Tag Archives: requirement

Aaron_headshot
Biros' Blog

Should PA Revoke a Cannabis License For Their Parent Company’s Past?

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments
Aaron_headshot

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.

A part of the PAMS application

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surrounding MaryMed’s parent company, Vireo Health, is the main reason why their permit to grow medical cannabis was revoked.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. practicing at the Hoban law Group

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.”

The list of permit winners in PA

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.

A2LA Accredits First Cannabis Testing Laboratory in Washington State

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) announced today that they just accredited the Washington State Department of Agriculture-Chemical and Hop Laboratory to ISO 17025. The laboratory, based in Yakima, WA, finished the accreditation process on May 3, 2017.

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.

Soapbox

Labeling Cannabis Products is a Booming Market

By Marsha Frydrychowski
1 Comment

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.

The market is moving ahead and will not be limited to small businesses and dispensaries either. Already, more than 50 publicly traded companies have blitzed the market, including pharmaceuticals, medical growers and even major tech companies.

An example of a cannabis flower label in Oregon with all of the required information.
An example of a cannabis flower label in Oregon with all of the required information.

What’s more, public support for full cannabis legalization is at an all-time high 61 percent, according to a recent survey from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The market is here to stay.

Cannabis flower labels

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:

The universal symbol required on all cannabis products in Colorado
The universal symbol required on all cannabis products in Colorado
  • THC %
  • CBD %
  • Net weight in grams
  • Lab name and test number confirmation
  • Batch number
  • Date tested
  • Strain name
  • Warning Label

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.

Managing Compliance

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.