By Leif Olsen

Even though half of U.S. states and the District of Colombia now permit the possession of medical or recreational cannabis, state regulatory bodies differ greatly in their approaches to managing our industry. In Washington, anyone over the age of 21 can legally possess one ounce of usable cannabis and/or seven grams of concentrate. In Minnesota, patients are only allowed to purchase non-smokable cannabis in pill, liquid or oil form.

Given these substantial differences, it is no surprise that the application process to open a dispensary or cultivation facility also varies from state to state. The question I am most often asked (and catch myself mulling over late at night) is what can applicants do to ensure their success, regardless of where they are applying?

Recently we helped a client secure one of the first 15 licenses issued to grow medical cannabis in Maryland. The Maryland application process was particularly unique because most of the applicants had political or law-enforcement ties, or were connected to successful out-of-state growers. That experience, along with our work in places like Arizona, Colorado and Florida, has shown me the importance of teamwork, diversity and security in developing a winning application.

So here are my suggestions for ensuring a successful submission, regardless of which state you are operating in:

Build the Right Team. My dad likes to say, “Use the right tool for the right job.” I think the same is true about creating the team for your application. Do not assume one or two people will be able to fill all of the required roles. You will need experts in a range of different areas including medicine, pharmacology, capital investment, cultivation, real estate, security and law.
Focus on Diversity. I think one of the reasons we have been successful in helping clients secure applications (we are six for six, in six different states) is our commitment to gender, racial and even geographic diversity. For example, we recently helped a client secure a license in an economically underdeveloped area. I think our choice to headquarter the new business outside of the metropolitan corridor was at least partially responsible for our success.
The Devil is in the Details. According to ArcView Market Research, the cannabis industry is expected to be worth $23 billion by 2020. If you want to be one of the organizations selected by your state to sell cannabis, you need to have your act together. Most applications ask incredibly detailed questions. Therefore it is essential that you answer them thoroughly and accurately. All answers should be in compliance with your state’s regulations.
Put Safety First. You will need a comprehensive plan that takes all aspects of security into account. This includes everything from hiring security guards to purchasing cameras, and implementing internal anti-theft procedures. Regardless of the size of your operation, safety should be a primary consideration.
Secure Funding. Successful cannabis businesses require capital. It’s important to be realistic about the amount of money you will need to have on hand. Application costs typically range from $500,000 to $1 million. This will cover things like hiring an architect or leasing land. Ideally, your organization will have another $5 to $10 million or more available to start your project once you’ve been approved so that you can quickly become operational.
Connect With Your Community. It is essential to consider the impact of your business on the community. Being a good corporate citizen means being transparent and engaging in a two-way dialogue with neighbors, government officials and patients. I strongly recommend that my clients develop a comprehensive community outreach plan that designates which organizations they plan to work with, (hospitals or universities, for example) and what the nature of those partnerships will be.

October 6, 2016

The Nerd Perspective

Detecting the Undetectable

By Amanda Rigdon

4 Comments

In my last column, I took a refreshing step out of the weeds of the specifics behind cannabis analyses and took a broader, less technical look at the cannabis industry. I had envisioned The Nerd Perspective being filled with profound insights that I have had in the cannabis industry, but I have realized that if I restricted this column to insights most would consider profound…well…there would not be many articles. So in this article, I want to share an insight with you, but not one that is earth shattering. Instead, I want to talk about a simple concept in a way that might help you think a little differently about the results your lab generates, the results you have to pay for or even the results printed on a cannabis product you might purchase.

This article is all about the simple concept of concentration – the expression of how much of something there is in relation to something else. We use expressions of concentration all the time – calories per serving, percent alcohol in beer, even poll results in the presidential election circus. Cannabis is not excluded from our flippant use of concentration terms – percent cannabinoid content, parts-per-million (ppm) residual solvents, and parts-per-billion (ppb) pesticides. Most of us know the definition of percent, ppm, and ppb, and we use these terms all the time when discussing cannabis analytical methods. During my career in analytical chemistry, it has occurred to me that parts per billion is a really infinitesimal amount…I know that intellectually, but I have never tried to actually visualize it. So being the nerd that I am, I went about comparing these often-used concentration terms visually in my kitchen.

I started by preparing a 1% solution of food coloring paste in water. This was accomplished by weighing out 5g of the food coloring and dissolving it into 500mL of water (about one teaspoon into a pint). The resulting solution was so dark it was almost black:

The picture above expresses the low end of what we care about in terms of cannabinoid concentration and a pretty normal value for a high-concentration terpene in cannabis.

I then took one teaspoon of that mixture and dissolved it into 1.32 gallons of water (5mL into 5000mL), resulting in a 10ppm solution of green food coloring in water:

I did not expect the resulting solution to be so light colored given the almost-black starting solution, but I did dilute the solution one thousand times. To put this into perspective, 10ppm is well above many state regulatory levels for benzene in a cannabis concentrate.

I then took one teaspoon of the almost-colorless 10ppm solution and dissolved that into another 1.32 gallons of water, resulting in a very boring-looking 10ppb solution of green food coloring in water:

Obviously, since I diluted the almost-colorless 10ppm solution a thousand times, the green food coloring cannot be seen in the picture above. As a reference, 10ppb is on the low end of some regulations for pesticides in food matrices, including – possibly – cannabis. I know the above picture is not really very compelling, so let’s think in terms of mass. The picture above shows eleven pounds of water. That eleven pounds of water contains 50 micrograms of food coloring…the weight of a single grain of sand.

To expand on the mass idea, let’s take a look at the total mass of cannabis sold legally in Colorado in 2015 – all 251,469 pounds of it. To express just how staggeringly small the figure of 10ppb is, if we assume that all of that cannabis was contaminated with 10ppb of abamectin, the total mass of abamectin in that huge amount of cannabis would be just 1.143g – less than half the mass of a penny.

To me, that is an extremely compelling picture. The fact is there are instruments available that can measure such infinitesimal concentrations. What’s more, these tiny concentrations can be measured in the presence of relatively massive amounts of other compounds – cannabinoids, terpenes, sugars, fats – that are always present in any given cannabis sample. The point I’d like to make is that the accurate measurement of trace amounts of cannabis contaminants including pesticides and residual solvents is an astounding feat that borders on magical. This feat is not magic though. It requires extremely delicate instrumentation, ultra-pure reagents, expert analysts, and labor-intensive sample preparation. It is far from trivial, and unlike magic, requires a large investment on the part of the laboratories performing this feat of science. Other industries have embraced this reality, and the cannabis industry is well on its way toward that end…hopefully this article will help put the job of the cannabis analytical lab into perspective.

October 5, 2016

Cannabusiness Sustainability

Packaging: Four Sustainability Principles

By Brett Giddings, Olivia L. Dubreuil, Esq.

No Comments

As with any product, packaging has a vast range of sustainability considerations that should be accounted for in its design, development and use. Often the most visible component of any product, and certainly so for most forms of cannabis products, packaging is a key sustainability issue for the entire cannabis supply chain.

What is sustainable cannabis packaging and what does it look like? This can be a loaded question, but one we can revisit after considering the basic functions of packaging.

Cannabis packaging, and packaging generally, is designed to perform three basic functions: protection, preservation and promotion. If it does not adequately address these three areas then the chance of product failure, loss of consumer trust and increased waste is likely.

Let’s take a high level look at each of these:

Protection: Whilst cannabis is not currently travelling huge distances, like some of the food we consume, protection is key at each point of the supply chain. Inputs into the growing process often come packaged, flowers and such are packaged for shipping and storage, bulk-packaged cannabis is sent to dispensaries, extractors, etc, and ultimately re-packed into what will become the consumer-facing packaging. Importantly for cannabis, it may require an additional level of protection to ensure children are not able to access the contents.

Preservation: Like any consumable item, cannabis has a shelf life, and packaging plays a key role in preserving the usability of the product. Whether it is a chocolate, a cannabis-infused drink, or flowers, it is critical that each product maintains a certain level of quality and consistency.

Promotion: Packaging allows one part of the supply chain to communicate specific elements of a product to those further along the supply chain. The most obvious, and for cannabis probably the most important, is the communication of contents within a packaged item (labeling), such as the percentage of CBD in a gummy or origin of a particular bud. Packaging is also the reflection of a brand, an image.

Taking these basic elements into account, we can apply a framework for designing and choosing more sustainable packaging. This framework for cannabis packaging accounts for and balances four principles: Fit for purpose, efficient, low impact and re-usable.

Fit-for-purpose. Essentially, this involves making sure that the packaging adequately performs the ‘3-Ps’ above. Packaging commonly accounts for less than 10% of the energy inputs that have gone into a complete product (for example, a candy packaged in a foil-lined plastic wrap). If the packaging fails to protect and preserve the candy, then the energy (or the water, the material, the investment) embedded in the product it contains is wasted.

The second principle relates to material efficiency. Once the packaging works, it is then important to minimize material and resource inputs. Effectively designed packaging uses lighter-weight materials and reduced numbers of materials and components. It also reduces air space and maximizes transport yields.

The third principle involves using low-impact materials. Material inputs should come from non-controversial sources, such as verified/certified supply chains and suppliers that have been assessed to ensure appropriate sustainability-related issues are addressed. Wherever possible, consider renewable and recycled-content inputs, and those made using renewable energy.

Finally, cannabis packaging should be re-usable, recoverable and/or recyclable at end of life. Consider materials and design formats that can be reused multiple times, and packaging that can be recycled and composted by consumers in the systems readily available. Linking back to the third ‘P’, Promotion can be used to make sure that your packaging clearly communicates what someone should do with your packaging. If it is recyclable, returnable, reusable or plantable, tell them it is and how to proceed.

Bear in mind that the most sustainable packaging options are often the result of thinking outside the box. The design process of your packaging should include brainstorming and researching outside of your own industry. What are new and innovative solutions, new materials, new ways to think about product conception that could negate the need for unnecessary packaging elements. New and innovative packaging solutions can raise your business’ profile, catch consumers’ attention and attract investors. It showcases your business as a forward-thinking one.

Packaging sustainability can look different for each and every cannabusiness. It is important to make sure that the four principles are part of your packaging selection/design process. As with any other sustainability issue, it is best to start thinking about packaging early on, and considering packaging as a part of the actual product system.

If you are not thinking about packaging sustainability, be assured that regulators, consumers and your industry peers are. Make sure you are driving the discussion about packaging, rather than being driven by those who may not fully understand your packaging needs.

September 21, 2016

Cannabis, Soil Science and Sustainability Part II: The ‘Roots’ of Sustainable Cultivation

By Drew Plebani

No Comments

The modern chemical agricultural approach is based on the assumption that chemical science has discovered all facets of plant nutritional requirements. It is clear that the traditional NPK approach to plant/soil systems has its limitations, both from an ecological perspective and in terms of its ability to create nutrient-dense food.

Soil and plant systems have existed together for millions of years and have evolved the capacity to coexist in a way that is mutually beneficial. Plants have been fed and evolved with these biological and environmental stimuli over millennia.

Looking to the geologic record for evidence, we can see that it shows that invertebrates, fungi and early vascular plants appeared on land roughly 400 million years ago, the first seed bearing plants about 360 million years ago and the first flowering plants 130 million years ago. What does this mean? The soil food web has been in existence for millions of years and significant evidence exists that plants and soil biology have co-evolved together for millennia.

geologictimescale — The Geologic Time Scale

Between mineral rich soils and the soil food web, this natural system has been able to create and provide significant plant available nutrients, certainly enough to facilitate the successful life cycle of many species. Clearly from an evolutionary context this system has been able to facilitate maximum genetic expression and the ongoing evolution of biologic species.

In the not-too-distant past, agricultural fertilization practices were based on the existence of a diversity of plant and animal byproducts, animal manures, green manures, etc. These were reintroduced to the system and combined with the appropriate biologic populations, resulting in the decomposition of these organic material inputs and their conversion into plant-available nutrients.

An overview of traditional farming practices provides substantial evidence that farming has been occurring for at least 10,000 years. Why, with such a long history of symbiotic interactions between biologic species, are we now witnessing the mass deterioration of arable land, and agricultural commodities containing lower nutritional value?

Mycelium, the vegetative part of a fungus bacteria colony, seen breaking through rock. — Together, indigenous mycelium and plant roots seen turning rock into soil

An interesting common question among the conventional farming community, when the topic of organics or sustainability comes up, is “how are you going to feed the world?” Well that goal certainly will not be well served by the development of shelf stable, but low nutrient-dense foods. A greater volume of low nutrient-value foods certainly does not seem like a winning approach. Supporting agricultural systems that encourage the development of sustainable systems via locally produced, nutrient-dense food is a good start.

And the same holds true for cannabis. In fact, the parallels between the production of high quality nutrient dense foods and high quality cannabis products are quite significant.

Nutrient density in crops results from balanced, mineral rich soils, and a diversity of organic materials and biologic life, these elements provide the framework to facilitate the creation of a highly functional, biologic nutrient cycling system. A highly functional soil system results in more nutrient-dense crops, which contain measurably larger quantities of different phytonutrients, vitamins, minerals, flavonoids, and terpenes as compared to a system operating at a lower level of biologic efficiency.

commercialcultivator — Nutrient-dense cannabis flowers

Benefits that have been observed from nutrient-dense crops are: more pest and disease resistance in the vegetative and fruiting stages, greater yield, more complex and intense flavors and a longer shelf life.

Ultimately advancement in any cultivation system means finding and defining limiting factors in the given system. The objective should be ensuring the maximum biologic vitality of the components of said system and its outputs. Practically speaking, in order to enable the full genetic potential of biologic species, this means identifying and working toward the removal of limiting factors. Minimizing or entirely alleviating the factors that limit maximum plant growth will undoubtedly net positive gains and must be an integral component to any sustainable cultivation strategy.

commcultivator3 — Cannabis growing in a polyculture

The Earth has provided us with a highly successful, multi-million-year-old biologic system, capable of providing abundant plant available nutrients on demand, a dynamic which must be integral to appropriate and intelligent systems design.

In the pursuit of sustainability, perhaps it is time to return to our roots and begin to pursue dynamics that are mutually beneficial to all forms of biologic life.

In the next article, we will take a step back from viewing sustainability through the lens of soil and plant specific cultivation methodologies, and focus on the broader context of sustainability in cultivation systems. We will look at sustainability from the context of operational efficiency, and provide a case study from a 400-light commercial indoor cannabis operation. The case study will provide evidence that, in order to achieve higher levels of sustainability, both cultivation strategies and operational efficiency must be factored into the equation. As we will see, true sustainability is created through the efficient design, incorporation, use and management of system elements, all of which can, when appropriately designed, work together to create improved efficiency for the system.

September 21, 2016

Cannabusiness Sustainability

Dear Cannabusiness Community

By Olivia L. Dubreuil, Esq., Brett Giddings

2 Comments

Dear Cannabusiness Community,

You may have read our two recent articles. We received so much positive feedback that Aaron Biros (editor-in-chief of Cannabis Industry Journal) has invited us to continue with our own column at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. We are very happy to launch this column, and we thought we would take this opportunity to introduce our project, our vision and ourselves so you can understand where we are coming from when you read this series of articles.

Brett and I both have a background in business sustainability and corporate responsibility. We both have backgrounds in management consulting, with a specific expertise in sustainability issues along the supply chain. We have been working together for almost nine months now on sustainability issues in the Bay Area. In May, we started to get interested in sustainability in the cannabis industry and before we knew it we were diving deep into research relating to the environmental, social and ethical impacts of the legal cannabis industry. It was actually difficult to find a lot of information, as the reign of prohibition still very much influences what is available.

In June, we attended the National Cannabis Industry Association’s conference in Oakland to open up the conversation with cannabis industry players and to find out about people’s attitudes and approach to sustainability. The results were overwhelmingly positive. Not only were we encouraged to launch a project, but also excited to discover that many of the speakers presenting at the conference referenced sustainability in one way or another when they talked about environmental impact awareness, social justice, ethics or about staying competitive when “big business” enters the market.

What started out as a side project quickly became the center of focus this summer when we decided to incorporate Project Polaris, a California non-profit, to deliver sustainability knowledge and expertise to the cannabis industry.

Our thinking is as follows:

Thinking about sustainability, means thinking strategically about business. As we forge a new and upcoming industry, let’s seize the opportunity to make it a sustainability-focused one! Let’s create generally accepted industry principles that fosters a positive image of the industry and teaches newcomers about best environmental and social practices. Let’s create a voluntary and industry-led socially responsible code of conduct for cannabis business owners and suppliers, helping the regulators, as they will be drafting all of the future regulations of the legalized cannabis market. Let’s do more research on the market and the consumer. Let’s develop clean and green alternatives to dirty processes or practices. Let’s elevate the discussion and create a model industry, one where short-term, large-scale, quality-lowering corporate interests are kept at bay.

With this vision in mind, we created Project Polaris because we believe that this is a real opportunity for the industry to be a role model for other industries (and educate legislators as well as drive public opinion in those states that are still under prohibition laws). We believe there is a real economic opportunity for those businesses that understand how to embed sustainability properly within their business model. Because we know that sustainability influences legislators in a positive way because it sheds a positive light on businesses.

In the upcoming months, we will continue to research and report on sustainability-related issues facing the cannabis industry, such as packaging, edibles, “organic” in cannabis, butane extraction versus CO2 extraction and so on. We also welcome questions from our readers. If you have a question, please post it in the comments section below.

We will also take this opportunity to call out to cannabis industry organizations, cannabis businesses, or cannabis related services and product suppliers to get in touch with us if they wish to find out how to integrate sustainability more concretely into their action plan. We are not planning on doing this alone, we are seeking partners to join us on this journey, and we want to partner with you on your journey to Cannabusiness Sustainability.

PS: We still have one seat open for the board of directors and would love to hear from you if you are interested!

September 6, 2016

The Nerd Perspective

‘Instant’ Cannabis Potency Testing: Different Approaches from Different Manufacturers

By Amanda Rigdon

5 Comments

This is the first piece of a regular column that CIJ has been so kind to allow me to write for their publication. Some readers might recognize my name from The Practical Chemist column in this publication. Since the inception of that column, I’ve finally taken the plunge into the cannabis industry as chief technical officer of Emerald Scientific. Unlike The Practical Chemist, I will not spend the entire first article introducing the column. The concept is simple: while I find the textbook-esque content of The Practical Chemist scintillating, I have a feeling that the content is a little too heavy to spring on someone who is looking for engaging articles over their precious coffee break. Instead, The Nerd Perspective will consist of less-technical writing focusing on my experience and insights for the cannabis industry as a whole. But don’t worry – I’m sure I will not be able to refrain from technical jargon altogether.

To kick off the column, I want to talk about instrumentation for ‘instant’ cannabis potency testing. At this point, it’s common knowledge in the cannabis analytics industry that the most accurate way to test cannabis potency is through extraction then analysis by HPLC-UV. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, but HPLC analyses have one drawback: they can be either inexpensive or fast – not both. There are some instruments entering the market now that– while not as directly quantitative as HPLC-UV – promise to solve the inexpensive/fast conundrum. During my most recent trip to California, I was able to spend some quality time with two well-known instrument manufacturers: SRI Instruments and PerkinElmer, both of whom manufacture instruments that perform fast, inexpensive cannabis potency analyses. From my previous home at the heights of The Ivory Tower of Chromatography: Home of the Application Chemists, SRI and PE couldn’t be more different. But as seen through the eyes of a company who deals with a wide range of customers and analytical needs, it turns out that SRI and PE are much the same – not only in their open and honest support of the cannabis industry, but also in terms of their love of all things technical.

My first stop was SRI Instruments. They are a relatively small company located in an unassuming building in Torrance, CA. Only a few people work in that location, and I spent my time with Hugh Goldsmith (chief executive officer) and Greg Benedict (tech service guru). I have worked with these guys for a few years now, and since the beginning, I have lovingly referred to them as the MacGyvers of chromatography. Anyone familiar with SRI GCs knows that what they lack in aesthetics, they make up for in practicality – these instruments truly reflect Hugh and Greg’s character (that’s meant as a compliment).

SRI specializes in relatively inexpensive portable and semi-portable instruments that are easy to set up, easy to operate, and most importantly – engineered for a purpose. It’s actually really hard to manufacture an instrument that meets all three of these criteria, and the folks at SRI accomplish this with their passionate and unique approach to problem solving. What I love about these guys is that for them, nothing is impossible. Here’s an example: the price of the portable GC-FID instruments SRI builds is inflated because the instruments require separate – and pricey – hydrogen generators. That’s a big problem – hydrogen generators are all pretty much the same, and none of them are cheap. This didn’t faze SRI: they just decided to design their own super small on-board hydrogen generator capable of supplying hydrogen to a simple GC system for six hours with just 20mL of distilled water from the grocery store! I’m not kidding – I saw it in action on their new Model 420 GC (more on that in some future pieces). Was the final product pretty? Not in the least. Did it work? Absolutely. This kind of MacGyver-esque problem solving can only be done successfully with a deep understanding of the core principles behind the problem. What’s more, in order to engineer instruments like these, SRI has to have mastery over the core principles of not only chromatographic separation, but also of software development, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering – just to name a few. These quirky, unassuming guys are smart. SRI is a company that’s been unapologetically true to themselves for decades; they’ll never be a contender for beauty queen, but they get the job done.

On the surface, PerkinElmer (PE) contrasts with SRI in almost every way possible. With revenue measured in billions of dollars and employees numbering in the thousands, PE is a behemoth that plays not only in the analytical chemistry industry but also in clinical diagnostics and other large industries. Where SRI instruments have a characteristic look of familiar homeliness, PE instruments are sleek and sexy. However, PerkinElmer and SRI are more alike than it would seem; just like the no-frills SRI, the hyper-technical PE instruments are engineered for a purpose by teams of very smart, passionate people.

With its modest price tag and manual sample introduction, the SRI Model 420 is engineered for lower throughput users to be a fast, simple, and inexpensive approach to semi-quantitative process control. The purpose of the instruments manufactured by PE is to produce the highest-quality quantitative results as quickly as possible for high-throughput labs. PE instruments are built using the best technology available in order to eke out every last ounce of quantitative accuracy and throughput possible. Fancy technology is rarely inexpensive, and neither is rigorous product development that can last years in some cases. In a way, PE is Doogie Howser to SRI’s MacGyver. Like MacGyver, Doogie is super smart, and his setting is a sterile hospital rather than a warzone.

I had a wonderful conversation with Tim Ruppel, PE’s headspace-GC specialist, on the sample introduction technology incorporated into the TurboMatrix Headspace Sampler, where I also learned that the basic technology for all PerkinElmer headspace-GC instruments was designed by the men who wrote The Book on headspace gas chromatography: Bruno Kolb and Leslie Ettre**. Later, I was able to get a much-needed lesson on FT-IR and the Spectrum Two IR Spectrometer from Brian Smith, PE’s spectroscopy expert, who actually wrote the book on quantitative spectroscopy***. Tim and Brian’s excitement over their technology mirrored that of Hugh and Greg. It turns out that SRI and PerkinElmer are more alike than I thought.

These two instrument manufacturers have addressed the fast/inexpensive conundrum of cannabis potency testing in two different ways: SRI’s instrument is extremely inexpensive, easy to operate, and will provide semi-quantitative values for THC, CBD, and CBN in just a few minutes; PE’s instrument is more expensive up front, but provides quantitative (though not directly quantitative) values for all of the major cannabinoids almost instantly, and requires almost no maintenance or consumables. These two instruments were designed for specific uses: one for inexpensive, easy use, and the other for more comprehensive results with a higher initial investment. The question consumers have to ask themselves is “Who do I need to solve my problem?” For some, the answer will be MacGyver, and for others, Doogie Howser will provide the solution – after all, both are heroes.

** B. Kolb, L. Ettre, Static Headspace-Gas Chromatography: Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2006.

*** Brian C. Smith, Quantitative Spectroscopy: Theory and Practice, Elsevier, Boston, MA, 2002.

September 6, 2016

Quality From Canada

The Devil is in the Detail – Changes to Canada’s Cannabis Regs to Encourage Patient Independence and Business Competition

By Tegan Adams, Elfi Daniel-Ivad MSc

No Comments

Canada’s new ACMPR was launched late last month on August 24^th. The key change that most notice is that Canadians may now again grow their own cannabis at home for medical purposes. In addition, more strict guidelines for product testing and labeling requirements for Licensed Producers (LPs) were released.

Short term pain for long term gain. While the combination of allowing patients to grow at home and more strict regulations for LPs may at first seem like a business disadvantage; overtime LPs will be thankful for the combination switch. Health Canada’s new requirements encourage a leveling of the playing field globally between LPs and large scale product manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, therapeutics and natural health products. The steps Health Canada is taking to regulate our producers, is exactly what they need to get ready for mass production that will be necessary for recreational markets, scheduled for release in Spring 2017.

Picture rows of Tylenol bottles on the shelf at your favorite pharmacy. Now picture rows of cannabis bottles on the shelf beside them. This is what medical cannabis will look like in Canada perhaps as early as 2018, if not sooner. With just under forty LPs on the map and a projected sales volume of modest billions, Canada’s LPs’ eyes are widening with dollar signs as they lube up their oil production and more to see what shelves in Canada will hold.

Curious to know more? Our regulatory department manager Elfi Daniel-Ivad is an expert in regulatory change. She has worked on close to 150 submissions for cannabis licensees in Canada and beyond. Here are a few key changes from her department’s overview to better understand.

MMPR	ACMPR (Updated)
No personal production or designated production available to patients (aside from that grandfathered in by MMAR).	Personal production and designated production available. Patients may grow 5 indoor plants OR 2 outdoor plants at any given time per gram prescribed to them.
Licensed Producers were not required to label THC or CBD amounts in dried cannabis, though most producers did for sales and educational purposes. Oils had to be labeled with THC and CBD amounts.	Licensed Producers must label their percent THC and CBD for dried and fresh cannabis products.
For the labelling of oils, the total quantity of THC, CBD and oil in a container had to be shown. Restrictions on THC allowed no more than 10mg/mL THC per capsule and no more than 30mg/mL THC per mL oil to be distributed.	In addition, oil labels must now include information on “carrier” oil and allergen information. Containers must be labelled with number of capsules, the net weight and volume of each capsule. .
No reference to validation of analytical testing methods.	Analytical testing must be completed using validated testing methods; confirming reliability and consistency in results for contaminants, disintegration, residues and THC, THC-A, CBD and CBD-A
Accredited labs can only test products as received from Licensed Producers.	In addition to Licensed Producers, patients growing their own or having a designated grower growing for them may also test their products at an accredited lab.

In addition to these changes, it is important to note that if an individual or company has an MMPR proposal already submitted they can now revise it to include oil production (previously, it was first dried bud only). If a company submits a new ACMPR proposal, they can include oil production on their application right away. Interested in submitting your own application? Or need help with one in the USA? Our regulatory department would be happy to answer any questions you might have about the process.

August 24, 2016

Biros' Blog

No Surprise Here: Federal Gov’t Still Butting Heads With States Over Cannabis Legalization

By Aaron G. Biros

1 Comment

On August 11, 2016, the widely anticipated Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announcement on federal cannabis policy yielded fairly anticlimactic results. According to the statement, the federal agency denied two petitions to reschedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) conducted a scientific and medical evaluation that deemed cannabis “does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse.” The announcement reiterates the agency’s previous statements on the matter, stating that they believe clinical trials under the investigational new drug (IND) applications and the drug approval process are how the FDA can assess the safety and effectiveness of cannabis-derived medicine.

This avenue for bringing a cannabis-based drug to market is extraordinarily cost-prohibitive, allowing only pharmaceutical companies with deep coffers in the space. The DEA did however make one announcement in the statement that has the potential to lift many barriers to researching the plant’s medical value. The policy change allows more institutions to grow cannabis for research, which was previously allowed only at the University of Mississippi under a contract with NIDA. This is a very significant policy change that could be viewed as a step in the right direction. There is plenty of research currently that proves cannabis’ medical value and its safety and efficacy, but allowing more research opportunities signals that the DEA could be open to revisiting a rescheduling recommendation in the future.

One can speculate endlessly about when the DEA may reschedule cannabis, but in reality, no one knows when that might happen, no one knows what a new administration would do, if Congress would act on it or if the courts would. It seems even the FDA and DEA are sitting on their hands as the federal government does what they do best– inaction.

However, one important ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit highlights the baby steps taken toward some form of federal acceptance of legal cannabis. The court ruled that the Department of Justice couldn’t prosecute individuals in states where cannabis is legal. More specifically, the court ruling “prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws.” The ruling basically reaffirms the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which states that the DOJ cannot interfere with states where cannabis is legal, but this time also for those individuals complying with state law.

The DEA’s inaction on rescheduling cannabis should not be perceived as a loss to the legalization movement, rather as an upholding of the asinine status quo. Policy change in the United States is an arduous and very slow process. These things take time. One can look to the same-sex marriage movement and find striking similarities to the cannabis legalization movement. For example, Massachusetts and California were some of the first states to introduce legislation legalizing same-sex marriage and are also some of the first states that have introduced legislation legalizing cannabis. These states that are typically drivers of national policy have opportunities to pass important ballot initiatives this November that could have ripple effects throughout the country. Five states have ballot initiatives for recreational legalization and potentially up to eight states with initiatives for medical legalization, all being voted on this November.

What can the average citizen do to help with progress in cannabis legalization? For starters, you can vote. If you live in a state that has a ballot initiative for legalizing cannabis, show up at the polls and make your voice heard. If you live in a state where no such ballot initiative exists, you can still take action to get cannabis legalized. You can sign this petition or write your member of Congress to support the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act (S. 683). The CARERS Act, among many other important changes, would most notably reschedule cannabis to Schedule II.

So not all is lost with the DEA’s inaction. As more states legalize cannabis, we are seeing a rising tide lift all boats.

August 24, 2016

The Practical Chemist

Building the Foundation of Medical Cannabis Testing – Understanding the Use of Standards and Reference Materials – Part 1

By Joe Konschnik

No Comments

In previous articles, you may recall that Amanda Rigdon, one our contributing authors, stated that instrument calibration is the foundation of all data quality. In this article, I would like to expand on that salient point. A properly calibrated instrument will, in fact, produce reliable data. It is the foundation we build our data upon. All foundations are comprised of building blocks, and our laboratory is no exception. If we take this analogy further, the keystone to the laboratory foundation, the stone that all data relies upon, is the analytical reference material. Proper calibration means that it is based on a true, accurate value. That is what the reference material provides. In this article, I would like to expand on the use and types of reference materials in analytical testing.

To develop sound analytical data, it is important to understand the significance of reference materials and how they are properly used. The proper selection and use of reference materials ensures the analytical certainty, traceability and comparability necessary to produce scientifically sound data. First, let’s take a moment to define the types of commonly used reference materials. According to the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), a Reference Standard (RS) is something that is reused to measure against, like a balance or a set of weights. A Reference Material (RM) is a generic term. It is described as something that is prepared using a RS that is homogeneous, stable and is consumed during its use for measurement. An example of an RM is the solutions used to construct a calibration curve, often referred to as calibration standards, on your GC or LC. Due to the current state of cannabis testing, reference materials can be hard to find and, even more critical, variable in their accuracy to a known reference standard. Sometimes this is not critical, but when quantifying an unknown, it is paramount.

RMs can be either quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative RMs verify the identity and purity of a compound. Quantitative RMs, on the other hand, provide a known concentration, or mass, telling us not only what is present, and its purity, but also how much. This is typically documented on the certificate that accompanies the reference material, which is provided by the producer or manufacturer. The certificate describes all of the properties of the starting materials and steps taken to prepare the RM. For testing requirements, like potency, pesticides, etc., where quantitation is expected, it is important to use properly certified quantitative RMs.

Now, the pinnacle of reference materials is the Certified Reference Material (CRM). VIM defines a Certified Reference Material (CRM) as an RM accompanied by documentation issued by an authoritative body and provides one or more specified property values, with associated uncertainties and traceability using valid procedures. A CRM is generally recognized as providing the highest level of traceability and accuracy to a measurement – the strongest keystone you can get for your foundation. It is also important to recognize that the existence of a certificate does not make a reference material a CRM. It is the process used in manufacturing that makes it a CRM, and these are typically accreditations earned by specific manufacturers who have invested on this level of detail.

Now that we understand the types of reference materials we can choose, in the next article of this series we will describe what a CRM provider must do to ensure the material and how we can use them to develop reliable data. Without properly formulated and prepared CRMs, instrument calibration and the use of internal standards are less effective at ensuring the quality of your data.

If you have any questions please contact me, Joe Konschnik at (800) 356-1688 ext. 2002 by phone, or email me at joe.konschnik@restek.com.

August 23, 2016

Quality From Canada

Hold on for Rec! Canada’s New ACMPR Program

By Tegan Adams

1 Comment

Earlier this month, Health Canada, in a press release, gave a glimpse as to what the new Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) might look like. On August 11^th, they announced the new set of regulations would go into effect on August 24^th this week. Information presented was not shocking. Most Canadians had hoped and suspected that the announcement would include a provision for growing cannabis at home – and it did exactly that.

Essentially, the ACMPR expands accessibility of cannabis from our highly regulated 34 licensed producers (LPs) to include those authorized by their health care practitioner to access cannabis. Anyone with the appropriate medical documentation can now grow for him or herself at home, or designate a grower to do so for them. Health Canada also stipulated in the press release that “Storefronts selling marijuana [sic], commonly known as ‘dispensaries’ and ’compassion clubs’ are not authorized to sell cannabis for medical or any other purposes.” The regulatory body went on to add: “These operations are illegally supplied and provide products that are unregulated and may be unsafe. Illegal storefront distribution and sale of cannabis in Canada are subject to law enforcement action.”

There were a few curve balls in the announcement, including a statement issued that suggests commercial producers may be the only ones authorized to distribute seeds or plants to those growing for themselves or on behalf of another. It is unclear how the plant and seed sourcing aspect will be regulated and/or how that statement may impact LPs over individual producers. Restriction of strain availability and additional costs are examples of potential implications to individuals[1]. LPs therefore remain in control of the types of cannabis available on the market. It is unclear if this regulatory aspect will mean they can restrict access to strains they have on hand, or not, especially if they are popular for sales.

When the first glimpse of the ACMPR was released, we saw many LPs stock drop in price across the board, in some cases greater than 10%. It is not anticipated however that the ACMPR will cause any long-term negative effects on LPs stock price or profitability. The ACMPR was put in place merely to satisfy a court ruling on a deadline. The deadline was inconvenient, occurring around 9 months before the regulations governing recreational sales are meant to go in effect. It meant that Health Canada employees had to dedicate time to finding a Band-Aid solution up until recreational sales instead of focussing on recreational regulatory framework itself.

Recreational regulations are scheduled for release in 2017, and it is unclear when exactly they will begin. As they do begin to unfold it is projected that the production and sale of cannabis will remain highly regulated. LPs will remain the consistent quality source of supply. There have been multiple distribution models in discussion, including co-op retail ownership, pharmacy dispensary and liquor board models. While yes, those with medical documentation anticipate still being able to produce at home; it is unlikely this allowance will have any effect on the overall sales of LPs as the market unfolds. Alcohol and wine are good examples to compare the regulatory model to. While sure, any of us can do home brewing, odds are we would still like to purchase beer from commercial breweries. In both Vancouver and Toronto, property is very expensive. Higher percentages of the population are starting to live in apartments, condos and smaller homes. Many people working full time are not interested in growing their own cannabis and would prefer the variety of the marketplace. There are many reasons individuals will continue to purchase from LPs. As competition rises in the marketplace, so will efficiencies in production as producers become more familiar with growing practices. Canada is anticipating a drop in retail prices to be much more affordable than existing “black markets.” Cannabis will become commonplace on shopping corners and it will be a product that most will be able to afford.