By Nohtal Partansky

In every industry, there’s an underlying threat and worry that as AI advances, jobs will be at risk. This programming is deeply instilled in labor workers who have grown accustomed to income security to maintain their expenses or quality of life. But what if we’re looking at robots all wrong?

Instead of seeing a robot job apocalypse, what if they’re the machines to lift us to our highest degree? Robots are already proving to improve efficiency and cut company costs, so it’s inevitable they’ll come to a job near you soon.

For the budding cannabis industry, everything is fresh and new as the market is in its infancy. That means new systems and new workers have the opportunity to implement robotics to get ahead of the competition and boost morale earlier than most.

So, here, let’s de-program the way we think about robots today and cover the top three ways robots can help, not hurt, the cannabis industry—and the livelihoods of its workers too!

#1 Labor Shortage Gaps Need To Be Filled

Let’s get real—the cannabis industry is feeling the labor shortage just as much as anyone. Even more, it’s extremely difficult in this day and age to only pay a minimum wage to workers. This is true from coast to coast, but especially in lucrative cannabis markets like California, which have a higher cost of living for workers to meet.

“Robots aren’t here to hurt the cannabis industry, they’re here to help”Another predicament for facility owners? You can’t pay more for low-level repetitive tasks without significantly decreasing margins for your company while remaining competitive in such a bustling market. Moreover, humans just aren’t built to sit in closed, highly regulated areas, repeating the same motions over and over, to fill pre-rolls, vape carts, package jars and beyond.

By implementing robotics and automation tools, cannabis industry owners can not only fill labor shortage gaps but also alleviate labor costs for an improved bottom line. In addition, this will allow executives to better leverage labor costs towards more valuable positions that are more rewarding for employees too.

#2 Human Productivity Declines Over Extended Periods of Time

You know how you move with speed and precision when you first begin a repetitive task? Think exercising. When you first start your set of mountain climbers, your body moves mechanically, hitting the steps on point, repeatedly. But by the end, you’re struggling to get 1 or 2 last pushes in to hit your reps.

Manual labor and repetitive tasks are no different. In fact, there are companies in the world that hire workers to pack cases for just one hour a day. Why? Because their analytics have shown that after just one hour of work, the employees zone out and lose focus, which decreases productivity over time and increases the chance of human error.

In cannabis, someone has to fill the pre-rolls, and someone has to pack the jars into boxes. But, scheduling one worker for one hour shifts all day every day is a logistical nightmare to get the most productivity from the time you have. With no creative minds of their own (sorry, not sorry), robots are quite literally built for this type of labor and produce accurate results, too.

This allows cannabis owners to pay one up-front investment for the ’employee’ and can rest assured, financially and operationally, that the position will always be filled with no wage raises to consider.

#3 – More Robots Allows For More Rewarding Roles

Last but not least, there are few people in the world who actually desire or dream of the manual labor that’s required to keep the cannabis industry’s momentum moving upward for good reason. The human mind is meant to explore, create and evolve by putting it to use day in, and day out.

Hence, the uptick in investments towards upskilling in the cannabis industry and the passion for retraining employees for more technical roles. For employees, they’re more fulfilling and hold higher value. For employers, you have more human minds at work towards what matters versus the tasks that just need to get done.

Implementing robots in cannabis facilities for these mundane, repetitive, and low-level tasks help open the doors for more fulfilling roles for employees that share an interest in the plant. In the end, allowing them to put that passion and their unique skills, ideas and creativity towards helping your company prosper.

The Bottom Line – Cannabis Robots Are Here to Stay

With any new trend or shift in the labor and job landscape, it’s natural to be cautious of how it may affect you or your workers, both personally and professionally. However, as you can see, robots aren’t here to hurt the cannabis industry, they’re here to help.

As cultivators and other manufacturers struggle to turn a profit, now is the time for the overwhelmingly cottage industry to go big or go home. Because, whether you like it or not, there’s one thing we can all agree on: robots are the future of manufacturing, the cannabis industry included.

July 14, 2022

Starting a Cannabis Extraction Lab? Here Are Some Key Considerations

By Martha Hernández

1 Comment

Cannabis sativa contains over 500 different bioactive compounds that can be separated through an extraction process. This is carried out in an extraction lab and the end result is the production of cannabis extracts with a high concentration of specific cannabinoids (such as THC or CBD) with up to 99% purity levels. Cannabis can get easily contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents or other contaminants and thereby pose a risk to the health and safety of consumers. In-house testing allows manufacturers to ensure that the cannabis products they put out to the market are not only potent but also are free of all sorts of contaminants.

The cannabis extraction market worldwide was valued at $9.7 billion in 2020. According to data from Grandview Research, the market size is expected to hit $23.7 billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 16.6%. While setting up a cannabis extraction facility can be cost-intensive at the start, the running costs are minimal, making this a profitable venture in the long run. However, you will need to consider these 7 important factors.

1. Location

7 Important Factors to Consider When Setting Up a Cannabis Extraction Facility — A schematic representation of the 7 important factors to consider when setting up a cannabis extraction facility (Figure courtesy of CloudLIMS)

Cannabis is a highly regulated industry, regardless of the country. In the U.S, it is illegal at the federal level, and therefore there’s a need for judicious selection of location to avoid run-ins with the federal government. If you are in the U.S, you will need to check the specific laws in your state. These rules dictate how close an extraction facility can be to a daycare facility, children’s park, school, residential areas, etc. The rules may also spell out how many cannabis facilities can be located in one area and how close to each other they can be. At the end of the day, you also want to ensure that the location that you settle for is readily accessible, secure and close to resources.

2. Regulatory Compliance

A cannabis extraction facility needs to meet regulations that apply to the manufacturing and production of consumable goods to ensure that the safety of workers and end consumers is guaranteed. Here are a few that are of priority:

current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP): The CGMP is a regulatory standard enforced by the FDA. It defines the creation, implementation and monitoring of manufacturing processes to meet the quality and safety threshold. It requires manufacturers to use technology and have systems in place to ensure product safety and effectiveness. Cannabis extraction facilities should be GMP certified for operational standardization and for performing transnational business.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Extraction labs use flammable materials which can easily trigger fires. NFPA, which is a non-profit organization, has created standards and codes to minimize injuries, death, and economic losses attributable to fire accidents. The standard describes how labs should be set up and how flammable liquids should be stored and transported to prevent accidental fires.

Local Fire Codes: These are a set of codes/requirements that must be adhered to in all commercial and industrial buildings to prevent fires. They include the availability and proper use of the following:

Fire extinguishers
Extension cords
Smoke detectors
Fire exits
Fire signage
Fire assembly points
Sprinkler heads and pipes
Fire alarms

Here are some important fire codes that should be followed in a cannabis extraction facility:

NFPA 1: The Fire Code Handbook
NFPA 30: The National Code for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
NFPA 45: Fire Protection for Labs Using Chemicals
NFPA 70: The National Electrical Code
NFPA 58: The Liquid Petroleum Gas Code

Occupational Standards for Health and Safety (OSHA): Cannabis extraction facilities are compelled by federal law to comply with OSHA requirements for occupational health and safety, and specifically regarding biological and chemical compounds that lab staff may come into contact with during their work. OSHA standard 29CFR1910.1200 requires labs to have a written hazard safety standard for all chemicals, and the standard should be accessible to all employees at all times. Labs are required to have an inventory of all hazardous chemicals with associated details recorded in a Safety Data Sheet (SDS).

3. Staff Management

Lab staff need to train on all hazards in the facility and be given first aid measures in case of an accident. The staff will need to sign that they have received training on the same.

4. Waste Management

Cannabis waste in an extraction facility includes plant trimmings, leftover extraction chemicals, disposed of samples and other debris left behind. Waste needs to be segregated according to hazardous or non-hazardous categories and disposed of accordingly. The lab needs to put measures in place for proper waste segregation so that the waste does not get mixed.

5. Worker Safety

Worker safety in an extraction facility is of paramount importance and should be based on the kinds of risks that each staff gets exposed to in the line of duty. This makes it necessary to have a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) to assess hazards and put measures in place to avert accidents and injuries.

Laboratory Software for CBD/THC laboratories — A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories to schedule staff training and manage staff competency (Figure courtesy of CloudLIMS)

6. Equipment Selection and Management

Cannabis extraction equipment can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $100,000, depending on the type and scale of extraction. When choosing the equipment, you need to factor in the cost efficiency, output, and the final product. All equipment used in an extraction lab should be Underwriters Laboratories Listed (UL-Listed). The equipment also needs to undergo regular maintenance to ensure maximum efficiency and productivity, and to prevent accidents and minimize wear and tear. National Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) certification is necessary to achieve this.

7. Supply Chain Management

Supply chain management refers to the strict monitoring of the entire workflow to ensure effectiveness, eliminate wastage, and boost productivity and profitability. This means tracking raw materials from the time they are received by the extraction facility to when they are released as cannabis extracts. A Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) comes in handy to support supply chain management in an extraction facility.

Role of a LIMS in Setting Up a Cannabis Extraction Facility

A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories, also known as a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), helps automate workflows, and thereby improve efficiency and productivity in an extraction facility. A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories streamlines in-house testing processes and guarantees that the final extracts produced are potent and free of impurities. A LIMS also comes in handy in managing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and human resources, tracking samples and lab inventory, scheduling equipment calibration and maintenance, and ensuring compliance with the necessary regulations.

When setting up a cannabis extraction facility, sufficient time needs to be allocated to the planning to ensure all-important considerations are in place. This starts with finding an ideal and compliant location, ensuring regulatory compliance, ensuring worker safety, efficiently managing staff, inventory, and waste, and the careful selection of equipment. A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories ties these factors together to ensure a smooth workflow and maximum productivity of the facility.

June 24, 2022

Soapbox

Give a Voice to Scientists in the Executive Suite

By Dr. Markus Roggen, Amanda Assen

2 Comments

What do Aurora Cannabis, Tilray and Pfizer all have in common? They all produce and sell products used for medicinal purposes, they are top competitors in their field and they all have statements on their websites claiming that science is one of the most important things to their business. But unlike Pfizer, Aurora and Tilray do not have any positions in the executive suite for scientists or medical personnel. This led us to wonder, why does the structure of their corporate ladder (as well as so many other cannabis companies) not align with what they claim to be their values?

According to Aurora Cannabis, “Science is at the core of what we do”.¹ Look up the definition of “core” and you will get “foundational, essential, central, and enduring.”² Sounds important. Meanwhile, Tilray’s main page states: “For the therapeutic value and risks of cannabinoid-based medicines to be fully understood, Tilray believes it is critical to evolve current scientific understanding of the field.”³

You would assume that somebody in the executive suite would have a position and an educational background relating to the central and enduring part of a business, right? We looked at 10 of the biggest Canadian cannabis companies, their founders’ educational backgrounds and whether there were executive positions for science, R&D or medicine (Table 1). We also looked at the same data for the top 10 biggest pharmaceutical companies (Table 2). As expected, every pharmaceutical company had upper-level (C and/or P level) positions for scientists and/or medical personnel. However, only 2 of the 10 cannabis companies had this.

To figure out why this is, (as scientists) we did some research. It turns out, the consensus is scientists are bad at commercialization. Scientists are rarely successful as CEOs because they are (usually) not good at attracting customers and get confused by things like revenue models.⁴ As Akshat Rathi bluntly put it, “just because you are the smartest person in the building does not make you capable to run a company.” In fact, many CEOs of life science companies got to the top by pursuing business, finance, marketing or sales. In the 90s, some life science companies took a chance on scientists and hired them as CEOs, but when they hit financial turmoil, they quickly undid this.⁵

So maybe scientists aren’t always cut out to be the CEO of a company. But that still doesn’t explain why so few large cannabis companies have a chief scientific/medical officer, or even a president of R&D.

Maybe we are looking in the wrong place. Maybe their value of science can be demonstrated by their spending on research. Typically, a larger agricultural company will spend 9% or more on R&D, and a smaller company will spend 2-4%.⁶ Meanwhile, the major pharmaceutical companies we looked at spent between 12 and 25% of their revenue on R&D during their most recent fiscal year. Since a cannabis company falls somewhere in between we approximate they would spend around 9-12%.

However, Canopy Growth was the only company that fell into our prediction range, spending 10.5% of their revenue on R&D in 2021.⁷ Tied for a distant second place were Charlotte’s Web and Aurora Cannabis (a subsidiary of Tilray), spending 4.6%. At the very bottom were Tilray which only spent 0.16% on R&D and TerrAscend which spent 0.21% during their most recent fiscal year.^8,9 With most of the cannabis companies, we saw a gradual decrease in R&D funding over time, which intensified with the Covid-19 pandemic.

So why the heck are these companies going on about how they value science? To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they do think they value science, but they don’t know how to value it.

It’s hard for a company to take actions that show they value science if there are no voices for scientists at the executive level. After all, how can you make decisions based on science if nobody in the room understands it? Sure, we saw the argument that people who make it to the top can “learn enough science to ascend to the executive suite without much trouble”.⁵ But what is “enough science”? The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell?

This leads to our argument for putting scientists in the executive suites of cannabis companies and giving them a more powerful voice. Whereas scientists are not good at marketing, those in managerial roles tend to overly rely on intuition – even when the evidence is against them.¹⁰ For those relying on intuition, R&D is an easy target during times of crisis (like a global pandemic). Cutting costs in R&D yields a short-term immediate increase in profit and the negative impacts are often not felt until years later.¹¹ However, cutting R&D investment is the opposite of what you should do during a time of crisis. Evidence suggests companies that maintain or even increase spending in marketing and R&D and focus on operational efficiency (such as process optimization) are the ones that will come out as the top competitors in the long run.^12,13 Having a chief scientific officer or an executive for R&D with a scientific background can help sustain companies by promoting R&D during hard times and indicating what projects will be the most promising to help the company optimize their processes.

Having a scientist in the executive suite can also help keep everyone in check. “Senior execs live in a feedback loop of positive reinforcement making them unlikely to question their decisions,” according to Stefan Thomke and Gary Loveman.¹⁰ They claim the best way for those in managerial roles to avoid over relying on instinct and break out of that positive feedback loop is by “thinking like a scientist”. This involves not letting bias get in the way of truth, studying anomalies, being skeptical, developing strong hypotheses, producing hard evidence and probing cause and effect. To add to this, we think a major part of thinking like a scientist is by having at least one high up in the team. In our own company, giving equal value to scientific voices has resulted in all parties learning and thriving by making fact-based decisions.

Finally, scientists deliver! To be a scientist (with a PhD), one must master the field, find a gap in the knowledge, then fill that gap – all for little pay and no guarantee of a job at the end. This makes them dedicated workers whose main goal is to contribute something unique to their field, or in this case, their company.¹⁴ Having someone up top who is dedicated, passionate, innovative and trained to look for gaps in knowledge can be an invaluable voice in the executive suite. They are likely to point out potential money-saving solutions (i.e.: optimizing extraction conditions) that others up top may not have thought of on their own.

If you feel strongly that science is at the core of what you do, and you already know that R&D is crucial for the long-term survival of your company, you are already on the right track. In addition to this, consider giving a voice to scientists at the executive level in your company. The cannabis industry is still in its infancy. This means there is potential for R&D in more than just new product development. Basic stuff like extraction, modifying plants to be heartier against harsh conditions and pathogens, curing and safety testing processes have all barely been studied and optimized to reduce costs. These things won’t be solved by a Juris Doctor, an MBA or even an engineer, they will be solved by scientists, and it will take a scientist up top to ensure the whole company recognizes the importance of these projects.

Table 1: Top cannabis companies stats on founders and their educational backgrounds, presence of scientific executive positions and spending on research and development

Company	Founders	Founder’s Educational Backgrounds	Science executive position?	% Revenue spent on R&D
Aphria Inc. (now owned by Tilray)	Cole Cacciavillani and John Cervini	Cole: B. Eng John: Born into a family greenhouse business	Chief science officer Garry Leong: B.Sc. Chem, M.B.A. Quality Management ¹⁵	NA
Canopy Growth Corp	Bruce Linton and Chuck Rifici	Bruce: Ba Public Policy, Minor: Economics. ¹⁶ Chuck: B. Eng, MBA	no	10.5% ¹⁷
Aurora Cannabis Inc. (subsidiary of Tilray)	Terry Booth, Steve Dobler, Dale Lesack and Chris Mayerson	Terry: Master Electrician¹⁸ Steve: B. Eng Chris: Concrete business Dale: Electrician and homebuilder	no	4.6% ¹⁹
Village Farms International Inc.	Michael A. DeGiglio	BSc Aeronautic Science	no	No data available on R&D expenses
Tilray Inc	Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue	Brendan: Ba. Architecture, Msc: Eng, MBA²⁰ Christian: Ba. unknown, MBA²¹ Michael: Ba. Finance, MBA²²	no	0.16% ²³
Ayr Wellness Inc	Jonathan Sandelman	Juris Doctor, Law Degree²⁴	no	No data on R&D spending available
TerrAscend Corp	Michael Nashat	Pharm. D . Post doc in Neuroscience²⁵	no	0.21% ²⁶
HexoCorp	Sebastien St-Louis	Ba. Economics, MBA ²⁷	no	3.09% ²⁸
Fire & Flower Holdings Corp	Trevor Fencott	Ba (unknown), and Law degree²⁹	no	No data on R&D spending
Zenabis Global Inc (now owned by hexo corp)	Rick Brar, Mark Catroppa, Monty Sikka	Rick: Ba. (unknown) Mark: Ba. Finance ³⁰ Monty: Ba Accounting and Finance³¹	Chief science Officer: Natasha Ryz PhD experimental medicine.³²	NA

Table 2: Top pharmaceutical companies founders and their educational background, presence of executive positions for scientists and spending on R&D

Company	Current Executives	Educational Background	Science executive positions?	% Revenue spent on R&D
Amgen	Robert A. Bradway	BSc. Biology, MBA³³	Chief Medical officer: Darryl Sleep, M.D. ³³ Senior VP in R&D: Jean-Charles Soria PhD molecular Biol, MD	18.5% ³⁴
Sanofi	Paul Hudson	Ba. Economics, honorary doctorate in business³⁵	Executive VP, R&D: John Reed, MD, PhD in Immunology³⁵	14.51% ³⁶
Bristol-Myers Squibb	Giovanni Caforio	MD.³⁷	Chief Medical Officer: Samit Hirawat, MD. Rupert Vessey: Executive VP: R&D PhD molecular immunology ³⁷	24.58% ³⁸
Takeda	Christophe Weber	PhD. pharmacy and pharmacokinetics, Msc. pharmaceutical marketing, accounting, and finance³⁹	Director President, R&D: Andrew Plump, MD. Ph.D. in cardiovascular genetics ³⁹	14.25% ⁴⁰
AbbVie	Richard A. Gonzalez	No college degree. Practical experience in biochemistry research.	Vice chairman and president, R&D: Michael E. Severino, MD, Bsc biochem⁴¹	12.60% ⁴²
Novartis	Vasant Narasimhan	Bsc. Biology, MD, Msc Public policy	President, Biomedical research, James Bradner M.D. President innovative medicine, Victor Bulto: Msc. Chemical engineering, health economics, and pharmaeconomics, MBA. Chief medical officer, John Tsai BEng. MD⁴³	18.04% ⁴⁴
Merck	Robert M. Davis	Ba Finance, MBA, Juris Doctor⁴⁵	Executive VP and president of Merck Research Laboratories; Dean Li MD, PhD cardiology⁴⁵	25.14% ⁴⁶
Johnson & Johnson	Joaquin Duato Vanessa Broadhurst Peter Fasolo	Joaquin: MBA, Master of international management Vanessa: Ba, Master of Business Administration Peter: PhD in organizational behavior, Msc. Industrial Psychology, Ba Psychology⁴⁷	Executive VP, Chief Medical Safety Officer; William Hait MD. PhD Oncology Executive VP, Pharmaceuticals R&D; Mathai Mammen MD. PhD Chemistry	15.69% ⁴⁸
Pfizer	Dr. Albert Bourla Sally Susman Payal Sahni Becher Rady Johnson	Albert: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (biotechnology) Sally: Ba Government Payal: Ba psychology, Msc Psychology Rady: Accountant⁴⁹	Chief Development Officer: William Pao: MD. PhD oncology Chief Scientific Officer, Worldwide R&D: Mikael Dolsten; MD. PhD Tumor Immunology⁴⁹	17.01% ⁵⁰
Roche	Dr. Severin Schwan, William N. (Bill) Anderson, Dr. Thomas Schinecker, Dr. Alan Hippe	Severin: Ba economics, PhD law William: Msc in management and chemical engineering Thomas: Bsc genetics, Msc molecular biology, Phd molecular biology Alan: Ba, Phd in administration⁵¹	CEO Roche Diagnostics; Dr. Thomas Schinecker; PhD in Molecular Biology⁵¹	23.563% ⁵²

References:

Aurora Webpage. Auroramj https://www.auroramj.com/#science.
Definition of Core. Merriam-Webster Dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/core?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld.
Tilray Brands WebPage. https://www.tilray.com/.
Rathi, A. Why scientists make bad entrepreneurs—and how to change that. Quartz (2015).
Mintz, C. Science vs. Business: Who Makes A Better CEO? Life Science Leader (2009).
Fuglie, K., King, J. & David Schimmelpfennig. Private Industry Investing Heavily, and Globally, in Research To Improve Agricultural Productivity. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2012).
Canopy Growth R&D expenses. https://ycharts.com/companies/WEED.TO/r_and_d_expense.
Tilray R&D expenses. Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/TLRY.TO/r_and_d_expense.
TerrAscend R&D expenses. Ycharts.
Thomke, S. & Loveman, G. Act Like a Scientist. Harvard Business Review (2022).
Knott, A. M. The Trillion-Dollar R&D Fix. Harvard Business Review (2012).
Gulati, R., Nohria, N. & Wohllgezogen, F. Roaring Out of Recession. Harvard Business Review (2020).
Soferman, R. Why You Shouldn’t Cut R&D Investments In Times Of Crisis And Recession. Forbes (2020).
Madisch, I. Why I Hire Scientists, and Why You Should, Too. Scientific American (2018).
Havn Life Sciences Inc. Announces Appointment of Gary Leong as Chief Science Officer. https://apnews.com/press-release/accesswire/science-business-life-sciences-inc-aphria-inc-319a516963144b308d146d97dee0dc69 (2020).
Bruce Linton. Elite Biographies https://elitebiographies.com/biography/bruce-linton/.
Canopy Growth Page . Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/CGC.
Lee, A. 20 Things You Didn’t Know About Terry Booth. Money Inc (2020).
Aurora Cannabis page. Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/ACB.
Brendan Kennedy Profile. linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/kennedybrendan/.
Christian Groh Profile. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/17139193.
Micheal Blue Profile. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/18227502.
Tilray Page. Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/TLRY.
A Jonathan Sandelman Profile. zoominfo https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jonathan-Sandelman/2245250.
Dr. Michael Nashat Appointed President & CEO of TerrAscend. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/dr-michael-nashat-appointed-president-ceo-of-terrascend-1012862002 (2018).
TerrAscend Page. Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/TRSSF.
Sebastien St-Louis Profile. Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/sstlouis/?originalSubdomain=ca.
HEXO Corp Page. Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/HEXO.
Trevor Fencott Profile. bezinga.com https://www.benzinga.com/events/cannabis-conference/speakers/trevor-fencott/.
Mark Catroppa Profile. linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/markcatroppa/.
Monty Sikka Profile. linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/monty-sikka-3024a1a6/.
Natasha Ryz Profile. crunchbase https://www.crunchbase.com/person/natasha-ryz.
Senior Management Amgen Page. Amgen https://www.amgen.com/about/leadership.
Amgen Stocks Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/AMGN.
Sanofi Executive Team Page. https://www.sanofi.com/en/about-us/governance/executive-committee.
Sanofi Stocks Page. Ycharts https://ycharts.com/companies/SNY.
Bristol Myers Squibb Leadership Team. https://www.bms.com/about-us/leadership/leadership-team.html.
Bristol Myers Squibb Stocks Page. YCharts.
Takeda Executive Leadership Page. Takeda https://www.takeda.com/who-we-are/company-information/executive-leadership/.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Stocks Page. YCharts.
Abbvie Our Leaders Page. Abbvie https://www.abbvie.com/our-company/leadership.html.
Abbvie Inc Stocks Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/ABBV.
novartis executive committee page. novartis https://www.novartis.com/about/executive-committee.
Novartis AG Stocks Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/NVS.
Merck Executive team Page. Merck https://www.merck.com/company-overview/leadership/executive-team/.
Merck Stocks Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/MRK.
Johnson and Johnson Our Leadership Team Page. Johnson and Johnson https://www.jnj.com/leadership/our-leadership-team.
Johnson and Johnson Stocks Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/JNJ/market_cap.
Pfizer Executive Leadership Page. Pfizer https://www.pfizer.com/about/people/executives.
Pfizer Inc Stocks Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/PFE.
Roche Executive Committee Webpage. Roche https://www.roche.com/about/governance/executive-committee.
Roche Holding AG Stock Page. YCharts https://ycharts.com/companies/RHHBY.

June 2, 2022

Soapbox

How Do You Know You’re Right? qPCR vs. Plating

By Dr. Sherman Hom

2 Comments

Cannabis testing to detect microbial contamination is complicated. It may not be rocket science, but it is life science, which means it’s a moving target, or at least, it should be, as we acquire more and more information about how the world we live in works. We are lucky to be able to carry out that examination in ever increasing detail. For instance, the science of genomics¹ was born over 80 years ago, and just twenty years ago, genetics was still a black box. We’ve made tremendous progress since those early days, but we still have a long way to go, to be sure.

Much of that progress is due to our ability to build more accurate tools, a technological ladder, if you will, that raises our awareness, expertise, and knowledge to new levels. When a new process or technology appears, we compare it against accepted practice to create a new paradigm and make the necessary adjustments. But people have to be willing to change. In the cannabis industry, rapid change is a constant, first because that is the nature of a nascent industry, and second because in the absence of some universal and unimpeachable standard, it’s difficult to know who’s right. Especially when the old, reliable reference method (i.e. plating, which is basically growing microorganisms on the surface of a nutritional medium) is deeply flawed in its application to cannabis testing vs. molecular methods (i.e., quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or qPCR for short).

Dr. Sherman Hom, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Medicinal Genomics

Plating systems have been used faithfully for close to 130 years in the food industry, and has performed reasonably well.² But cannabis isn’t food and can’t be tested as if it were. In fact, plating methods have a host of major disadvantages that only show up when they’re used to detect cannabis pathogens. They are, in no particular order:

A single plating system can’t enumerate a group of microorganisms and/or detect specific bacterial and fungal pathogens. This is further complicated by the fact that better than 98% of the microbes in the world do not form colonies.³ And there is no ONE UNIVERSAL bacterial or fungal SELECTIVE agar plate that will allow the growth of all bacteria or all fungal strains. For example, the 5 genus species of fungal strains implicated in powderly mildew DO NOT plate at all.
Cannabinoids, which can represent 10-30% of a cannabis flower’s weight, have been shown to have antibacterial activity.⁴ Antibiotics inhibit the growth of bacteria and in some cases kill it altogether. Salmonella species & shiga toxin producing coli (STEC) bacteria, in particular, are very sensitive to antibiotics, which leads to either a false negative result or lower total counts on plates vs. qPCR methods.
Plating methods cannot detect bacterial and fungal endophytes that live a part or all of their life cycle inside a cannabis plant.^5,6 Examples of endophytes are the Aspergillus pathogens (A. flavus, A. fumigatus, A. niger, and A. terreus). Methods to break open the plant cells to access these endophytes to prepare them for plating methods also lyse these microbial cells, thereby killing endophytic cells in the process. That’s why these endophytes will never form colonies, which leads to either false negative results or lower total counts on plates vs. qPCR methods.
Selective plating media for molds, such as Dichloran Rose-Bengal Chloramphenicol (DRBC) actually reduces mold growth—especially Aspergillus—by as much as 5-fold.This delivers false negative results for this dangerous human pathogen. In other words, although the DRBC medium is typically used to reduce bacteria; it comes at the cost of missing 5-fold more yeast and molds than Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) + Chloramphenicol or molecular methods. These observations were derived from study results of the AOAC emergency response validation.⁷
Finally, we’ve recently identified four bacterial species, which are human pathogens associated with cannabis that do not grow at the plating system incubation temperature typically used.⁸ They are Aeromonas hydrophila, Pantoea agglomerans, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Rahnella aquatilis. This lowers total counts on plates qPCR methods.

So why is plating still so popular? Better yet, why is it still the recommended method for many state regulators? Beats me. But I can hazard a couple of guesses.

First, research on cannabis has been restricted for the better part of the last 70 years, and it’s impossible to construct a body of scientific knowledge by keeping everyone in the dark. Ten years ago, as one of the first government-employed scientists to study cannabis, I was tapped to start the first cannabis testing lab at the New Jersey Dept. of Health and we had to build it from ground zero. Nobody knew anything about cannabis then.

Second, because of a shortage of cannabis-trained experts, members of many regulatory bodies come from the food industry—where they’ve used plating almost exclusively. So, when it comes time to draft cannabis microbial testing regulations, plating is the default method. After all, it worked for them before and they’re comfortable with recommending it for their state’s cannabis regulations.

Finally, there’s a certain amount of discomfort in not being right. Going into this completely new area—remember, the legal cannabis industry didn’t even exist 10 years ago—we human beings like to have a little certainty to fall back on. The trouble is, falling back on what we did before stifles badly needed progress. This is a case where, if you’re comfortable with your old methods and you’re sure of your results, you’re probably wrong.

So let’s accept the fact that we’re all in this uncharted territory together. We don’t yet know everything about cannabis we need to know, but we do know some things, and we already have some pretty good tools, based on real science, that happen to work really well. Let’s use them to help light our way.

References

J. Weissenbach. The rise of genomics. Comptes Rendu Biologies, 339 (7-8), 231-239 (2016).
R. Koch. 1882. Die Aetiologie der Tuberculose. Berliner Klinische Wochenschrift, 19, 221-230 (1882).
W. Wade. Unculturable bacteria—the uncharacterized organisms that cause oral infections. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(2), 91-93 (2002).
J.A. Karas, L.J.M. Wong, O.K.A. Paulin, A. C. Mazeh, M.H. Hussein, J. Li, and T. Vekov. Antibiotics, 9(7), 406 (2020).
M. Taghinasab and S. Jabaji, Cannabis microbiome and the role of endophytes in modulating the production of secondary metabolites: an overview. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 355, 1-16 (2020).
P. Kusari, S. Kusari, M. Spiteller and O. Kayser, Endophytic fungi harbored in Cannabis sativa L.: diversity and potential as biocontrol agents against host plant-specific phytopathogens. Fungal Diversity 60, 137–151 (2013).
K. McKernan, Y. Helbert, L. Kane, N. Houde, L. Zhang, S. McLaughlin, Whole genome sequencing of colonies derived from cannabis flowers & the impact of media selection on benchmarking total yeast & mold detection tools, https://f1000research.com/articles/10-624 (2021).
K. McKernan, Y. Helbert, L. Kane, L. Zhang, N. Houde, A. Bennett, J. Silva, H. Ebling, and S. McLaughlin, Pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae require multiple culture temperatures for detection in Cannabis sativa L. OSF Preprints, https://osf.io/j3msk/, (2022)

May 16, 2022

Why the Cannabis Industry Must Combat Degree Inflation

By Tori Gates

3 Comments

The hiring process is evolving: major U.S. employers are reconsidering the significance of higher learning. An employer’s undue emphasis on university education while hiring is called “degree inflation.” As the hiring manager for NisonCo, a cannabis public relations, marketing and SEO agency, I have learned a college degree is not the best predictor of employee success.

NisonCo was established during the dawning of the modern cannabis legalization movement. At the time, our small staff included individuals with and without college degrees. I evaluated both groups of employees and learned they gave equal contributions to the team. Limiting our pool of potential candidates to university graduates would have hindered the growth of our company.

Accordingly, at NisonCo a college degree is not required to work. We believe degree inflation impedes hiring, increases payroll, encourages turnover and perpetuates social injustice. For these reasons, NisonCo encourages your cannabis company to emphasize a candidate’s skills and drive during the hiring process rather than their education.

Degree Inflation Increased in the Aftermath of The Great Recession

The Great Recession in 2008 caused a massive downturn in the U.S. economy. By 2010, the workforce had lost nearly 9 million jobs. The unemployed entered a tight labor market, and employers had the luxury of limiting potential candidates to college graduates. After the economic downturn, the number of employers requiring a college degree increased by 10%.

Employers added degree requirements to positions previously staffed by high school graduates. In 2015, 67% of job postings for production supervisors required a degree, while only 16% of current production supervisors possessed degrees. The Great Recession pushed Americans without a college degree out of the labor market.

Technological Advancements and Social Movements Confront Degree Inflation

The importance of technical skills began declining when automation entered the workforce in the 1980s. Employers suddenly required soft skills like relationship management to serve customers and resolve conflicts with partners successfully. A technologically advanced economy requires problem-solving and people skills. These skills are not usually acquired while attaining a college degree.

Most employers confirmed degree inflation prevents them from hiring equipped employees.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, companies laid off millions of employees. Many unemployed people reconsidered their relationship with work and decided to leave unfulfilling jobs. Employers are now in dire need of staff, and they no longer have the privilege of requiring a college degree during the hiring process. This degree inflation prevents recovery from the economic downturn caused by the pandemic.

The Black Lives Matter movement highlighted the need to deliver social justice to historically marginalized communities. Americans are learning these communities need economic opportunities to achieve social justice. For this reason, employers are reexamining hiring practices and identifying barriers to equity. Employers like NisonCo have recognized since company inception that degree requirements impede social justice.

Degree Inflation is Bad for your Cannabis Business

The Harvard Business School polled business leaders on their perception of the performance of employees with and without degrees. The polling revealed the hidden costs of degree inflation: pending positions, payroll premiums, poor productivity and high turnover. Undoubtedly, degree inflation is not suitable for your cannabis business.

Most employers confirmed degree inflation prevents them from hiring equipped employees. They admit that candidates without degrees may possess the skills needed to thrive in most positions. Often, degree inflation prevents the discovery of competent candidates without degrees.

Most respondents revealed that degree inflation places a premium on wages for college graduates. Many respondents also confirmed those with and without degrees provide equal contributions to their teams. Degree inflation adds unnecessary payroll and training costs to a company’s budget.

Many employers believe staff members with university degrees demand higher salaries and benefits than staff without degrees. Additionally, most respondents admitted employees with degrees demonstrate low productivity and experience high job dissatisfaction. As a result, employers witness increased turnover among college graduates. In my experience, degree inflation can prevent employers from finding productive, satisfied, and loyal employees.

5 Ways Your Cannabis Company Can Oppose Degree Inflation

Review Your Company’s Job Descriptions and Assess Contributions to Degree Inflation

I recommend reviewing your company’s positions and determining if they are prone to degree inflation. Evaluate job descriptions written by leaders in the cannabis industry to understand if your degree requirements contribute to degree inflation and consider dropping degree requirements for positions that are common contributors to degree inflation.

Identify the Technical and Soft Skills Needed for Positions in Your Company

I advocate for analyzing the technical and soft skills needed for positions in your cannabis company. Review your job descriptions to determine if they require soft skills a candidate without a degree could possess. Delete degree requirements from job descriptions that do not need technical education provided by universities. Additionally, review the vetting process for candidates and remove onerous education requirements for positions requiring additional soft skills.

Analyze the Costs of Your Company’s Contribution to Degree Inflation

Understanding your cannabis company’s contribution to degree inflation lowers the costs of sustaining it. Developing metrics for evaluating contributions to degree inflation helps assess the charges to your company. Realizing your company’s potential cost savings helps maintain a commitment to combating degree inflation.

Develop Your Company’s Pipeline of Non-Degree Employees

Your cannabis company should develop alternative talent pipelines to attract non-degree employees. Investments in training create talent pipelines that give your company access to new pools of competent and productive candidates. Investments in training attract employees without college degrees and confront degree inflation.

Expand Your Company’s Territory for Recruiting New Employees

I recommend expanding your company’s geographic footprint while recruiting. Establishing relationships with partners in new territories provides access to new pools of non-degree talent. Expansion of your recruiting territory withstands degree inflation.

The Cannabis Industry Should Commit to Combatting Degree Inflation

Legalizing cannabis began as a social justice movement to benefit historically marginalized communities, and the maturation of our industry can deliver social justice to these communities. The cannabis industry has a prime opportunity to be an excellent example for other sectors confronting degree inflation. Our industry must demonstrate how different sectors can resist the urge to support it.

April 20, 2022

Biros' Blog

Happy 4/20, Blaze On!

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

Happy 4/20! The cannabis holiday with unclear origins is today and with it comes hundreds and hundreds of marketing and story pitches landing in every journalist’s inbox. Some of those pitches are impactful, some lack substance, some celebrate anniversaries, most offer discounts and sales and some are truly bizarre.

Every year, April 20th marks the cannabis holiday that people around the world celebrate with copious amounts of cannabis, concerts, festivals, deals, sales and marketing gimmicks. This year, here are some noteworthy (and weird) happenings going on as we celebrate the wonderful plant that brings us all together:

Leafly rings in the holiday on the NASDAQ: Leafly CEO Yoko Miyashita, surrounded by her colleagues, rang the opening bell for the NASDAQ Stock Exchange. The company began publicly trading on the NASDAQ as ‘LFLY’ back in February.

Smoke em if ya got em: Leafly CEO Yoko Miyashita, surrounded by her colleagues, rang the opening bell for the NASDAQ Stock Exchange

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) turned twenty on April 19: The policy, action and advocacy organization has been influential in passing medical cannabis laws throughout the country for twenty years now. The organization has trained thousands of public defenders, worked with thousands of incarcerated medical cannabis prisoners, organized protests all over the country, worked with regulators in dozens of states to pass safety rules, published reports, launched their Patient Focused Certification program and much more. Happy birthday ASA!

Emerald Cup and SC Labs celebrate thirteenth anniversary: The couple has been together now for thirteen years, with the Emerald Cup heading into their eighteenth annual competition next month. For the past thirteen years, Santa Cruz-based SC labs has worked with the Emerald Cup as their official testing partner, verifying COAs for potency and purity, gathering data on terpenes and classifying products and strains. Happy anniversary you two!

Smoking’ sandwiches: The cannabis-inspired, Arizona-based sandwich shop chain Cheba Hut celebrates the holiday with $4.20 “nugs” (pretzel nuggets) served on a frisbee and two PBRs for $4.20.

NORML stays busy: Executive Director Erik Altieri called for reforms in a press release: “While we have undoubtedly made immense progress in recent years, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are still arrested each year for simple possession of a plant. That is why we are calling on all Americans to take time out of their day on 4/20 to help us finish the fight, both at the federal level and in those states that still are living under the dark ages of prohibition. We have an overwhelming mandate from the people and we intend to make sure that elected officials abide by it.”

New Jersey, a day late and a dollar short: The Garden State will begin adult use sales on April 21st at thirteen dispensaries. The delays, licensing process and regulatory hurdles have created confusion and frustration for the industry, but the state is moving forward with their plan and dispensaries will serve adults over 21 tomorrow, a day after the holiday.

Cannabis-infused Mac and cheese, a dangerously cheesy combination.

Sluggish Senate: The SAFE Banking Act has passed the House six (six!) times so far, most recently in February of this year. Sen. Cory Booker has long said he opposes the cannabis banking bill without wider legalization legislation (say that six times fast). Sen. Chuck Schumer also announced last week that his cannabis bill introduction is delayed. The CAOA won’t come until August now he says.

Cannabis Cuisine: Celebrity chef Todd English curates a “cannabis-curious cuisine” with infused Mac & Cheese via LastLeaf.

Erotic infusions: This CBD company offers 20% off their infused lubes, massage oils and products with code oOYes20. OoYes! CBD Lube is a female-founded formulations company focusing on the sex positive, “cannagasmic” hemp-derived CBD products space.

Backwards down the number line: Phish plays their first night back at Madison Square Garden in New York for a four-night run. Correctly guess the opener for tonight in the comments below and win a free beer and a burger with me at this year’s Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo.

That’s all folks! Thanks for reading and blaze on!

Blast from the past: Here’s a little treat if you’ve made it this far. This is me ten years ago today (back in college), smoking a joint on April 20, 2012. Time flies.

April 17, 2022

Soapbox

The Need for More Stringent Testing in Cannabis

By Milan Patel

No Comments

As the demand for legal cannabis continues to rise and more states come online, it is imperative to enact more rigorous and comprehensive testing solutions to protect the health of consumers. People use cannabis products for wellness and to find relief; they should not be susceptible to consuming pathogens and falling ill. Especially for immunocompromised consumers, the consequences of consuming contaminated cannabis or hemp are dire. Of course, there should be federal standards for pathogen testing requirements like we have for the food industry. But right now, as cannabis is not yet federally legal, testing regulations vary between states and in many states, testing requirements are too loose and enforcement is minimal. It is up to state legislators, regulators and cannabis operators to protect the health of consumers through implementing more stringent testing.

From the outset, the environmental elements needed to grow cannabis – heat, light, humidity, soil – make cannabis ripe for pathogens to proliferate. Even when growers follow strict sanitation procedures through the supply chain from seed to sale, contaminations can still occur. Cannabis companies need to be hypervigilant and proactive about testing, not just reactive. The lack of regulations in some states is alarming, and as the cannabis industry is highly competitive and so many companies have emerged in a short time, there are unfortunately unscrupulous actors that have skated by in a loose regulatory landscape, just in the game to make a quick buck, even at the expense of consumer health. And there are notable instances where states do not have enforcement in place to deter harmful manufacturing practices. For instance, there are some states that don’t mandate moisture control and there have been incidents of companies watering down flower so it has more weight and thus can be sold at a higher cost – all the while that added moisture leads to mold, harming the consumer. This vicious circle driven by selfish human behavior needs to be broken by stricter regulations and enforcement.

While in the short term, looser testing regulations may save companies some money, in the long run these regulatory environments carry significant economic repercussions and damage the industry at large, most importantly injury or death to customers and patients. Recalls can tarnish a company’s brand and reputation and cause sales and stock prices to tank, and since cannabis legalization is such a hotly contested issue, the media gloms onto these recalls, which opponents to legalization then leverage to justify their stance. In order to win the hearts and minds of opponents and bring about federal legalization sooner, we need safer products so cannabis won’t be cast in such a dangerous, risky light.

Certainly, there’s a bit of irony at play here – the lack of federal regulations heightens the risk of contaminated cannabis reaching consumers, and on the flip side recalls are used by opponents to justify stigmatizing the plant and keeping it illegal. Nevertheless, someday in the not-too-distant future, cannabis will be legalized at the federal level. And when that day happens, federal agents will aggressively test and regulate cannabis; they’ll swab every area in facilities and demand thorough records of testing up and down the supply chain; current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) will be mandated. No longer will violations result just in a slap on the wrist – businesses will be shut down. To avoid a massive shock to the system, it makes sense for cannabis companies to pivot and adopt rigorous and wide-sweeping testing procedures today. Wait for federal legalization, and you’ll sink.

Frankly, the current landscape of cannabis regulation is scary and the consequences are largely yet to be seen. Just a few months ago, a Michigan state judge reversed part of a recall issued by the state’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) on cannabis that exceeded legal limits of yeast, mold and aspergillus, bringing contaminated cannabis back to shelves without even slapping a warning label on the packaging to inform consumers of the potential contamination. This is a classic case of the power of the dollar prevailing over consumer safety and health. Even in well-established markets, the lack of regulations is jarring. For example, before this year in Colorado, testing for aspergillus wasn’t even required. (Aspergillus inhalation, which can cause Aspergillosis, can be deadly, especially for people who are immunocompromised). Many states still allow trace amounts of aspergillus and other pathogens to be present in cannabis samples. While traces may seem inconsequential in the short term, what will happen to frequent consumers who have been pinging their lungs with traces of pathogens for 30 years? Consistently inhaling trace amounts of pathogens can lead to lung issues and pulmonary disease down the road. Look what happened to people with breathing and lung issues during the last two years with COVID. What’s going to happen to these people when the next pandemic hits?

We need state regulators and MSOs to step up and implement more aggressive testing procedures. These regulators and companies can create a sea of change in the industry to better protect the health and well-being of consumers. Just complying with loose regulations isn’t good enough. We need to bring shortcomings around testing into the limelight and demand better and more efficient regulatory frameworks. And we should adopt the same standards for medical and adult use markets. Right now, several states follow cGMP for medical but not adult use – that’s ridiculous. Potentially harming consumers goes against what activists seeking legalization have been fighting for. Cannabis, untainted, provides therapeutic and clinical value not just to medical patients but to all consumers; cannabis companies should promote consumer health through their products, not jeopardize it.

For best practices, companies should conduct tests at every step in the supply chain, not just test end products. And testing solutions should be comprehensive. Most of the common tests used today are based on petri dishes, an archaic and inefficient technology dating back over a century, which require a separate dish to test for each pathogen of interest. If you’re waiting three to five days to see testing results against fifteen pathogens and a pathogen happens to be present, by the time you see results, the pathogen could have spread and destroyed half of your crops. So, not only do petri dishes overburden state-run labs, but due to their inherent inefficiencies, relying on these tests can significantly eat into cannabis companies’ revenues. At PathogenDx, we’ve created multiplexing solutions that can identify and detect up to 50 pathogens in a single test and yield accurate results in six hours. To save cannabis companies money in the long run and to make sure pathogens don’t slip through the cracks, more multiplexing tests like the ones we’ve created should be implemented in state labs.

Right now, while the regulatory landscape is falling short in terms of protecting consumer health, better solutions already exist. I urge state regulators and cannabis companies to take testing very seriously, be proactive and invest in creating better testing infrastructure today. Together, we can protect the health of consumers and create a stronger, more trustworthy and prosperous cannabis industry.

March 28, 2022

Soapbox

How Fraud is Proliferating in the Cannabis Testing Market

By Cindy Orser, PhD

2 Comments

With more and more states fully legalizing cannabis for medical and adult use, regulation has become a hot topic for the industry – and it won’t be going away anytime soon. The markets for virtually all cannabis uses (with the exception of industrial hemp, under the Farm Bill) have manifested at the state level without the benefit of federal oversight. One of the biggest consequences of state-based programs has been striking inconsistencies in assuring public safety through the establishment of testing requirements and the licensing of third-party, independent testing laboratories. Establishing legal cannabis programs on a state-by-state basis has been from the ground up. While some states have done a better job than others, it has not been an easy process; one that typically involves adjusting to yearly legislative changes. Third-party independent cannabis testing labs seem like a logical arrangement for public safety and defensibility at the state level given the illegal federal status of cannabis, and while this arrangement has undoubtedly prevented tainted cannabis flower, extracts and products from ending up on dispensary shelves, many caveats from this arrangement have emerged, including fraud.

While most states do require ISO 17025:2017 accreditation, no uniform testing methods nor uniform contaminant testing requirements exist, and they vary considerably. We see this in several examples including the list of pesticides required for screening varying from none to over 66, screening for microbial contaminants varies from a simple presence/absence test for two human pathogens to quantitative enumeration across several enteric and fungal categories and, finally, some states adhere to the American Herbal Pharmacopeia heavy metal limits for herbs, while other states have adopted the more appropriate US Pharmacopeia inhalation limits. Some states require rigorous demonstration of method validation before licensing, while other states hand out preliminary licenses prior to submission and review of validation data packages for each analyte category.

Fraud in laboratory testing facilities is well known in the clinical setting, especially where lucrative Medicare or commercial insurance claims tempt less than honest laboratory managers to falsify results or add tests that were not ordered by a physician costing taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Fraud within cannabis testing labs is not instigated by large insurance payouts but rather by survival within individual markets where competition for clients can be fierce. Cannabis testing fraud ranges from outright collusion of testing labs with growers and producers demanding certificates of analysis (CoAs) with specific, inflated THC numbers to a testing lab handing out sweeping passing marks for contaminants in an attempt to keep clients or steal clients away from a reputable lab not willing to inflate cannabinoid values or pass on the presence of, say, chlorpyrifos, a highly toxic organophosphate pesticide, in extracts or lead in outdoor-grown hemp.

Cannabis testing labs have had little power to influence state legislators or regulators to improve industry oversight and combat fraud. From the outset of a state cannabis program, the growers and producers are placed in the driver seat. They generate the products that end up in dispensaries and generate sales that create the tax revenue that propels the industry forward. A consequence of this hierarchical arrangement has let the growers decide that the concentration of THC equates with value. This translates to the higher the THC concentration, the higher the price both wholesale and retail. Sadly, this also has been taken to mean better products yet with zero medical justification since we know virtually nothing about THC dosing, save for how our endocannabinoid system functions, which is at the nanomolar range. Now the entire cannabis industry is stuck with this unsubstantiated marketing ploy around THC that no one can now seem to escape. It is as if cigarette makers had decided early on to market their brands by how much nicotine each cigarette contained. You can see how this would have quickly led to toxic levels of nicotine.

Where do we go from here? Placing THC content as the primary valuation of cannabis is not an easy problem to solve, as there is little incentive for change. Fraudulent labs provide higher THC numbers, which increases dollars to the growers/producers and state tax coffers fill up. It’s a multi-point problem that will require a multi-point solution:

State regulators could move the focus away from THC by placing limits on the concentration of THC in products, increasing oversight of cannabis testing labs, and requiring unscheduled round-robin testing and annual review of validation data packages.
Growers and producers could place a higher emphasis on public safety and education.
Ultimately, the solution lies with the cannabis consumer through education and awareness. Cannabis end-users need to familiarize themselves with the testing regulations in their state and understand that higher THC numbers does not mean a better or more effective product. Cannabis consumers also need to understand the product on the market may or may not be tested for microbiological contaminants protecting them from pathogens. In many instances, they are paying for higher THC numbers that are not reflected in the product they just purchased.

Until cannabis is federally legalized and therefore given federal oversight, piecemeal, state-by-state regulation is going to continue. How that regulation protects the American consumer is up to the work of the industry and what we continue to prioritize.

March 23, 2022

How to Make Sure Your Cannabis Delivery Service Is Compliant

By Claudia Post

No Comments

On-demand cannabis delivery services are a rapidly growing part of the industry. Having a delivery option available for your dispensary’s patient population is a critical component of your service offering. This is especially true when considering medical cannabis patients who might have conditions that hinder their mobility or patients who just prefer the anonymity or convenience of delivery rather than visiting a dispensary.

So I ask you – why don’t you have a delivery service option available for your dispensary?

While there are several models for cannabis delivery, depending on the state you live in, the biggest challenge dispensary owners face is ensuring that their delivery service continues to meet all compliance standards.

Beware, one misstep in your delivery process could mean serious implications for your dispensary and you – including being shut down.

Keep reading to learn how you can provide your customers and patients with a delivery service while remaining compliant with your state’s rules and regulations.

How to Keep Your Cannabis Delivery Service Compliant

Part of keeping your cannabis delivery service compliant is understanding how to start a delivery service from the ground up. Keep in mind that the costs will vary depending on how you structure your company. Things to think about – insurance, technology, merchant processing, driver recruiting and whether or not your drivers will be independent contractors or employees.

Additionally, you will have to consider the regulations that are standard in your state.

For instance, if you don’t do your research, you won’t know whether or not you need two drivers in the car, whether or not you need a lockbox, or if you’re required to have handhelds for payment. Other requirements will depend on the state in which you live.

Here are the most important things you’ll need to do to get started:

Do Your Homework

The first thing you need to do to ensure that your service is compliant is research your state’s delivery protocol. That means obtaining the proper licensing or certifications necessary to move cannabis products from one place to another.

It should be noted that in some states, like Washington, cannabis delivery providers must also obtain a retailer’s license. You’ll also need to determine whether your state allows delivery for only medical cannabis or both medical and recreational.

Please keep in mind the following – cannabis is not federally recognized as legal. Therefore, the only deliveries you can make are intrastate deliveries.

In some states you’re required to have handhelds for payment.

Lastly, you’ll need to pay close attention to how you can advertise your cannabis delivery service. The guidelines vary from state to state, and they typically include regulations for content, imaging and location.

Is Owning a Delivery Service Right for You?

Delivery, in general, is not easy. The delivery business is difficult to integrate into the highly regulated cannabis market; it becomes extraordinarily difficult to manage.

It’s great to have a delivery service, but are you a good salesperson? Do you understand marketing, positioning and messaging? Have you ever written SOPs or standard operating procedures? There are so many questions to ask yourself when you want to own a business.

Consider Working With Logistics Experts

While it may be tempting to create an in-house delivery service all on your own, think twice.

It’s best to partner with a third-party logistics partner, like Scarlet Express. These partners are experts in cannabis delivery services and will arm you with everything you need to be successful.

Most cannabis logistics companies can also scale right along with your business, so you don’t have to worry about “outgrowing” their services.

As a new or small dispensary owner, taking on the challenges of cannabis delivery can be incredibly difficult but not impossible when you work with a company that has tried and true systems in place. Lots of things to consider, seek out experts – like Scarlet Express.

March 16, 2022

Cannabis Businesses Need D&O Coverage; What Does The Insurance Landscape Look Like?

By Benjamin Sibthorpe

No Comments

Cannabis continues to be a hot sector across the United States; buoyed by its ‘Essential Business’ status during the pandemic, a surge of plant touching and ancillary service providers have set up shop in the past 12 months to capture a share of this burgeoning growth. The cannabis industry is currently the leading job creator in the country, employing almost 430,000 workers according to a recent report from Leafly. Estimates on the overall size of the industry vary depending on the source, but projections of over $100bn in value by 2030 are not uncommon, while M&A activity continues to gather pace after a downturn in 2019. Clearly, investors and the public are bullish on the industry as a segment, with further state legislation to expand the number of adult use and medical markets to come. So why is the directors & officers (D&O) and management liability insurance market not embracing this growth industry?

At its core, a good D&O policy will protect the individual directors, officers and executive teams of companies, including their personal assets, in the event of suits and allegations filed based on their running and oversight of their business. For private companies, this also extends to balance sheet protection and coverage for the entity; for public companies, coverage for securities suits and claims.

The cannabis industry, despite the macro factors propelling its growth, faces numerous challenges when trying to procure D&O insurance. Very few D&O and management liability carriers are willing to entertain cannabis and related risks; even fewer are specialty underwriters willing to provide meaningful, expert coverage which truly addresses the exposures faced by executives and operators in the cannabis industry.

Cannabis D&O premiums can cause sticker shock, typically priced 4 to 10 times higher than non-cannabis businesses. Some operators have an air of invincibility and forego the purchase, believing it is not worth the cost. Meanwhile, the ability to attract and retain talented executives and directors away from other industries typically depends on having this coverage purchased and in place. Yet the outlay can be a burden in an industry which already faces fierce competition for market share, and a disparate tax treatment at a state and federal level.“The value of a D&O policy cannot be overstated.”

Even those carriers and underwriters who do entertain cannabis risks are constantly evaluating the nuances of the space: an ever changing complex state regulatory environment; the relative immaturity of the industry and the hyper-focus on growth; the lack of standardized valuation and accounting; the lack of access to institutional financing; the continued uncertainty of insolvency or restructuring in lieu of federal bankruptcy protections for plant touching companies; the operating inefficiencies for MSOs across state lines and the lack of interstate commerce; in short, the cannabis industry certainly poses its own unique and evolving risks for D&O insurers.

Ultimately the market will continue to evolve for cannabis insureds, as the data matures and the regulatory landscape become clearer. The value of a D&O policy cannot be overstated. Most public companies purchase D&O as a matter of course, but even for private cannabis companies, the right coverage is invaluable. Not having the protection afforded by a D&O policy can be ruinous for a cannabis operator, particularly in a niche area where defending claims and circumstances is complex, time consuming and ultimately expensive – typically much more so than the upfront cost of the D&O policy.

Partnering with the right broker who specializes in both management liability and cannabis is step one to getting the best value coverage. Step two is securing a policy from a dedicated market with underwriters who truly understand the cannabis space and tailor coverage to protect the executives, boards and companies that are driving this exciting growth industry.