacking or only now being developed. This ranges from proficiency testing programs, Reference Material Producers, method development and sampling procedures. There is also difficulty in ensuring that laboratories are appropriately validating methods in states where cannabis product is not yet available.
CIJ: Why is A2LA the optimal choice for ensuring the quality and reliability of the results produced by medical marijuana testing laboratories?
Michelle: A2LA has by far the most experience as an accreditor of laboratories that perform testing of natural plant products. We have been performing assessments of and granting accreditation to these types of laboratories for over twenty years. This results in our staff and our assessor corps who are then able to provide valuable insight and technical sophistication that other accreditation bodies do not have. Specific to the cannabis industry, A2LA is also represented in all the major standards development organizations, tradeshows and industry groups; which strengthens our understanding of the industry and ability to assist our customers towards meeting their goal of obtaining accreditation.
Pennsylvania Medical Solutions, LLC (PAMS), won a license to grow medical cannabis in Pennsylvania, but some think the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) should reconsider awarding that license. PAMS is a subsidiary of Vireo Health, which has medical cannabis licenses in New York and Minnesota, as well as quite the blemish on their business record. In December 2015, two former employees were accused of breaking state and federal laws by transporting cannabis oil from Minnesota to New York. Because of that history, some are questioning why exactly they were awarded the PA medical cannabis license.
In that school of thought is Chris Goldstein, a Philadelphia-based cannabis advocate and author of an article on Philly.com, which calls PAMS’ license into question. According to Goldstein, Vireo Health could lose their licenses in New York and Minnesota, and those former employees involved might even face federal prosecution. “On the surface it would seem that Vireo broke every rule in the book,” says Goldstein. “Not only could the company lose its permits in both of those states, but employees could face federal prosecution for interstate transport and distribution.” But does that previous wrongdoing by two former employees have any bearing on their application in PA? In Maryland, it did. According to The Baltimore Sun, concerns surrounding MaryMed’s parent company, Vireo Health, is the main reason why their permit to grow medical cannabis was revoked.
In response to some of those concerns about their PA license, Andrew Mangini, spokesman for Vireo Health, issued the following statement, which appeared in Goldstein’s article: “While we’re aware of allegations against two former employees of an affiliate, those individuals have never had a role in our application or in the management of PAMS,” says Mangini. “It’s also important to note that our Minnesota affiliate and our parent company Vireo Health have not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with those allegations.”
Below is a timeline of events leading up to the PA DOH defending their decision to give PAMS a license:
December 2015: Two former employees of Minnesota Medical Solutions, a subsidiary of Vireo Health, transported a half-million dollars worth of cannabis oil from Minnesota to New York, violating state and federal laws.
February 9th, 2017: The two former employees were formally charged with crimes in Minnesota for illegally transporting cannabis across state lines.
February 20th-March 20th, 2017: PAMS submitted a license application to the PA DOH between these dates, listing their business state as Minnesota on the application.
May 2017: Maryland DOH suspended the licenses of MaryMed LLC, a subsidiary of Vireo Health, over concerns that the company did not provide information related to the Minnesota and New York licenses on their application, according to the Washington Post.
June 20th, 2017: PA DOH releases a list of license winners; PAMS was listed among winners for a cultivation license in Scranton.
June 26th, 2017: PA DOH officials defend their decision to award PAMS a license, according to a Philly.com article. That same day, The Baltimore Sun reported the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission revoked MaryMed, LLC their license, citing concerns about Vireo Health.
April Hutcheson, spokeswoman for the PA DOH, told Philly.com in June, “Remember, the permits are given to business entities, not people.” The point she is making refers to the charges being filed against former employees, not any of the businesses who hold medical cannabis licenses.
Steve Schain, Esq., an attorney with Hoban Law Group in Pennsylvania, has seen no objective evidence of anything wrongful in either PAMS’ application or the DOH’s processing of it. “Marijuana related businesses often have distinct, affiliated components and the Department of Health faces two critical issues,” says Schain.
“First, whether grow applicant PA Medical Solutions, LLC (PAMS) had a duty to disclose alleged wrongdoing on its application, failed to fulfill this duty and, if so, whether PAMS’ application should be amended, re-scored or disqualified. Second, as part of its ongoing license reporting requirements, whether grow licensee PAMS has any duty to disclose the alleged wrongdoing. The answer to much of this hinges on whether criminal or administrative charges were leveled against just Vireo Health’s former employees or also included the entity and whether these individuals or enterprise fell within Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Organization Permit Application definition of an “Applicant” (“individual or business applying for the permit”) or applicant’s “Principals, Financial Backers, Operators or Employees” of PAMS. Either way, it does not presently appear that the [PA] DOH missed anything.”
This does raise the question of whether or not Vireo Health is under investigation, which is yet to be determined. According to Goldstein in his Philly.com article, the Minnesota DOH declined to comment on Vireo Health and the New York DOH says the department’s investigation is ongoing. “The selection of a Vireo Health affiliate to grow and process medical cannabis in Pennsylvania has cast a serious shadow over the integrity of the program even before it has started,” says Goldstein.
In Maryland, the DOH revoked their license as a direct result of those former employees in Minnesota committing crimes, according to The Baltimore Sun. Commissioner Eric Sterling said there is “a reasonable likelihood of diversion of medical cannabis by the applicant.” So should Pennsylvania do the same? Do those crimes by former employees have any bearing on their application? This story raises a number of questions regarding applications for state licenses that are largely left unanswered. One thing we know for certain: each state handles applications very differently.
The lab was accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 – General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, so they are now able to test for pesticides in cannabis and other matrices, according to the press release published today. “WSDA sought this accreditation to ensure our clients can have absolute confidence in our testing methods and lab results. The information we produce drives enforcement cases and policy decisions,” says Mike Firman, manager of the WSDA Chemical and Hop Laboratory. “We want to do everything that can be done to make sure our data is reliable.”
The A2LA Cannabis Accreditation Program is essentially a set of standards for quality in testing cannabis and cannabis-based products, such as infused products, tinctures and concentrates. ISO 17025 accreditation is quickly become a desirable certification for laboratories. Many states strongly encourage or even require ISO 17025 accreditation for cannabis laboratories. California recently released a set of proposed lab testing regulations for the cannabis industry that specifically requires an ISO 17025 accreditation in order for laboratories to issue certificates of analysis.
Because each state’s requirements for laboratories testing cannabis varies so greatly, A2LA works with state regulators to craft their accreditation program to meet each state’s specific requirements. “A2LA is excited to play such an important role in the accreditation of cannabis testing laboratories and is pleased to see ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation expanding into additional states,” says A2LA General Manager Adam Gouker. “Priority must be placed on ensuring that cannabis products are tested by competent laboratories to convey confidence in the results – a cornerstone which underpins the safety to all end-users.” A2LA is currently accepting applications for cannabis laboratories working to receive accreditation. Labs that already have ISO 17025 accreditation and are in a state with legal cannabis, have the ability to expand their scope of accreditation if they are looking to get into cannabis testing.
Legal marijuana sales are expected to hit $6.7 billion in 2016, with the market expected to climb to $21.8 billion in sales by 2020. As legal cannabis sales rise, cannabis labels are quickly becoming one of the fastest growing markets for label manufacturers.
An Industry Gaining Legitimacy
Since California first legalized medical cannabis in 1996, the cannabis industry has grown considerably. Voters in four states legalized recreational cannabis last week on Election Day, including California, which is currently the world’s 6th largest economy. Voters in another four states legalized medical cannabis as well, bringing the total to 28 states with some form of legalization measure.
Legal cannabis has primarily consisted of dispensaries selling cannabis flower or leaves (ready-to-smoke marijuana) in pouches or childproof containers. Regulations have essentially required two cannabis labels for the pouches: a branded label on the front and a regulatory label on the back. Many dispensaries also use pre-printed pouches.
Similar to the way alcohol labels must contain information for alcohol content, the informational labels that sit on the backs of pouches are legally required to provide certain accurate information, including:
Net weight in grams
Lab name and test number confirmation
And cannabis flower labels are just the beginning. Many smoke-free product categories are emerging with similar labeling requirements. These often allow for increased branding opportunities that will afford better profit margins for label suppliers. Some of the many products in this young category include:
Edibles — such as dark chocolates, baked goods, snack crackers and teas infused with cannabis.
Topicals — such as pain-relieving lotions and creams.
Tinctures — cannabis-infused oils that are applied in drops to the tongue.
Bottom line: For label and packaging suppliers, cannabis represents one of the fastest growing market opportunities today and the opportunities extend way beyond labeling for the flower itself.
As more and more states move toward legalization and regulation, uneven laws in different states are increasingly governing the market. Businesses must respond to ever-changing requirements, including labeling standards. While many dispensaries have gotten away with minimalist labels, states are increasingly demanding dispensaries meet more stringent legal requirements. For example, Oregon passed new labeling requirements this year and products that failed to meet them by October 1, 2016 were not allowed on store shelves.
Label suppliers entering the market must keep abreast of the changing regulations and be able to help brands navigate them. They need to work to understand the intricacies of this new market, rather than simply looking to redirect the capabilities they already possess. See the original post here.