Tag Archives: accredit

Phenova Gets Accreditation For Cannabis Proficiency Testing

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Phenova, Inc., a proficiency testing products and reference materials provider based in Golden, Colorado, works with labs and regulatory bodies to develop proficiency testing (PT) programs. According to a press release sent out by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), Phenova is A2LA’s first ISO/IEC 17043 accredited PT provider for the cannabis marketplace.

According to Ty Garber, director of new business development for the cannabis and food and beverage markets at Phenova, they have been working with A2LA for over a decade in other industries, but the cannabis testing industry is a huge new market for them. “Our Cannabis Proficiency Testing products and services are experiencing high demand across North America and we are fortunate to offer our expertise in proficiency testing to client laboratories and regulatory agencies in their joint efforts to ensure cannabis product quality and safety,” says Garber. “By working with the laboratories and stakeholder agencies, we have been able to develop and operate Proficiency Testing Programs based on real marijuana matrices, especially where the matrix creates specific analytical challenges. This approach has proven to be very beneficial for everyone involved, and we are working diligently to expand these efforts.”

Trace McInturff, senior director of accreditation services at A2LA, says this could help fill a serious need for conformity assessments in accredited cannabis labs. “A2LA is excited to announce the expansion of Phenova’s existing ISO/IEC 17043 Proficiency Testing Provider scope of accreditation to become the first A2LA accredited Proficiency Testing Provider for cannabis,” says McInturff. “This milestone adds to the positive historical relationship between Phenova and A2LA that dates back to 2005 when A2LA implemented a new TNI SSAS program for Proficiency Testing Providers and A2LA performed one of the first assessments of its kind at Phenova.” McInturff also says that A2LA has been instrumental in establishing the initial ILAC Proficiency Testing Provider accreditation requirements which ultimately became the basis for ISO/IEC 17043.

In addition to the “real marijuana matrix PT programs” that Phenova offers in certain states and countries where legal, they also offer alternative PT standards for labs that have obtained or are working on obtaining ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation.

FSC logo

Discussing Lab Accreditation: The New ISO 17025:2017 Standard

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
FSC logo

At this year’s Food Safety Consortium a couple weeks ago, the newly launched Cannabis Quality Track featured a number of panels and presentations that highlighted the many intersections between food safety and cannabis. One particular topic of interest was measuring the quality and safety of cannabis products through laboratory testing. At the event this year, representatives from the leading laboratory accreditation bodies in the country sat together on a panel titled Accreditation, Regulation & Certification: Cannabis Labs and Production.

Representatives from ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB), the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation (PJLA) discussed the new ISO standard, common issues that labs encounter when getting accredited, the future of the cannabis lab industry and certifications for food safety and quality.FSC logo

The panelists included:

  • Tracy Szerszen, president/operations manager, PJLA
  • Natalia Larrimer, engagement and program development manager, ANAB
  • Lauren Maloney, food safety program accreditation manager, Perry Johnson Registrars Food Safety, Inc. (PJRFSI)
  • Chris Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA
Tracy Szerszen
Tracy Szerszen, president/operations manager, PJLA

The new ISO 17025:2017 standard was a topic addressed pretty early in the panel. Tracy Szerszen introduced the topic with a recap of the 2005 standard. “With 17025, for those that are familiar with the older version, 2005, there are really two sections of the standard for that one,” says Szerszen. “The newer standard is a little bit different, but there is a quality management system review that we do and we look at the laboratory to ensure that they are testing appropriately based on what they applied for. So, for cannabis labs, they typically have the same scope in types of methods with respect to microbiology and chemistry, and 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.”

Chris Gunning followed that up with a closer look at the changes coming to the new 2017 standard. “If you are familiar with the 2005 version, you know that a lot of the clauses started out with a ‘you shall have a policy and procedure for doing X,’” says Gunning. “One of the major changes to the 2017 version is it gives laboratories more latitude on whether they need to have a policy/procedure to do certain things.” Gunning says the 2017 version is much more of an outcome-based standard. “As far as assessing to it, it becomes a little harder from our side because we can’t say you have to have this quality manual or you have to have this procedure that were going to assess you to. We are more open to looking at the outcomes.”

Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA
Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA

The most interesting change to the ISO standard comes with addressing the idea of risk. “One of the newest concepts in this standard is risk and how you assess your risk to your organization how you assess risk of impartiality, how you assess your measurement uncertainty when you are creating decision rules,” says Gunning. “Those are the big concepts that have changed in the 2017 standard in that it is more outcome-based and introducing the concept of risk more.”

After discussing some of the broader changes coming to the 2017 version, the panelists began delving into some common pitfalls and issues labs face when trying to get accredited. “From our experience, in Michigan, the new standard was written into the regulations, but a lot of labs were already accredited to 2005,” says Szerszen. “So, we actually contacted the state and explained to them that they have three years to transition. And some states will say ‘too bad, we want the 2017 ISO,’ so some of the cannabis labs are asking us to quickly come back so they can get appropriate licensing in the state and do a transition audit quickly.” She says most states seem to be comfortable with the current transition period everyone has, but it certainly requires some discussion and explanation to get on the same page with state regulators. “November 29, 2020 is the deadline for moving to the new 2017 standard.”

In addition to state requirements like traceability and security on top of an ISO 17025 accreditation, labs can run into issues not typically encountered in other testing markets, as Gunning mentioned during the panel. “One of the hardest parts of getting accredited is the need for properly validated methods, for all the different matrices in samples,” says Gunning. “Some of the biggest hurdles for new labs getting assessed are validation and the availability of reference materials and proficiency testing samples that meet their state requirements.” Those are just a handful of hurdles that labs aren’t usually anticipating when getting accredited.

Natalia Larrimer, engagement and program development manager, ANAB

Another big topic that generated a lot of dialogue during the panel was the need for a national accreditation standard for cannabis testing labs, one that Natalia Larrimer is advocating for. “Many laboratories are operating facilities in more than one state and what they are facing is a different set of criteria for laboratory recognition in each state, says Larrimer. “One initiative that we would love to see more support for, is a set of uniform requirements nationally. ACIL is currently working on developing these type of requirements which would be in addition to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard and specific for cannabis industry…” Larrimer says she’d like to see these requirements recognized nationally to get labs on the same page across multiple states. “This includes requirements for things like security, traceability, proficiency testing, sampling and personnel competence. The industry would greatly benefit from a uniform cannabis testing program across the US, so that testing facilities in Oregon are operating to the same criteria as facilities in California or Colorado, etc.”

The panelists went into greater detail on issues facing the cannabis lab testing industry, but also delved into certifications for food safety and quality, an important new development as the infused products market grows tremendously. Stay tuned for more highlights from this panel and other talks from the Food Safety Consortium. We will be following up this article with another that’ll shed some light on food safety certifications. Stay tuned for more!

Steep Hill Expands Hawaii Operations

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to a press release published yesterday, Steep Hill Hawaii announced the opening of their second location on the Big Island. Their first location located on Oahu and operating for a little over a year, was the first cannabis-testing laboratory to be certified by the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). It’s also the first ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited cannabis testing lab in the state.

steep-hill-labs-logoOwner and CEO of Steep Hill Hawaii, Dana Ciccone announced the second location yesterday. “”We are thrilled to open up our new location in Kailua Kona, Hawaii,” says Ciccone. “We have been working closely with the Department of Health and we look forward to working together with the large patient population and the two new dispensaries opening very soon.” Ciccone says with the new location they are focusing on quick turnaround times, good service and competitive prices.

According to Dr. Andrew Rosenstein, CEO of Steep Hill, they want to help provide safe medicine and quality testing to the Hawaii medical cannabis community. “In extending its services, Steep Hill Hawaii is committed to providing safe medicine and high quality testing to Hawaii’s patient community,” says Rosenstien. “Dana and the Steep Hill Hawaii team have worked hard to open up this new location and will continue to support cultivators and dispensaries in this emerging market.”

FSC logo

Lab Accreditation Bodies To Meet At Food Safety Consortium

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
FSC logo

The Food Safety Consortium, taking place November 13-15 in Schaumburg, Illinois, will host a series of talks geared towards the cannabis industry this year. The newly launched Cannabis Quality Track features a number of panels and presentations designed to highlight the many intersections between food safety and cannabis.

FSC logoThe track will have presentations discussing food safety planning in cannabis manufacturing, HACCP, GMPs, regulatory compliance and supply chain issues among other areas. One particular topic of interest in the quality and safety of cannabis products is laboratory testing. At the event this year, leading laboratory accreditation bodies in the country will sit together on a panel titled Accreditation, Regulation & Certification: Cannabis Labs and Production.

Roger Muse, vice president at ANAB

Representatives from ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB), the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation (PJLA) will host the panel on the morning of Wednesday, November 14.

Panelists will include:

  • Roger Muse, vice president of business development of ANAB
  • Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA
  • Tracy Szerszen, president/operations manager, PJLA
  • Lauren Maloney, food safety program accreditation manager, Perry Johnson Registrars Food Safety, Inc. (PJRFSI)
Tracy Szerszen
Tracy Szerszen, president/operations manager, PJLA

Laboratories that are new to the industry and looking to get accredited should be aware of the new ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard, which was released last year. According to Tracy Szerszen, labs that have already been accredited to the 2005 version will be required to transition to the 2017 version by November 29, 2020. “This can be done in conjunction with routine assessments scheduled in 2019 and 2020,” says Szerszen. “However, laboratories are cautioned to transition within a reasonable timeframe to avoid their 17025: 2005 certificate from lapsing prior to the transition deadline. Some of the changes to the standard include but are not limited to: the re-alignment of clauses similar to ISO 9001:2015 and other ISO industry standards, modifications to reporting and decision rules, the addition of risked based thinking and a new approach to managing complaints.” Szerszen, along with the other panelists, will go much more in-depth on changes to the new ISO 17025 and other topics during the panel at the Food Safety Consortium.

Some of the other topics the panel will discuss include:

  • ISO/IEC 17025 –what’s expected, benefits of accreditation, common deficiencies, updates to the new 17025 standard
  • Standards available for production facilities-GMPs & GFSI standards
  • How standards can be used to safeguard the quality of production and safety requirements
  • An open discussion with panelists from leading accreditation bodies on the state of cannabis lab testing
Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA
Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA

According to Chris Gunning, many states are requiring accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025, the standard used throughout the world in many other high-profile industries such as the testing of food and pharmaceuticals, environmental testing, and biosafety testing. “In an industry where there are few standard methods, where one hears that you can ‘pay to play,’ and where there are ‘novice’ laboratories popping up with little experience in operating a testing laboratory, it is extremely important to have an experienced, independent, 3rd party accrediting body evaluating the laboratory,” says Gunning. “This process confirms their adherence to appropriate quality management system standards, standard methods or their own internally developed methods, and can verify that those methods produce valid results. Ultimately, the process of accreditation gives the public confidence that a testing laboratory is meeting their state’s requirements and therefore consumers have access to a quality product.” He says most states with legal cannabis recognize the need for product testing by a credentialed laboratory.

Lauren Maloney, food safety program accreditation manager, Perry Johnson Registrars Food Safety, Inc. (PJRFSI)

Another important topic that the panel will address is the role of food safety standards in the cannabis industry. Lauren Maloney says cannabis product manufacturers should consider GMP and HACCP certifications for their businesses. “Food safety is important to the cannabis industry because although individual states have mandated several food safety requirements there still considerable risks involved in the production of cannabis products,” says Lauren Maloney. “Consumers want the assurance that the cannabis products are safe and therefore should be treated like a food product. Because FDA does not have oversight of these production facilities, third party certification is essential to ensure these facilities implement a robust food safety system.”

The panelists will examine these issues along with other topics in greater detail during their talk at this year’s Food Safety Consortium.

A2LA Partners With ATACH

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last week, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH) announced a new partnership agreement. This partnership is the first of its kind where a laboratory accreditation body and a cannabis trade organization work together under an MOU.

According to the press release, the two organizations hope to promote “foundational standards for quality control testing and regulatory guidelines that promote product safety.” Both organizations will advocate for the adoption of industry standards they deem appropriate for recreational and medical cannabis as well as hemp testing in the United States.

Michael Bronstein, executive director of ATACH, says there is an urgent need for open-source consensus standards and standard test methods for cannabis testing. “In an industry that lacks standard test methods and where testing is such a crucial part of the regulatory landscape, the need for open-source consensus standards is especially significant,” says Bronstein. “The development and adoption of standard test methods for cannabis testing is essential in ensuring consistency between laboratories, encouraging uniformity in state testing regulation, and providing a safe and consistent product to consumers.”

The press release also states that A2LA and ATACH seek to “develop regulation and adopt industry standards with goals of advancing and professionalizing the industry.”

EVIO Logo

EVIO Labs Massachusetts Accredited to ISO 17025

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
EVIO Logo

EVIO Inc.’s Massachusetts lab announced yesterday they received ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). According to the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, the body in charge of regulating the state’s cannabis industry, accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025: 2017 is a requirement for cannabis testing labs.

The press release says this makes EVIO Labs Massachusetts one of only a few operating and accredited testing laboratories serving the state’s medical cannabis industry. With recreational sales coming shortly to the state, EVIO is preparing for a higher demand in their lab testing services. “We are very proud of all of the teams’ hard work that resulted in this advanced accreditation,” says James Kocis, lab director of EVIO Labs Massachusetts. “With the state-mandated laboratory regulations, EVIO upholds the high standards of testing and plays a pivotal role in ensuring consumer safety and confidence in the states burgeoning marijuana market.”

According to Adam Gouker, general manager at A2LA, EVIO Labs Massachusetts, based in Southborough, MA, is the first cannabis laboratory they accredited in the state. “A2LA is excited to expand our cannabis accreditation program into yet another state, promoting the value of independent third-party accreditation to support quality products in the industry,” says Gouker. “Having the opportunity to work with a prominent name in the industry such as EVIO Labs and assess their exceptional Massachusetts laboratory has been an additional bonus.”

EVIO LogoAccording to the A2LA press release, by achieving ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, EVIO Labs Massachusetts demonstrates that they “have management, quality and technical systems in place to ensure accurate and reliable analyses, as well as proper administrative processes to ensure that all aspects related to the sample, the analysis, and the reporting are standardized, measured, and monitored.” It also requires that personnel are competent to perform each analysis.

EVIO Inc. operates in the cannabis testing market with lab services in a number of states, including Oregon, California and Florida among others. Their Florida location was the first accredited cannabis lab in the state and they recently earned the same accreditation for their Berkeley, California location.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 3

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 


In the last two articles, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) paperwork wall used if a grower, processor or dispensary (user/client) questioned a laboratory result and the conflicts of interest that exist in laboratory culture. Now I will discuss the second line of defense that a laboratory will present to the user in the paperwork wall: Quality Control (QC) results.

Do not be discouraged by the analytical jargon of the next few articles. I suggest that you go immediately to the conclusions to get the meat of this article and then read the rest of it to set you on the path to see the forest for the trees.

QC in a laboratory consists of a series of samples run by the laboratory to determine the accuracy and precision of a specific batch of samples. So, to start off, let’s look at the definitions of accuracy and precision.QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

According to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater:

Accuracy: estimate of how close a measured value is to the true value; includes expressions for bias and precision.

Precision: a measure of the degree of agreement among replicate analyses of a sample.

A reputable laboratory will measure the Accuracy and Precision of QC samples in a batch of user samples and record these values in both the analytical test report issued to the user and in control charts kept by the laboratory. These control charts can be reviewed by the user if they are requested by the user. These control charts record:

Accuracy (means) chart: The accuracy chart for QC samples (e.g., LRB, CCV, LFBs, LFMs, and surrogates) is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements of the analyte of interest.

Precision (range) chart: The precision chart also is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements (e.g., %RSD or RPD) for replicate of duplicate analyses of the analyte of interest.

Now, let’s look at what should be run in a sample batch for cannabis analyses. The typical cannabis sample would have analyses for cannabinoids, terpenes, microbiological, organic compounds, pesticides and heavy metals.

Each compound listed above would require a specific validated analytical method for the type of matrix being analyzed. Examples of specific matrixes are:

  • Cannabis buds, leaves, oil
  • Edibles, such as Chocolates, Baked Goods, Gummies, Candies and Lozenges, etc.
  • Vaping liquids
  • Tinctures
  • Topicals, such as lotions, creams, etc.

Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.

Also, both ISO 17025-2005 and ISO 17025-2017 require the use of a validated method.

ISO 17025-2005: When it is necessary to use methods not covered by standard methods, these shall be subject to agreement with the customer and shall include a clear specification of the customer’s requirements and the purpose of the test and/or calibration. The method developed shall have been validated appropriately before use.

ISO 17025-2017: The laboratory shall validate non-standard methods, laboratory-developed methods and standard methods used outside their intended scope or otherwise modified. The validation shall be as extensive as is necessary to meet the needs of the given application or field of application.

Validation procedures can be found in a diverse number of analytical chemistry associations (such as AOACand ASTM) but the State of California has directed users and laboratories to the FDA manual “Guidelines for the Validation of Chemical Methods for the FDA FVM Program, 2nd Edition, 2015

The laboratory must have on file for user review the following minimum results in an analytical statistical report validating their method:

  • accuracy,
  • limit of quantitation,
  • ruggedness,
  • precision,The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts.
  • linearity (or other calibration model),
  • confirmation of identity
  • selectivity,
  • range,
  • spike recovery.
  • limit of detection,
  • measurement uncertainty,

The interpretation of an analytical statistical report will be discussed in detail in the next article. Once the validated method has been selected for the specific matrix, then a sample batch is prepared for analysis.

Sample Batch: A sample batch is defined as a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of twenty (20) analytical samples run during a normal analyst’s daily shift. A LRB, LFB, LFM, LFMD, and CCV will be run with each sample batch. Failure of any QC sample in sample batch will require a corrective action and may require the sample batch to be reanalyzed. The definitions of the specific QC samples are described later.

The typical sample batch would be set as:

  • Instrument Start Up
  • Calibration zero
  • Calibration Standards, Quadratic
  • LRB
  • LFB
  • Sample used for LFM/LFMD
  • LFM
  • LFMD
  • Samples (First half of batch)
  • CCV
  • Samples (Second half of batch)
  • CCV

The QC samples are defined as:

Calibration Blank: A volume of reagent water acidified with the same acid matrix as in the calibration standards. The calibration blank is a zero standard and is used to calibrate the ammonia analyzer

Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV): A calibration standard, which is analyzed periodically to verify the accuracy of the existing calibration for those analytes.

Calibration Standard: A solution prepared from the dilution of stock standard solutions. These solutions are used to calibrate the instrument response with respect to analyte concentration

Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): An aliquot of reagent water or other blank matrix to which known quantities of the method analytes and all the preservation compounds are added. The LFB is processed and analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the methodology is in control, and whether the laboratory is capable of making accurate and precise measurements.

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix/Duplicate (LFM/LFMD) also called Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD): An aliquot of an environmental sample to which known quantities of ammonia is added in the laboratory. The LFM is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix contributes bias to the analytical results. The background concentrations of the analytes in the sample matrix must be determined in a separate aliquot and the measured values in the LFM corrected for background concentrations (Section 9.1.3).Laboratories must validate their methods.

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB): A volume of reagent water or other blank matrix that is processed exactly as a sample including exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents and reagents, sample preservatives, surrogates and internal standards that are used in the extraction and analysis batches. The LRB is used to determine if the method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Once a sample batch is completed, then some of the QC results are provided in the user’s analytical report and all of the QC results should be recorded in the control charts identified in the accuracy and precision section above.

But having created a batch and performing QC sample analyses, the validity of the user’s analytical results is still not guaranteed. Key conclusion points to consider are:

  1. Laboratories must validate their methods.
  2. Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.
  3. QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts. Areas to look at will be covered in the next few articles in this series.

EVIO Logo

EVIO Labs Berkeley Accredited To ISO 17025

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
EVIO Logo

According to a press release, EVIO Inc. announced recently that their Berkeley, California testing lab, C3 Labs, LLC doing business as EVIO Labs, received their ISO 17025 accreditation from Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc. (PJLA). EVIO Inc. acquired C3 Labs in January of this year, but C3 Labs is a well-established cannabis-testing lab that has been serving the Northern California industry since 2015.

The new and improved EVIO Berkeley laboratory
The new and improved EVIO Berkeley laboratory

The accreditation and announcement were well-timed given the California regulatory changes that came on July 1, essentially requiring all cannabis products be tested for a range of contaminants before sold in a retail setting. The press release states EVIO Labs Berkeley should be well equipped to handle the surge in demand for testing services and is prepared for the new regulations.

Ron Russak, vice president of operations at EVIO Labs
Ron Russak, vice president of operations at EVIO Labs

According to Ron Russak, vice president of operations at EVIO Labs, they hope these regulations can give producers, retailers and consumers assurance that their products are safe. “EVIO is committed to upholding the highest standards throughout each step of the testing process and we are extremely pleased with the team’s hard work to reach this great achievement,” says Russak. “As the California cannabis industry evolves and state-mandated laboratory standards of operation prove vital, both clients and consumers will now have assurance that the results will be accurate and reliable.”

In June, we spoke with the EVIO team as they were gearing up for the July 1 phase-in of the new rules. They said they were expanding their capacity in anticipation of a higher demand for lab testing services, including adding more resources, equipment and personnel.

Top 10 Common Findings Detected During Cannabis Laboratory Assessments: A Guide to Assist with Accreditation

By Tracy Szerszen
No Comments

With the cannabis industry growing rapidly, laboratories are adapting to the new market demand for medical cannabis testing in accordance to ISO/IEC 17025. Third-party accreditation bodies, such as Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc. (PJLA), conduct these assessments to determine that laboratories are following relevant medical cannabis testing standard protocols in order to detect potency and contaminant levels in cannabis. Additionally, laboratories are required to implement and maintain a quality management system throughout their facility. Obtaining accreditation is a challenge for laboratories initially going through the process. There are many requirements outlined in the standard that laboratories must adhere to in order to obtain a final certificate of accreditation. Laboratories should evaluate the ISO 17025 standard thoroughly, receive adequate training, implement the standard within their facility and conduct an internal audit in order to prepare for a third-party assessment. Being prepared will ultimately reduce the number of findings detected during the on-site assessment. Listed below is research and evidence gathered by PJLA to determine the top ten findings by clause specifically in relation to cannabis testing laboratories.

PJLA chart
The top 10 findings by clause

4.2: Management System

  • Defined roles and responsibilities of management system and its quality policies, including a structured outline of supporting procedures, requirements of the policy statement and establishment of objectives.
  • Providing evidence of establishing the development, implementation and maintenance of the management system appropriate to the scope of activities and the continuous improvement of its effectiveness.
  • Ensuring the integrity of the management system during planned and implemented changes.
  • Communication from management of the importance of meeting customer, statutory and regulatory requirements

4.3: Document Control

  • Establishing and maintaining procedures to control all documents that form the management system.
  • The review of document approvals, issuance and changes.

4.6: Purchasing Services and Supplies

  • Policies and procedures for the selection and purchasing of services and supplies, inspection and verification of services and supplies
  • Review and approval of purchasing documents containing data describing the services and supplies ordered
  • Maintaining records for the evaluation of suppliers of critical consumables, supplies and services, which affect the quality of laboratory outputs.

4.13: Control of Records

  • Establishing and maintaining procedures for identification, collection, indexing, access, filing, storage and disposal of quality and technical records.
  • Providing procedures to protect and back-up records stored electronically and to prevent unauthorized access.

4.14: Internal Audits

  • Having a predetermined schedule and procedure for conducting internal audits of its activities and that addresses all elements that verify its compliance of its established management system and ISO/IEC 17025
  • Completing and recording corrective actions arising from internal audits in a timely manner, follow-up activities of implementation and verification of effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

5.2: Personnel

  • Laboratory management not ensuring the competence and qualifications of all personnel who operate specific equipment, perform tests, evaluate test results and sign test reports. Lack of personnel undergoing training and providing appropriate supervision
  • Providing a training program policies and procedures for an effective training program that is appropriate; identification and review of training needs and the program’s effectiveness to demonstrate competence.
  • Lack of maintaining records of training actions taken, current job descriptions for managerial, technical and key support personnel involved in testing

5.4: Test and Calibration Methods and Method Validation

  • Utilization of appropriate laboratory methods and procedures for all testing within the labs scope; including sampling, handling, transport, storage and preparation of items being tested, and where appropriate, a procedure for an estimation of the measurement of uncertainty and statistical techniques for analysis
  • Up-to-date instructions on the use and operation of all relevant equipment, and on the handling and preparation of items for testing
  • Introduction laboratory-developed and non-standard methods and developing procedures prior to implementation.
  • Validating non-standard methods in accordance with the standard
  • Not completing appropriate checks in a systematic manner for calculations and data transfers

5.6: Measurement Traceability

  • Ensuring that equipment used has the associated measurement uncertainty needed for traceability of measurements to SI units or certified reference materials and completing intermediate checks needed according to a defined procedure and schedules.
  • Not having procedures for safe handling, transport, storage and use of reference standards and materials that prevent contamination or deterioration of its integrity.

5.10: Reporting the Results

  • Test reports not meeting the standard requirements, statements of compliance with accounting for uncertainty, not providing evidence for measurement traceability, inaccurately amending reports.

SOP-3: Use of the Logo

  • Inappropriate use of PJLA’s logo on the laboratories test reports and/or website.
  • Using the incorrect logo for the testing laboratory or using the logo without prior approval from PJLA.
Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 


This article is the first in a series that will look into the risks any user of laboratory services (growers, processors or dispensary owners) will face from the quality systems in place in the laboratory. I will discuss specific risk areas in clear and understandable language so as to not obscure the substance of the article series with abbreviations and nomenclature that is not familiar with the reader. Subjects of the articles that follow will focus on the specific laboratory certification or accreditation requirements and how the user may find out if their risks are addressed. As these articles are meant to be interactive with the reader, users are encouraged to send questions or suggested topics to the author.

This article will be an introduction to the typical laboratory process that generates the “paperwork wall” and how it might impact the user.My experience with laboratory certification or accreditation (difference between the two discussed later in this article) comes from over 30+ years in the environmental chemistry field. My experiences include working under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, FIFRA (pesticides) and ISO 17025 laboratory analyses and laboratory management. I have also received training to perform ISO 17025 and EPA Drinking Water audits. During this time I have been audited as a laboratory analyst/laboratory manager and have performed audits.

As such, I can open up the laboratory structure beyond the sterile “paperwork wall” that has been constructed to allow the user to see the quality of data that is used in final reports that can wreak havoc. This article will be an introduction to the typical laboratory process that generates the “paperwork wall” and how it might impact the user.

One of the common misconceptions that a user has with a “certified or accredited” laboratory is that procession of a certificate indicates that ALL laboratory analyses produced are accurate and precise. I liken this to the “paperwork wall” that laboratories produce when the user questions any results reported to them. The laboratory management assumes that they have answered the user complaint (i.e. a certified/accredited laboratory cannot make a mistake) and the user will not pursue further questions once the certificate is produced.Accreditation does not guarantee that the laboratory personnel can perform the analyses the user is paying for; just that the laboratory’s paperwork has been audited.

First off, let’s look at what the difference between the terms certified laboratory vs. accredited laboratory. These simple words mean specifically different types of laboratories. According to the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP):

  • Certification is used for verifying that personnel have adequate credentials to practice certain disciplines, as well as for verifying that products meet certain requirements.
  • Accreditation is used to verify that laboratories have an appropriate quality management system and can properly perform certain test methods (e.g., ANSI, ASTM, and ISO test methods) and calibration parameters according to their scopes of accreditation.

So, how does that impact the user?

  • If your state or 3rd party certificate only accredits a laboratory, then the accreditation agency only inspects the laboratory’s quality program as it applies to written documents and static equipment. (e.g. The quality manual is written and the standard operating procedures (SOPs) are in place).
  • Accreditation does not guarantee that the laboratory personnel can perform the analyses the user is paying for; just that the laboratory’s paperwork has been audited.
  • Certification on the other hand says that the laboratory personnel are qualified to perform the laboratory analyses and that the final laboratory results meet specific (certain) requirements. In other words, the laboratory’s quality plan and SOPs are met.

There are three different paths that are utilized by state cannabis control agencies to accredit or certify a cannabis laboratory.

  • ISO 17025: The ISO laboratory quality standard for laboratory accreditation is the most broadly used. ISO 17025 is an international standard and its implementation in the United States is regulated by ILAC. There are three 3rd party companies that audit for and award ISO 17025 accreditation certificates. They are Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation Inc., ANAB and A2LA.
  • TNI: The NELAC Institute standards are utilized by one state to handle their cannabis laboratory accreditation.
  • States: Some states have tried to blend an ISO 17025 requirement with their own state’s certification requirements to produce a mixed accreditation-certification program. But, this type of program may rely on two or more agencies (e.g. ISO 17025 3rd party auditors communicating with state auditors) to cover all specific laboratory areas.

PJLAIn two of the paths above, the final result is that the laboratory receives accreditation. That means that only the quality management system and the scope (e.g. SOPS, laboratory instruments, etc.) have been audited, not the laboratory personnel or their capabilities. The third pathway may produce a certified laboratory or may not.

To provide an example of where an accredited laboratory followed their paperwork but produced inadequate results:

  • I received a laboratory report for organic chemical analyses of a client’s process.
    • The laboratory results placed the user in noncompliance with the state and federal regulatory limits.
    • But, the laboratory result contained data flags (e.g. additional information that explains why the laboratory result failed the laboratory’s quality requirements).
    • The laboratory still received payment from the user as the laboratory performed the analyses.
  • I had to explain to the regulatory agency that some of the data flags when investigated showed:
    • The laboratory failed to use the approved analytical method.
    • The detection level for the regulatory chemical was so low that the laboratory had no instrument capable to see those chemicals at the concentrations reported by the laboratory.
  • The state regulators accepted the explanation I provided and the user was no longer under a regulatory administrative order.
  • But, when I presented this information to the accreditation agency that accredited this laboratory I was informed:
    • The laboratory flagged the data so it can be reported to the user.
    • If the user wanted more from the laboratory, then the user will have to outline their specific requirement in a quality contract with the laboratory. (i.e. If the laboratory identifies the problems then they can report the data no matter what happens to the user).

So now, what is being done behind the “paperwork wall”? Areas such as those listed below can impact the results received by the user.

  • Laboratory quality culture: What does the laboratory staff think about quality in their normal daily work?
  • Laboratory staff competence: What is the level of training and real world competence of the staff that actually works on the analyses?
  • Laboratory capabilities: Does the laboratory actually have the laboratory instruments and equipment that can perform the analyses the user needs?
  • Laboratory quality control parameters: What is in the quality manual and does it make sense?
  • Laboratory analytical method validation: Are the analytical methods used by the laboratory validated by approved statistical procedures?

What should the user have in place to limit their risks from laboratory analyses?

  • Failsafe sampling preparation plans: Make sure the user samples for the laboratory are collected correctly.
  • Failsafe’s on laboratory sample reports: Protect the user from bad laboratory reports.
  • User auditing of the laboratory: Go to the laboratory and see if the laboratory can pass muster.

What’s Next: The next article will go behind the laboratory “paperwork wall” to detail the culture that impacts the user results negatively and how that can be recognized. Follow-up articles will help users developing quality plans that identify risks and how to limit them.