A Research Study on the Antimicrobial Properties of Cannabis

By Cindy Orser, PhD
1 Comment

Inexpensive in vitro Methods to Evaluate the Impact of Cannabinoid-containing Products on Sentinel Lactobacillus spp. 

S. Lewin 1, A. Hilyard2, H. Piscatelli1, A. Hangman1, D. Petrik1, P. Miles2, and C. Orser2

1MatMaCorp Inc, Lincoln NE; 2Apothercare LLC, Boston MA 

Abstract

The public has readily embraced cannabidiol (CBD) in countless unregulated products that benefit from commercial promotion without FDA oversight, who recently concluded: “that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products w/ the regulatory oversight is needed to manage risks.”1 The reported antimicrobial properties of CBD combined with the recent proliferation of cannabinoid-containing products marketed to women for intimate care led us to explore the impact on the sentinel lactobacilli species associated with a healthy reproductive tract. Except for lubricants and tampons, the FDA regulates intimate care products as cosmetics. Even non-cannabis serums, washes, and suppositories are not required to be tested for their effect on the reproductive microbiota. We aimed to investigate the utility of easy-to-use, inexpensive in vitro assays for testing exogenous cannabis products on reproductive microbiota. In vitro assays can provide important evidence-based data to inform both manufacturers choosing both an active cannabinoid ingredient source as well as excipient chemicals and consumers in the absence of safety or quality data. In simple, straightforward exposure studies, we examined the antimicrobial activity of CBD and cannabigerol (CBG) on the most dominant vaginal lactobacilli species, L. crispatus, associated with good health.

Introduction

The testing of readily available products containing cannabinoids, predominately CBD following the widespread legalization of hemp by the 2018 US Farm Bill, is not required beyond ensuring THC content is below 0.3%. Therefore, basic information on safety, quality, antimicrobial activity, bioavailability, and dosing is unavailable and undocumented. The situation is further complicated by the complex chemoprofiles of cannabis extracts based on the cultivar, the extraction methods and subsequent cleanup, and other chemical excipients in the formulation. The FDA has finalized guidance on quality considerations for clinical research for the development of cannabis and cannabis-containing drugs intended for human use.

One approach to backfilling non-existent safety and quality data for cannabinoid active ingredients and those products made from them is to apply or devise assays that can provide relevant toxicity data in an in vitrosystem. Farha et al. (2020) reported that seven cannabinoids are potent antibiotics, including CBD and synthetic CBG. CBG inhibited the growth of gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but not gram-negative bacteria unless their outer membrane was permeabilized (Farha et al. 2020). In addition, several volatile terpenes, the main constituents of essential oils extracted from Cannabis sativa L., also have potent antibiotic activity against gram-positive bacteria (Iseppi et al. 2019). We have previously written about the risks associated with disrupting the healthy microbiome of gram-positive vaginal bacterial species leading to dysbiosis (Orser 2022) and its further health complications.

Several successful approaches to assessing the toxicity of CBD have already been reported including human cell culture work by Torres et al. (2022) who showed that pure CBD has a repeatable impact on cell viability, but that hemp-derived finished CBD products had variable impact. Cultured human cell viability experiments demonstrated similar potencies across three different hemp-derived CBD products in the microgram per milliliter [mg/mL] range with increased viability at lower doses [2-4 mg/mL] and decreasing cell viability above 6 mg/mL (Torres et al. 2022). In the same study, the authors demonstrated that the presence of terpenes, specifically b-caryophyllene, in hemp extraction matrices also impacted cell viability.

Neswell, a cannabis therapeutics company in Israel, demonstrated through the application of their in vitroneutrophil cell line that cannabis extracts have inherent immune response biodiversity, suggesting that the choice of a cannabis source should be based on its function rather than on its chemoprofile (https://www.neswell.net). Inflammatory cytokine levels in inflamed peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PB_MC) showed a 10-fold difference across hemp extract products containing unidentified terpenes in suppressing the inflammatory cytokine, TNFa (Torres et al. 2022). The influence of CBD concentration on inflammatory cytokine production was previously reported by Vuolo et al. (2015) and Jiang et al. (2022).

Materials & Methods

Chemicals and Products Tested

THC-free, 99% pure CBD and CBG isolates were purchased from Open Book extracts in North Carolina (openbookextracts.com). All other chemicals including erythromycin (EM), and growth media were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis MO). Specific reagents in the qPCR kits were assembled in-house at MatMaCorp Inc. (Lincoln NE).

Monitoring Cell Viability: OD600nm and plating

Individual frozen glycerin stocks of L. crispatus HM103 from BEI Resources Repository served as inoculum to streak on a sterile MRS agar plate and incubated anaerobically at 370C for 24-48 h until individual colony growth was observed. Single colonies were used to inoculate MRS broth and incubated for 24-48 h at 370C which served as the inoculum for exposure to test products. Exposed cultures and all control cultures were incubated at 370C for 48 h with OD600 readings taken at time zero, +24 h, and +48 h using disposable cuvettes in a standard spectrophotometer. The products were also plated onto MRS agar plates to evaluate inherent contaminants that could affect turbidity values.

Molecular Analysis by qPCR

DNA isolation from bacterial cultures was done using the MatMaCorp (Lincoln, NE) StickE Tissue DNA Isolation kit modified for bacteria as per manufacturer instructions. Briefly, a lysis buffer is applied to the sample followed by a heating step, and a binding buffer is added, thus allowing DNA from the solution to bind to the matrix of the StickE column. The column was washed prior to eluting the purified DNA. Per manufacturer instructions, 10 µL of isolated DNA was used as a template for genetic analysis in a Lacto-TM assay (MatMaCorp). The assay is a customized TaqMan-based detection assay that is conducted using a four-channel fluorescence detection platform, the Solas 8 (MatMaCorp). The assay was designed to detect the unique 16S-rRNA DNA sequence for L. crispatus. Briefly, the assay is a probe-based method that begins with hybridizing the custom-designed probes with their desired nucleic acid target found in the sample. Once hybridized, detection takes place from the fluorescently labeled primer. The target has been assigned a channelon the Solas 8 and is detected independently. 

Calling the Results

The calling algorithm uses first-order kinetics reaction properties (inflection point detection) in combinationwith a measure of the closeness of the signals associated with a specific target. Various indicators are tracked during the reactions to perform an on-the-fly analysis. The analysis is then consolidated by a measure of the similarity between the fluorescence signals at the end of the run. Aggregating values from the similarity measure, the end gain and the inflection point detection allow the Solas 8 software to make the call at the end of the run without having to compare a results library of known sample targets.

Figure 1: qPCR Findings

Results

Exposure of L. crispatus

Anaerobically grown cultures of L. crispatus were exposed to either CBD isolate or CBG isolate at each of two concentrations [5 mg/mL] and [10 mg/mL] with all appropriate controls. All treatment groups were evaluated by qPCR, turbidity at OD600, and plate counts.

Molecular Analysis via qPCR

These data show the specificity of the Solas8 testing for evaluating these products, as a molecular-level screening is not influenced by test product solubility, opacity, or non-specific contamination present in some of the tested products that can interfere with optical density measurements.

Growth Monitoring

Figure 2: Turbidity

Turbidity monitoring, albeit non-specific, confirmed the species-specific qPCR findings, that is no inhibition for the two cannabinoid isolates evaluated (Fig. 2).

Conclusions

In this limited in vitro study using a sentinel lactobacilli response, we have shown that 99% pure CBD and CBG isolates were not inhibitory at the two doses evaluated by complementary observations following turbidity, plating, and by qPCR. Limitations in this study prevent definitive conclusions regarding what individual or combination of cannabinoids or other cannabis secondary metabolites are inhibitory in vivo to dominant lactobacilli species in the reproductive tract. These limitations include commercial product testing without knowledge of excipients or impact on the bioavailability of any active cannabinoid ingredients. In addition, dose-response curves were not generated and exposure under micro-aerobic conditions was not carried out.

Cannabidiol’s potential as an antimicrobial agent may be limited by its extremely low solubility in water and a propensity to stick to spurious proteins limiting systemic distribution in the body as a therapeutic. Interpreting microbiome study findings to human health outcomes will require multi-disciplinary corresponding clinical data findings of disease diagnosis, processes, and treatment within populations. Nonetheless, this nascent translational research opportunity is vast with the promise of benefiting patient outcomes (Wensel et al. 2022).

Health Canada released a scientific review report on products containing cannabis, specifically containing 98% or greater CBD and less than 1% of THC (Health Canada 2022) while the FDA just concluded that there are no existing guidelines applicable for recommending safety and quality guidelines to manage risk for CBD products (U.S. FDA 2023). The Health Canada committee unanimously agreed that short-term use of CBD is safe at 20 mg per day up to a maximum dose of 200 mg per day and that packaging should include both dosing instructions and potential side effects. The Committee did not address the antimicrobial potential of CBD or CBG formulations or specifically vulvar or vaginally administered cannabinoids. There is clearly more basic physiological research needed on the impact of self-administration of CBD preparations based on the route of exposure.

References 

1. https://fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-concludes-existing-regulatory-frameworks-foods-and-supplements-are-not-appropriate-cannabidiol

Farha MA, El-Halfawy LM, Gale RT, MacNair CR, Carfrae LA, Zhang X, Jentsch NG, Magolan J, Brown ED (2020) Uncovering the hidden antibiotic potential of cannabis. ACS Infect Dis 6:338-346. 

Health Canada (2022). https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/health-products-containing-cannabis/report-cannabidiol-eng.pdf 

Hopkins AL (2008) Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 4(11):682-90.

Iseppi R, Brighenti V, Licata M, Lambertini A, Sabia C, Messi P, Pellati F, Benvenuti S (2019) Chemical characterization and evaluation of the antibacterial activity of essential oils from fibre-type Cannabis sativa L. (Hemp) Molecules 24:2302; doi:10.3390/molecules24122302.

Jiang Z, Jin S, Fan X, Cao K, Liu Y, Want X, Ma Y, Xiang L (2022) Cannabidiol inhibits inflammation induced by Cutibacterium acnes-derived extracellular vesicles via activation of CB2 receptor in keratinocytes. J Inflammation Res 15:4573-4583.

Orser CS (2022) Prevalence of Cannabinoid-containing Intimate Care Products Exposes Longstanding Unmet Need for Safety Data on Community Microbiota Exposure. https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/intimate-care-products-with-cannabinoids-need-more-safety-data/

Torres AR, Caldwell VD, Morris S, Lyon R (2022) Human cells can be used to study cannabinoid dosage and inflammatory cytokine responses. Cannabis Sci & Tech 5(2) 38-45).

U.S. FDA (2023) https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-concludes-existing-regulatory-frameworks-foods-and-supplements-are-not-appropriate-cannabidiol

Vuolo F, Petronilho F, Sonai B, Ritter C, Hallak JE, Zuardi AW, Crippa JA, Dal-Pizzol F (2015) Mediators Inflamm 538670

Wensel CR, Salzberg SL, Sears CL (2022) Next-generation sequencing insights to advance clinical investigations of the microbiome. J Clin Invest 132(7):e154944. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI154944.

Intimate Care Products with Cannabinoids Need More Safety Data

By Cindy Orser, PhD
No Comments

Cannabinoid products for intimate care use are now being sold in the unregulated cannabidiol (CBD) marketplace without proper evaluation of their impact on the vaginal microbiota or women’s health. Cannabinoids can exhibit complex and at times contra intuitive actions. The addition of CBD to these products is presumably for its anti-inflammatory pain-relieving qualities even though little is understood with regards to dosing and formulating. Moreover, in states where cannabis is legal, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) along with other minor cannabinoids are also being added to intimate care products without purview of any federal agency. In general, the impact of vaginal products on vaginal microbiota is poorly understood. Ten years ago, Jespers et al. (2012) proposed to monitor lactobacilli indicator species of the vaginal microbiota in safety trials of intimate care products. Yet today, human safety data are not required prior to commercialization of intimate care products which are currently regulated like cosmetics except for lubricants which do require a 510K filing with the FDA.

The vaginal microbiota (VMB) of healthy women is dominated by Lactobacillus species, which exert important health-promoting effects to their host through the production of antimicrobial compounds, including hydrogen peroxide and lactic acid, to prevent invasive microbes from establishing in the vaginal epithelial mucosa (Pino et al. 2019). It was established almost 40 years ago by Speigel et al. (1983), that changes to the dominant Lactobacillus species, a process called dysbiosis, and overgrowth by diverse anaerobes can result in symptomatic conditions including bacterial vaginosis (BV), vaginal candidiasis, pelvic inflammation, and endometriosis (Taylor et al. 2013). The conditions resulting from dysbiosis are also linked to fertility problems, poor pregnancy outcomes, spontaneous miscarriages and preterm birth (Laniewski et al 2020).

An example of an infused intimate care product, the Foria Awaken Arousal Oil with CBD

Complications from dysbiosis of the reproductive tract can be serious in women wanting to become pregnant and in already pregnant women, including preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous preterm labor and preterm birth (Ventolini et al. 2022). Reproductive tract microbiomes from idiopathic infertile women differ from fertile women’s VMB (Tomaiulol et al. 2020; Wee et al. 2018). Numerous studies have documented the vaginal community type microbiota associated with occurrence of BV around the world showing that HIV load is inversely proportional to lactobacilli species but positively correlated with BV (Sha et al 2005) as well as endometrial and ovarian cancer development (Walther- Antonio et al. 2016; Zhou et al. 2019).

Sexual lubricants often contain antimicrobial preservatives that have been shown to directly impact lactobacilli species in the cervicovaginal microbiome. The deterioration or absence of the lactobacilli-dominated vaginal mucosal biome through exposure to over-the-counter lubricants has been linked to increased incidence of BV (Brotman et al. 2010) and release of IL-8, a proinflammatory innate immunity mediator, produced by human epithelial cells to recruit leukocytes in response to infection, initiating an inflammatory response (Fashemietal.2013). The addition of under-researched cannabinoids to these products introduces the potential for further biological activity. Cannabinoids are widely reported to exhibit anti-microbial activity in vitro. The mechanism of CBD’s anti-microbial activity is thought to be due to its ability to intercalate into cytoplasmic membranes (Guard et al. 2022) and thereby modulate membrane vesicle (MV) release from bacterial cells which is associated with cell-to-cell communications (Kosgodage et al. 2019). Treatment of the gram-negative bacteria, E. coli, with CBD inhibited MV release and resulted in higher susceptibility to antibiotics but had minimal impact on gram- positive bacterial MV release. And CBD has recently been documented to inhibit the common human fungal pathogen, Candida albicans, from forming biofilms due to increased membrane permeability, reduced ATP levels, and modified cell walls (Feldman et al 2021).

In other reporting, the in vitro antimicrobial properties of CBD were demonstrated to have selective activity across a wide range of gram-positive bacteria, including several antibiotic resistant and anaerobic strains, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) in the low ppm range (Blaskovich et al. 2021). The conditions of a study impacted the observation of inhibition; for example, if human sera were present in the assay media, the antibacterial activity was drastically reduced. This has been attributed to CBD’s propensity to bind to non-specifically to proteins and thereby become unavailable (Tayo et al. 2018). Surprisingly, CBD does not exhibit broad antibacterial activity against Gram-negative species except against the human pathogens: Neisseria gonorrhoeae, N. meningitides, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Legionella pneumophila (Blaskovich et al. 2021). Bacteria do not develop resistance to CBD, but CBD is also non-systemic because of its high serum binding activity (Tayo et al. 2018).

The active ingredients in intimate care products can impact beneficial microorganisms but also deleterious ones. CBD has become a widespread, understudied active ingredient for women’s health. Today the molecular screening tools exist to conduct large scale epidemiological studies to further understanding of the consequences of dysbiosis and document the adverse effects on women’s reproductive health outcomes. Preventative treatments to reestablish dominant lactobacilli, in particular L. crispatus could have big impacts on not only women’s health but public health (Borgdorff et al. 2014).

As Ley R (2022) recently opined on the human microbiome, “there is much left to do.” Microbiomes are essential to the proper functioning of our bodies affecting social engagement, mental health, obesity, and disease states, and little is known about differences in microbiota across different groups of humans. More research is needed on the biological activity of cannabinoids as well as regulatory oversight to protect the health and safety of consumers.

References

  1. Blaskovich MAT, Kavanagh AM, Elliott AG, Zhang B, Ramu S, Amado M, Lowe GJ, Hinton AO, Thu Pham DM, Zuegg J, Beare N, Quach D, Sharp MD, Pogliano J, Rogers AP, Lyras D, Tan L, West NP, Crawford DW, Peterson ML, Callahan M, Thurn M (2021) The antimicrobial potential of cannabidiol. Commun Biol 4:7
  2. Borgdorff J, Tsivtsivadze E, Verhelst R, Marzorati M, Jurrrians S, Ndayisaba GF, Schuren FH, van de Wijgert J HHM (2014) Lactobacillus-dominateed cervicovaginal microbiota associated with reduced HIV/STI prevalence and genital HIV viral load in African women. The ISME J 8:1781-1793.
  3. Brotman RM, Ravel J, Cone RA, Zenilman JM. (2010) Rapid fluctuation of the vaginal microbiota measured by Gram stain analysis. Sex Transm Infect 86(4):297-302.
  4. Fashemi B, Delaney MA, Onderdonk AB, Fichorova RN (2013) Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal mucosal biome. Microbial Eco in Health & Disease 24:19703-08.
  5. Feldman M, Sionov RV, Mechoulam R, Steinberg D (2021) Anti-biofilm activity of cannabidiol against Candida albicans. Microorganisms 9:441-457.
  6. Ilha EC, Scariot MC, Treml D, Pereira TP, Sant’Anna ES, Prudencio ES, Arisi ACM (2015) Comparison of real-time PCR assay and plate count for Lactobacillus paracasei enumeration in yoghurt. Ann Microbiol 66:597-606.
  7. Jespers V, Menten J, Smet H, Poradosu S, Abdellati S, Verhelst R, Hardy L, Buve A, Crucitti T (2012) Quantification of bacterial species of the vaginal microbiome in different groups of women, using nucleic acid amplification tests. BMC Microbiol 12:83.
  8. Kosgodage U et al. (2019) Cannabidiol is a novel modulato of bacterial membrane vesicles. http://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2019.00324.
  9. Laniewski P, Ilhan ZE, Herbst-Kralovetz MM (2020) The microbiome and gynaecological cancer development, prevention, and therapy. Nat Rev Urol 17(4):232-250.
  10. Laniewski P, Owen KA, Khnanisho M, Brotman RM, Herbst-Kralovetz MM (2021) Clinical and personal lubricants impact growth of vaginal Lactobacillus species and colonization of vaginal epithelial cells: an in vitro study. Sex Transm Dis 48(1):63-70.
  11. Ley R (2022) The human microbiome: there is much left to do. Nature p. 435
    Pino A, Bartolo E, Caggia C, Cianci A, Randazzo CL (2019) Detection of vaginal lactobacilli as probiotic
  12. candidates. Sci Rep 9:3355
  13. Sha BE, Zariffard MR, Wang QJ, Chen HY, Bremer J, Cohen MH, Spear GT (2005) Female genital-tract HIV load correlates inversely with Lactobacillus species but positively with bacterial vaginosis and Mycoplasma hominis. J Infect Dis 191:25-32.
  14. Spiegel CA, Davick P, Totten PA, Chen KC, Eschenbach DA, Amsel R, Holmes KK (1983) Gardnerella vaginalis and anaerobic bacteria in the etioloty of bacterial (nonspeecific) vaginosis. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 40:41- 46.
  15. Taylor BDP, Darville T, Haggerty CL (2013) Does bacterial vaginosis cause pelvic inflammatory disease? Sex Transm Dis 40:117-122.
  16. Tayo B. (2018) Exploration of the potential for plasma protein binding displacement and drug-drug interactions of valproate in combination with cannabidiol [abstract] Amer Epilepsy Soc Ann Mtg. New Orleans LA.
  17. Ventolini G, Vieira-Baptista P, DeSeta F, Verstraelen H, Lonneee-Hoffmann R, Leeev-Sagie A (2022) The vaginal microbiome: IV. The role of vaginal microbiome in reproduction and in gynecologic cancers. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 26(1):93-98.
  18. Walther-Antonio MRS, Chen J, Multinu F et al. (2016) Potential contribution of the uterine microbiome in the development of endometrial cancer. Genome Med 8:1-15.
  19. Zhou B, Sun C, Huang J et al. (2019) The biodiversity composition of microbiome in ovarian carcinoma patients. Sci Rep 9:1691.
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.

labsphotoCannabis 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.