Heavy Metals Testing: Methods, Strategies & Sampling

By Charles Deibel
No Comments

Editor’s Note: The following is based on research and studies performed in their Santa Cruz Lab, with contributions from Mikhail Gadomski, Lab Manager, Ryan Maus Technical Services Analyst, Laurie Post, Director of Food Safety & Compliance, and Charles Deibel, President Deibel Cannabis Labs.


Heavy metals are common environmental contaminants resulting from human industrial activities such as mining operations, industrial waste, automotive emissions, coal fired power plants and farm/house hold water run-off. They affect the water and soil, and become concentrated in plants, animals, pesticides and the sediments used to make fertilizers. They can also be present in low quality glass or plastic packaging materials that can leach into the final cannabis product upon contact. The inputs used by cultivators that can be contaminated with heavy metals include fertilizers, growing media, air, water and even the clone/plant itself.

The four heavy metals tested in the cannabis industry are lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium. The California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) mandates heavy metals testing for all three categories of cannabis products (inhalable cannabis, inhalable cannabis products and other cannabis and cannabis products) starting December 31, 2018. On an ongoing basis, we recommend cultivators test for the regulated heavy metals in R&D samples any time there are changes in a growing process including changes to growing media, cannabis strains, a water system or source, packaging materials and fertilizers or pesticides. Cultivators should test the soil, nutrient medium, water and any new clones or plants for heavy metals. Pre-qualifying a new packaging material supplier or a water source prior to use is a proactive approach that could bypass issues with finished product.

Testing Strategies

The best approach to heavy metal detection is the use of an instrument called an Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). There are many other instruments that can test for heavy metals, but in order to achieve the very low detection limits imposed by most states including California, the detector must be the ICP-MS. Prior to detection using ICP-MS, cannabis and cannabis related products go through a sample preparation stage consisting of some form of digestion to completely break down the complex matrix and extract the heavy metals for analysis. This two-step process is relatively fast and can be done in a single day, however, the instruments used to perform the digestion are usually the limiting step as the digesters run in a batch of 8-16 samples over a 2-hour period.

Only trace amounts of heavy metals are allowed by California’s BCC in cannabis and cannabis products. A highly sensitive detection system finds these trace amounts and also allows troubleshooting when a product is found to be out of specification.

For example, during the course of testing, we have seen lead levels exceed the BCC’s allowable limit of 0.5 ppm in resin from plastic vape cartridges. An investigation determined that the plastic used to make the vape cartridge was the source of the excessive lead levels. Even if a concentrate passes the limits at the time of sampling, the concern is that over time, the lead leached from the plastic into the resin, increasing the concentration of heavy metals to unsafe levels.

Getting a Representative Sample

The ability to detect trace levels of heavy metals is based on the sample size and how well the sample represents the entire batch. The current California recommended amount of sample is 1 gram of product per batch.  Batch sizes can vary but cannot be larger than 50 pounds of flower. There is no upper limit to the batch sizes for other inhalable cannabis products (Category II).

It is entirely likely that two different 1 gram samples of flower can have two different results for heavy metals because of how small a sample is collected compared to an entire batch. In addition, has the entire plant evenly collected and concentrated the heavy metals into every square inch of it’s leaves? No, probably not. In fact, preliminary research in leafy greens shows that heavy metals are not evenly distributed in a plant. Results from soil testing can also be inconsistent due to clumping or granularity. Heavy metals are not equally distributed within a lot of soil and the one small sample that is taken may not represent the entire batch. That is why it is imperative to take a “random” sample by collecting several smaller samples from different areas of the entire batch, combining them, and taking a 1 g sample from this composite for analysis.


References

California Cannabis CPA. 12/18/2018.  “What to Know About California’s Cannabis Testing Requirements”. https://www.californiacannabiscpa.com/blog/what-to-know-about-californias-cannabis-testing-requirements. Accessed January 10, 2019.

Citterio, S., A. Santagostino, P. Fumagalli, N. Prato, P. Ranalli and S. Sgorbati. 2003.  Heavy metal tolerance and accumulation of Cd, Cr and Ni by Cannabis sativa L.. Plant and Soil 256: 243–252.

Handwerk, B. 2015.  “Modern Marijuana Is Often Laced With Heavy Metals and Fungus.” Smithsonian.com. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-marijuana-more-potent-often-laced-heavy-metals-and-fungus-180954696/

Linger, P.  J. Mussig, H. Fischer, J. Kobert. 2002.  Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growing on heavy metal contaminated soil: fibre quality and phytoremediation potential. Ind. Crops Prod. 11, 73–84.

McPartland, J. and K. J McKernan. 2017.  “Contaminants of Concern in Cannabis: Microbes, Heavy Metals and Pesticides”.  In: S. Chandra et al. (Eds.) Cannabis sativa L. – Botany and Biotechnology.  Springer International Publishing AG. P. 466-467.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318020615_Contaminants_of_Concern_in_Cannabis_Microbes_Heavy_Metals_and_Pesticides.  Accessed January 10, 2019.

Sidhu, G.P.S.  2016.  Heavy metal toxicity in soils: sources, remediation technologies and challenges.   Adv Plants AgricRes. 5(1):445‒446.

French Cannabis Reform Is Finally In The Offing

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

It is not exactly the storming of the Bastille, but cannabis reform appears to finally be not just in the offing, but crystallizing in the land of the Marseillaise. Why? Apart from the inevitable, particularly now that the European Parliament has put medical reform on a continental agenda?

The first reason is that this is an easy way for the increasingly politically beleaguered French Prime Minister Emmanual Macron to show he is a “man of the people.” In the age of the gilets jaunes or “yellow vests” – protesters on the streets pushing for economic and political justice – a reform of the green kind is just the ticket.

Credit: Dennis Jarvis, Flickr

Secondly, French drug laws are still ridiculously harsh. Use or possession of “narcotics” that are not specifically prescribed by a doctor carries up to a $4,000 fine and a year in prison.

The third reason is that politicians and policy reformers are finally getting the message because of another reason also familiar to American reformers. Locking people up for even minor drug offenses (and French law makes no distinction between cannabis and harder drugs) is a societal menace. It costs the government a lot of money to put people in prison. And the police, just as they are in other places, notably Germany, are tired of engaging in this kind of activity. Particularly when a large number of those they end up arresting are actually patients.

Here is the next issue: The drug laws on the books in France date from December 31, 1970. Similar to the U.S., cannabis of course was treated just like heroin and cocaine. Since that period, French drug arrests have steadily increased (making 67.5% of all arrests as of 2016). Convictions for drug offenses have also increased over ten-fold in the last generation (since the turn of the century).Last year, the CBD market was allowed a little room to flourish in the new grey laws around reform

In a country where approximately 700,000 people use cannabis daily, and 1.4 million use it regularly, this is clearly not sustainable on any front. Particularly where cannabis reform is such a potent weapon in a country where the “yellow vests” have made such a global impression. Cannabis reform, in other words, is an easy fix for a country now thinking about the impact of popular revolutions of other kinds. Not to mention with a history of them. And even more particularly where reform last year allowed “le weed light” (low THC, high CBD strains) to go on sale (with a popular response).

Implications

How fast reform will move here is still obviously uncertain. The current government has been making noise about it for the last two years. Last year, the CBD market was allowed a little room to flourish in the new grey laws around reform (although even here, the first CBD “coffee shops” were shut down last summer almost as soon as they opened).

Given the conservative pace so far, look for France to follow rather than lead. From a CBD perspective, if not a THC one, the country looks very much more like Italy and Germany than Spain or Holland from the cannabis perspective – at least at present.

For such reasons, expect France to follow toute le monde, rather than lead the pack. Decriminalization plus some kind of insurance coverage (similar to Germany) is much more likely to be on the short-term agenda than say a massive rush to embrace the industry (as in Greece). The green revolution may now be in the wings here, but pushed by other unavoidable forces in Europe if not domestically.

That said, to paraphrase the words of the country’s last King, Louis VIX, when France does move on something resembling real reform, it will mean that after that, the “green deluge” will most certainly be on the hoof across the rest of the continent.

Blockchain Controversies Continue To Rock The Cannabis Industry

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments

Disclaimer: Marguerite Arnold is the founder of MedPayRx, a blockchained ecosystem that does not use utility tokens, and that is currently going to pilot in Europe designed to eliminate such risks.


As reported here in Cannabis Industry Journal last year in a three part series, there are considerable dangers of utilizing blockchain in the cannabis industry (as well as other industry sectors) that directly affect all commercial operators as well as consumers of both the recreational and medical kind. These remain largely unsolved.

These include regulatory and compliance issues in every direction, starting with banking and securities law, but also include privacy and consumer protections. They also fly in the face of regulations imposed by governments to control inflation, set prices for medications and food, and prevent monopolies.

Beyond that, they also pose considerable if so far unexamined liabilities for businesses operating in this space (including uncontrollable volatility in basic business operations) that very much impact the basic cost of doing business.As of the beginning of this year, however, the situation is back in the news. 

The Skinny On Paragon
As of November last year, the company was sanctioned by the SEC in a precedent setting case on the issue of whether “utility tokens” are securities or not. In fact, the SEC found that Paragon illegally marketed and distributed digital securities under the false pretension that they were not securities. Paragon, in turn, reached a settlement with the SEC that it would return any funds received by investors prior to October 15, 2017 and pay a fine to the SEC.

As of the beginning of this year, however, the situation is back in the news. Because of the settlement agreement, it appears that a pump and dump group operating through the exchange YoBit managed to raise the token briefly from about $.10 a token to $10 in an effort to raise the cost of compensation from Paragon. This absurd rally was completely unsustainable, and as a result, fell back to $0.3 per token (albeit tripled the price of the token). But the fact that it happened at all is illustrative of the extreme risk now faced by the industry itself from this kind of tech and financial model.

Why? It means that all users (token holders) of such an ecosystem and for any purpose, would be directly exposed to such risks in the future. And on literally an hour-by-hour basis.

Utility tokens in other words, as defined by all such models (and Paragon is far from the only one), are used not only for investment in such businesses, but then bought downstream, via exchanges, by people who wish to transact in the network itself. And that is the real danger to businesses themselves by adopting such models.

Problem 1 – Utility Tokens Are Securities

The biggest issue at the heart of this conversation is this: Tokens are recognized now as securities, and further still operating in a world where pump and dump on the exchanges is a major liability for all who buy the tokens for any purpose. This means for example, that anyone who must buy a system cybercoin to transact within a blockchained ecosystem (from consumer to business manager overseeing international distribution of their product from the commercial end) would face unprecedented volatility that does not exist by using regulated currencies. Good old dollars and euros for example do not pose this kind of existential risk to businesses themselves.

In the Paragon case directly, for example, owning Paragon crypto means that monthly rent at the incubator would fluctuate in cost based on the unregulated cost of the coin, not a prenegotiated rental agreement in regular currency for space (which is far less volatile). In the current environment, such space just tripled in price.

Beyond that, no consumer in California, for example, would want to have to face the added cost of buying a hyped token (at artificially raised prices) before they can access the newest, coolest strain of bud.

Such systems in other words, are NOT just a fancy form of a digital payment solution (like Paypal). What they do dramatically increases the risk of price volatility in all business operations (also called “cost of goods sold” or COG), andto the end user while also directly exposing all to such risk at every point of production, processing and sales.

Why?Latency issues are also a major issue.

Because the cost of conducting normal, basic business operations would be directly exposed to speculating investors. Even local businesses, in other words, would be completely vulnerable to not just the fluctuations domestically or even internationally caused by doing business in multiple jurisdictions and traditional currency risk, but have direct and unprecedented exposure to a much less regulated and far more volatile price environment globally. And further one that affects literally the entire manufacturing and distribution process.

Problem 2 – Network Congestion

Latency issues are also a major issue. This is a bit more technical and complicated, but is one of the bigger reasons why most blockchain technology and solutions are still incapable of dealing with commercial industry requirements. Much less keep regulated industries in any space, in compliance.

Here is one way to think of the problem. If you have many users on a blockchain network all at once, speed of transaction goes way down and associated costs go way up.

The tokenized asset in other words, has to compete not only with people buying the token as an investment, but those using them to buy goods and services on the commercial side AND the industry processing taking place behind the scenes to fulfil and track product. This has been easy to see with Bitcoin in particular, but is not limited to the same.

Further, prioritization on a network itself (and the costs involved to overcome them, also paid in tokens) then unfairly creates a monopoly environment because of the added costs involved to speed up otherwise normally processed and critical operations. The biggest boys on the block(chain) win. Always. That is antithetical to anti-trust law.

Problem 4 – Undermining Basic Government Regulations On Cost Of Purchase

Here is the biggest conundrum, particularly facing the international cannabis industry now in the process of exporting across international borders. Governments (particularly in Europe) routinely set prices on medicine (in particular), for large contractual purchases and to insure the continued survival of public healthcare (which in Europe and the UK covers most people). See the German cultivation bid for cannabis as a prime example. The government is forcing the industry to submit prices via competitive bid that are expected to come in somewhere between 1-1.5 euro per gram. This in turn will affect not only domestically grown but imported cannabis – and from all points on the globe as the industry opens up.

That process is impossible in an environment where the cost of production itself would be (in a price volatile blockchained delivery system) inherently unpredictable and unstable because the price of production and distribution is itself a speculated upon commodity that can vary, literally, at the speed of a pump and dumped token, sold on any unregulated exchange, anywhere in the world. And as a result, is also illegal.

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

Canopy Growth Announces UK Expansion

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

On December 28, 2018, Canopy made the unsurprising announcement that it would begin exporting medical cannabis to the UK. The move comes shortly after the formation of Beckley Canopy, the research effort founded in partnership with the Beckley Foundation and Amanda Fielding, the woman who has continued to pioneer the field of cannabinoid research, and the announcement that Canopy will jumpstart medical trials here.

The two events are also connected, as the company will most likely start its export direct to the trials now planned and in general for research purposes as well as pharmacies, based on doctor’s orders.

Impact On The UK Market

Canopy of course, is now in a race with several other Canadian firms to establish market presence both on the trial and patient front. Tilray, Namaste and Wayland Group have all lined up to enter the market, if not having secured first patient orders. That said, entry will be slow for all, namely because of import regulations that may well still go off the cliff because of Brexit.

Intriguingly, however, the Canadians are not the only ones now in the ring. And the “Irish Question” is becoming even more of a potential source of cannabis. That became obvious in the aftermath of an announcement for additional funding and a 25% equity stake in Dublin-based Greenlight Medicines by SOL Global, a Canadian-listed company. Greenlight has already established an extensive network of not only researchers but has a reach at this point to over 1,000 pharmacies across the UK and Ireland.

Bottom line? Look for discussions on access to be fundamentally caught up in the impending, larger political discussions that are still deadlocked, with no certainty in site.And while so far at least, Scotland has remained quiet on the discussion, along with Wales and Cornwall, these are also places domestically in the UK where there could be new cultivation operations coming shortly.

Why? Wales is the “duchy” of none other than the Prince of Wales, Charles, the man who will be the next king of England. For most of his life, he has been pilloried for his ideas about alternative healthcare and organic farming. However, he also owns vast lands in Wales that support him, supported by rents, that are likely, in the near future, to switch to cannabis farming. Whatever reluctance he might have had to take the plunge, this is likely to change course with the next generation when he becomes king. Oversight of the management of all of this bounty will switch to his son, William. And this is a no-brainer, beyond of course, the fact that his sister-in-law, the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle) already has a cannabis brand named after her.

Apart from this political and Royal twist, look for cannabis farming to occur in places like Cornwall, which has temperate weather brought by the Gulf Stream, a tourist economy and a desperate need, like many parts of the UK, for urban renewal. A high tech, high worth agricultural injection, in other words, is just what these parts of the country need.

Scotland, still, is an unanswered question mark, but it is unlikely that much growing will occur in the northern climes. That said, with cannabis production (of all sorts) beginning to wake up, there is no reason that the processing question will escape this part of the British Isles.That also means that calls for domestic cannabis to be grown in the UK itself could become much louder.

What Impact Will Brexit Really Have On Cannabis?

There is no way to really understand this question until the dust settles with negotiations that now have the potential to disrupt all trade between the UK and the rest of the world, including the Republic of Ireland. Ports and transportation through them are facing major disruption. Preparations for an off the cliff exit far beyond cannabis, have also been repeatedly criticized as being far too little, too late.

Bottom line? Look for discussions on access to be fundamentally caught up in the impending, larger political discussions that are still deadlocked, with no certainty in site.

That also means that calls for domestic cannabis to be grown in the UK itself could become much louder. Along with an impetus for greater reform.

Regardless, this drug, so often just below the surface of international affairs for so long, is clearly going to be in the room in larger political discussions now unfolding in the UK.

Impact On National Healthcare

British people, since the end of WWII, have had access to free healthcare thanks to the NHS. That said, after a decade of austerity, the system is now facing crisis unseen since the war. There are 100,000 doctor vacancies at the so-called “Trusts” across the UK which manage regional healthcare. Waiting times even for lifesaving operations are at an all-time high. And approvals for drugs, especially like cannabis, which fall into the territory of “special approval” across Europe are also caught in the mix.

UKflagAs in other countries, in other words, while the news of exports beginning to enter the market is good for patients and the industry beyond that, it is just a start to a longer battle that is still playing out across Europe.

That said, there is another issue in the room that is also absolutely on the table and will be part of the medical cannabis conversation going forward. Digital healthcare–and of all kinds–is being touted as the solution to doctor and service shortages. Look for innovative cannatech solutions in particular that target this market in particular, in the near future.

In the meantime, the green trickle has begun. That said, given all that is at stake and on the table, there are many questions in the room about when the flood will actually take off.

Digipath Labs Now ISO 17025:2017 Accredited

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to a press release published in December, Digipath Labs, based in Las Vegas, Nevada, was recently accredited to the updated ISO standard, ISO 17025:2017. The laboratory received their accreditation from Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation (PJLA).

ISO 17025:2005 has long been the standard that labs seek accreditation to, but their newest 2017 edition was recently rolled out and introduced to the market. The new 2017 standard includes some broad changes to terminology, process approach, scope, and it importantly introduces the concept of risk-based thinking.

That concept of risk-based thinking is particularly relevant to the cannabis testing market, where many have argued for more transparency and uniformity in different state regulations and markets. Introducing risk-based thinking in the standard means that assessors also look at the risk of bias, impartiality and assessing measurement uncertainty, which certainly adds a layer of subjectivity to the accreditation.

PJLATracy Szerszen, president/operations manager of PJLA, says the newer standard also includes a provision for a quality management system review among other changes. “We are making sure they are following the standard from a technical standpoint, meaning they have the right equipment, the appropriate personnel and also have a quality management system,” says Szerszen. “November 29, 2020 is the deadline for moving to the new 2017 standard.”

According to Todd Denkin, CEO and founder of Digipath, obtaining the new ISO accreditation poises them for future growth and expansion. “Digipath Labs has now brought its standard of excellence in cannabis testing under the updated ISO-17025:2017 umbrella as we seek to expand our dominance in cannabis testing markets,” says Denkin. “This is a major step in positioning Digipath as a global leader in testing services.”

This Bud’s For You: Tilray Enters The Drinkable Cannabis Market

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

The race is on for drinkable cannabinoids. In mid-December, Tilray announced a $100 million joint venture with Anheuser Busch to research and develop infused non-alcoholic drinks for the Canadian market.

This is the second big beer company to partner with a cannabis industry leader (see Canopy Growth’s partnership with Constellation Brands), who has just invested another $4 billion in the company.

Molson Coors also announced a deal with Hexo in August. On the non-alcoholic side of the ledger, Coca-Cola and Aurora have also had talks, reportedly eyeing the cannabis market.

Short term in other words, a lot of drinkable cannabis is coming to a market near you.tilray-logo

Why Is Drinkable Cannabis So Intriguing?

Cannabinoids themselves, are not water soluble. However, when cannabinoids are subjected to a process called nano emulsion, (emulsified oil, water and molecules), they can be not only added to drinks but potentially represent one of the most cutting edge forms of drug, vitamin, mineral and overall nutrition delivery. Nanoemulsions are approximately the size of viruses, proteins and antibodies with a transparent or semi-translucent appearance. They also tend to increase bioavailability of substances.

In other words, while the focus on the market as it is developing in Canada is “recreational” and “beverage” use, in fact, this technology can be applied to food. It will also be used, obviously on the medical side of the equation too.

Nanotechnology overall is actually a manufacturing technology that works with atoms to change the structure of matter. When it comes to edibles of all kinds (food, drinks and medications) nutrients are absorbed more uniformly and pass through to membranes directly into human cells.

The impact of that technology, mixed with a revolutionary drug, is no longer theoretical.One of the best known uses of nanotechnology in the world is also one of the most common condiments. Mayonnaise for example, is an emulsion of tiny particles where oil and water are mixed together without separating. That said, these days researchers are developing techniques that allow these tiny droplets to be precisely tailored to give them specific tastes and textures.

The technology, in other words, that the cannabis and major drinks manufacturers are now developing, will allow cannabinoids to be used in food, drinks and medications in ways that go far beyond pills and oils.

This is not your grandparent’s beverage, food, drug or alcohol market in other words. This represents another way for the cannabis industry to lead the way on a range of products far from “canna-beer.” Or even THC-infused social lubricants.

The impact of that technology, mixed with a revolutionary drug, is no longer theoretical.

The Cellular Revolution of Cannabinoids Is Now Here

If allowed to efficiently access cells via nanotechnology, no matter how it is consumed, the idea of a cannabis infused food or drink might well become enough not only to “keep the doctor away” but in general revolutionize concepts of nutrition, not to mention medication.

That said, there are still many questions in general that remain about the safety of this kind of technology within the human body. Nanoceuticals can help bypass typical protective barriers of the body and deliver bio-chemicals that the body would not normally encounter. There has not been a lot of study (yet) on their biodegradability or metabolism of nanotechnologies. Namely the human body may not be able to expel them. They are currently unregulated and can be introduced to the market with little or no evidence of safety or efficacy although this is also on the way. There are concerns that this delivery method could literally disrupt DNA.

Cannabinoids themselves appear to be a systemic biological regulator. But the active ingredients used to emulsify the plant may or may not be.

In an industry in other words, which has systematically been ahead of regulatory approval, starting with legalization itself, the future looks not only highly intriguing, but full of major debates about with what and how human beings are nourished, and treated medically.

As usual, in other words, the cannabis industry, is pioneering a truly brave new world.

Deibel Cannabis Laboratories Launches Cannabis-Specific HACCP Program

By Dr. Laurie Post
No Comments

Manufacturers of cannabis products need a program tailored to the cannabis industry that helps assure the safety of cannabis products with respect to known hazards such as pesticides, residual solvents, microbial impurities, heavy metals and mycotoxins. Deibel Cannabis Laboratories has developed a course that that will teach those manufacturing cannabis products how to manage known product safety hazards using a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system.

HACCP has a long history of use in the food industry based on preventing potential hazards from occurring rather than reacting to issues when they arise. This program was started in the US but is globally recognized, used by food companies around the world to help produce safe products for consumers. Deibel Cannabis Laboratories applies the same prevention based system of HACCP to the creation of safe and wholesome cannabis goods whether they be edible, medicinal or topical. They also explore ways cultivators can use HACCP principles in their operation.12

Deibel Labs was founded by Dr. Robert Deibel in the 1970’s. Dr. Deibel is one of the original pioneers of HACCP, expanding the program from its original three HACCP principles to the seven principles we recognize today. Dr. Deibel developed the first “HACCP Short Course,” teaching this prevention-based program to food industry leaders in the 1970s.

According to Charles Deibel, president of Deibel Labs, this is an important step for the cannabis space. “Deibel Labs is proud to continue in our historic role as leaders in HACCP training by providing the cannabis industry with a training course developed by Deibel Labs associates who are International HACCP Alliance accredited lead instructors with years of experience in crafting and implementing HACCP plans for the food industry.”

They are launching a pilot two-day Cannabis HACCP Class to select clients at the end of January in Santa Cruz, CA. The full Cannabis HACCP course schedule for 2019 is currently in development. Accreditation by the HACCP Alliance is expected by early January, assuring that a standardized and internationally recognized training curriculum is provided by accredited instructors.

The course is forward-thinking, anticipating that sometime in the near future cannabis manufacturers will be required to control and document the safe production, handling and preparation of products according to state or even federal regulatory standards. Participants will be able to develop their own model HACCP program in an interactive group learning environment.

Attendees will:

  • Understand how Prerequisite Programs provide the foundation on which HACCP programs are built including GMPs, Sanitation and Pest Control Programs
  • Be able to identify where and how product safety problems can occur using a Hazard Analysis that considers Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards
  • Gain the skills, knowledge, and tools necessary to develop effective Critical Controls, formulate corrective actions, conduct program verification and validation activities
  • Learn how to document activities and maintain records

Stay tuned for more information on when the 2019 course schedule is announced and how to register.

5 Compliance Reporting and Notification Requirements That You May Not Know About

By Anne Conn
1 Comment

New cannabis businesses must demonstrate proof of compliance to myriad laws and regulations as part of the initial license application process. And once a license is issued, it is easy to prioritize day-to-day business operations over ongoing compliance reporting requirements especially when sales are booming and compliance requirements are multi-layered, vague or obscured in non-cannabis specific programs and regulations.

But seemingly benign neglect of some minor reporting requirements can have major consequences to new and established businesses alike.

This article explores five compliance reporting requirements that cannabis businesses may not know about, and suggests ways to maintain a strong compliance posture across all regulatory agencies.

Pesticide Reporting

All licensed growers are required to prove compliance to state pesticide usage regulations. However, expectations on how and when to provide that proof of compliance vary greatly from state to state.  Furthermore, the responsibility of education and enforcement for pesticide usage in the cannabis industry often falls to non-cannabis specific agencies such as state departments of agriculture or environmental compliance.

For example in California, cultivators must report detailed monthly pesticide use reports via the State’s Agriculture Weights/Measures Division reporting portal, while Washington State regulators simply expect cultivators to keep records locally on site and provide them when requested.

With so many places to look, the best place to start your pesticide reporting requirement search is with your local agriculture department. They should be able to answer your questions and provide you with a list of resources to help you better understand how to comply with state pesticide usage and reporting regulations.

Hazardous Materials Reporting

Like pesticide use and reporting, hazardous waste handling and reporting requirements are complex and vary state to state. In fact, there may even be nuanced variations in handling requirements at the county level. The best approach to ensure compliance with a complicated set of regulations is to start by consulting your local county fire department. They will have the most specific set of rules for hazardous materials handling and reporting and can help you develop a site-specific compliance plan.

Two OSHA reporting requirements

Depending on how your cannabis business is classified, you may be required to keep injury and illness incident records and provide reports to the Occupational Health and Safety Organization (OSHA) for specific time periods.

Contact your business insurance provider’s loss prevention representative for more information about how your business is classified, which specific OSHA reporting requirements apply to you, and how to stay in compliance with applicable OSHA requirements.

Click here to learn more about how OSHA organizes reporting requirements by business type.

A note of caution here: OSHA non-compliance penalties can be steep and “I didn’t know I was supposed to do that” is not an acceptable defense when it comes to explaining any OSHA violations.

Labor Law Notification Requirements

Federal labor law requires that you notify employees of their rights. At a minimum, you post information regarding wages and hours, child labor, unemployment benefits, safety and health/workers’ compensation and discrimination in a conspicuous place where they are easily visible to all employees. Some states requires additional information be posted in a similar manner, so it’s important to be sure that those notices are posted along with the federal requirements.

This is a simple, yet easily overlooked, requirement for all businesses, regardless of industry. Ask your insurance provider for a copy of the notice to print and post right away (if you have not already) for a quick compliance win!

These five reporting and notification requirements may seem tedious, overly complicated and burdensome in the face of day-to-day business operations, but compliance to these requirements not only protects your business and employees, it also enhances the overall reputation of the industry. The good news is that regulatory agencies welcome a proactive approach and are happy to work with cannabis businesses to provide guidance and information for developing compliance plans.

First Cannabis Clinical Trials All Set In UK

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, based in Oxford, England has raised ₤7.4 million for the purposes of cannabinoid research and drug development. The new company is a unique partnership established between Canopy Growth Corporation and the Beckley Foundation, a research institute which examines the utilization of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of physical and mental conditions.

Studies focusing on the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of opioid addiction and cancer pain will be conducted in Europe, the UK and the US.

Why Is This Significant?

Here is the first reason: the woman behind it all. Her name is Lady Amanda Feilding, Countess of Wemyss and March. Born into a landed gentry family at Beckley Park (a Tudor hunting lodge with three towers and three moats) she also has a long history of engaging and supporting scientific endeavours that use stigmatized drugs in the treatment of both intractable disease and mental illness via the use of scientific research.

In 1998, Amanda Feilding set up the Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust which initiates, directs and supports neuroscientific and clinical research into the effects of psychoactive substances. She has also co-authored over 50 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The so-called “hidden hand” behind the rebirth of psychedelic science, Fielding’s contribution to global drug policy reform has been widely acknowledged in international drug policy circles. She was named as one of the bravest men and women in the history of science in 2010 by the British Guardian.

And here is the second reason: The foundation is now partnered with Canopy Cannabis, one of the leading cannabis firms in the world, which is also working closely with Spanish opioid manufacturer Alcaliber.

In other words, this coalition is almost the mirror opposite of the approach taken by the American Sackler family, makers of Oxycontin, who have fought cannabinoids as an alternative or even transition drug in multiple state legalization campaigns. Meanwhile the death rates from overdoses have quadrupled since 1999. In 2016, opioid-related drug overdoses killed about 116 people a day (or about 42,249 for the year). It is estimated that about 11 million people in the U.S. are currently misusing or dependent on opioids.

Amanda Fielding
Image credit: Robert Funke

Beyond The Politics of The Opioid-Cannabinoid War

While opioids clearly have a role particularly in chronic pain treatment, the question now at the global scientific table is this: Are cannabinoids a substitute for longer term chronic pain management? It is a fiercely battled scientific debate that has frequently, particularly in the U.S., crossed over into political drug reform questions.

The unique partnership of Beckley and Canopy is well placed both scientifically and culturally to take on a discussion which has languished for too long in the grass of political debate and reform.

Even better, it is taking place in a country where English is the first language, but outside the U.S. and further, in a country where cannabis has now been legally reclassified as a Schedule II drug.

Do not expect, in other words, the same trials and tribulations that faced noted U.S.-based researcher Sue Sisley, to slow down research, trials or findings.

Why Is A Cultural and Scientific Reset Required?

For the past forty years, since the end of the 1970s, cannabis in particular, has been pushed into a strange scientific territory in part, because of the culture surrounding the drug. This in turn, along with the schedule I classification of cannabis, has led to not only a dearth of research, but a reluctance on the part of prescribing doctors to examine its efficacy.

In the present, this means that doctors are still (beyond insurers who demand medical evidence before approving payment) the biggest hurdles in every medical system where cannabis is becoming legal. See the debate in Canada, the UK and of course, Germany, where patients frequently report asking for a drug their doctors refuse to prescribe.

This is exactly the kind of high-placed, societally influential effort in other words, that might finally break the medical taboo at the most important remaining logjam– at the point of prescription and approval for patients.

Product Labeling Law: A Primer and a Warning for California Cannabis Executives

By Jonathan C. Sandler
No Comments

What do you get when you combine a Schedule 1 federally controlled substance with a plethora of food, beverage and cosmetic entrepreneurs marketing new products to inexperienced users and then place that combustible combination into California’s plaintiff-friendly legal environment?

A lot of rich plaintiffs’ attorneys.

California continues to be a favored plaintiffs’ lawyers’ venue for filing consumer-related lawsuits against food and cosmetic companies. These lawsuits result in tens of millions in settlements each year and hundreds of millions in judgments. Staying current on statutes and trends is critical to doing business in California and cannabis companies are no exception.

While the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has provided very little guidance on how cannabis products should be labeled, a lack of specific regulations does not mean that there are no applicable labeling requirements for cannabis. This is particularly true in states like California that have a multitude of statutes designed to protect consumers from false or misleading advertising and labeling. Below includes a brief list to help guide companies’ labelling processes:

  1. Look to available guidance for the relevant industries. For example, food labeling of cannabis products still requires compliance with other nutritional labeling statutes. The same goes for supplements and cosmetics. The Fair Packaging and Label Act (“FPLA”) regulates labeling of all “consumer commodities” as to net contents, product identity, and manufacturer’s, packer’s or distributor’s name and location.
  2. Consider the intended use of the product as well as the directions. For example, is the product meant to be consumed all at once or should it be consumed over a period of time? Depending upon the product, this question can affect whether compliance with the FDA dietary supplements guidance is required or whether the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act applies.
  3. Consider your supply chains. This can be one of the most difficult aspects for cannabis companies that are looking to expand, but need more supply. However, keeping track of ingredients is a critical aspect to being able to defend against lawsuits. In the past, cannabis companies have been sued because they have expanded their suppliers without assuring consistency in the products and then combining inconsistent ingredients into one common product that is now mislabeled. While the Bureau of Cannabis Control testing requirements should help with some of the cannabis information, all ingredients need to be tracked and the final products tested.
  4. Cannabis companies must label their products with applicable state laws. For example, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”)is being used by the plaintiffs’ bar as a basis to sue cannabis companies.
    • Prop. 65 is a statewide initiative that regulates companies that make or sell their products in California in two ways: (1) it requires companies whose products contain certain levels of chemicals to provide clear and reasonable warnings. Prop. 65 does not ban or restrict the sale of chemicals on the list or their inclusion in products, but it requires warnings if the listed chemicals are included; and (2) It prevents companies from discharging these chemicals into the state’s water supply.
    • All companies doing business in California and all products manufactured or sold in California are subject to Prop. 65 with three exceptions: (1) the company has fewer than 10 employees, (2) government agencies, or (3) the products contain less than a threshold amount of the chemicals.
    • Penalties for violations can be staggering. Prop. 65 is enforced both by the California Attorney General and private lawsuits on behalf of the California Attorney General. The potential penalties for violations of Prop. 65 include a fine of up to $2,500 per day. Additionally, one of the largest drivers of litigation is that the private enforcers (plaintiffs’ bar) can recover their attorneys’ fees. The total amount paid in settlements in 2017 was over $25 million and of the more than $18 million in judgments, $13 million was attributed to attorneys’ fees.
  5. The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) is another California statute that is intended to protect consumers from false advertising and other unfair business practices. The CLRA allows consumers to bring individual or California class action lawsuits to recover damages and enjoin the prohibited practices. The statute also allows a prevailing consumer to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Cannabis companies need to be mindful of their representations related to their products. California courts are filled with cases involving terms like “natural” or “healthy” or “high performing.”

Product labeling, mottos and advertisements may seem straightforward, but they form the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed every year throughout the country, and especially in California. At this stage of trying to get one’s product out the door and to the consumer, it is tempting to move quickly. However, the importance of sound research, strategy and consulting an experienced team to ensure compliance and avoid costly mistakes is critical.