Tag Archives: California

Heavy Metals Testing: Methods, Strategies & Sampling

By Charles Deibel
3 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.

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.

Sequoia Analytical Labs Caught Falsifying Results

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last month, Sequoia Analytical Labs admitted that they falsified hundreds of pesticide tests for batches of cannabis products. The Sacramento-based laboratory faked data on 22 different pesticide tests for more than 700 batches over a period of four months.

According to a notice posted on Sequoia’s website, the skewed results were originally found due to a “faulty instrument” but “it was further discovered” that the lab director knew about it and was fraudulently posting the results in order to hand out certificates of analysis. The lab director in question has since been fired and Sequoia voluntarily relinquished their state license.

Joe Devlin, Sacramento’s chief of cannabis enforcement, told KCRA3 News “We’re going to be taking a look at suspending or possibly revoking their permit.” He followed that up with saying that California needs more testing labs. “The shortage of labs has really created a bottleneck in the supply chain across the state,” says Devlin. There are only 43 licensed laboratories in the state of California as of this time, and just three of those are in Sacramento.

The Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), the regulatory authority overseeing the cannabis testing market in California, has not commented on this story, but they did reach out to distributors who had sent batches to Sequoia for testing. “Any cannabis goods from these batches, returned by consumers to the retailer, must be destroyed,” reads the BCC letter. “Any cannabis goods returned from a retailer’s inventory or remaining in your inventory may be destroyed, or may be re-sampled and re-tested after obtaining approval from the Bureau. Any cannabis goods from these batches may not be released to a retailer without re-sampling and re-testing.”

Sequoia Analytical Labs posted two notices on their homepage, one was a letter to their clients informing them of the fraud and the other is that BCC letter to distributors doing the same. “Management and ownership were horrified to learn about this severe breach of a very important safety regulation,” reads the notice. “We have voluntarily surrendered our license to do COA testing to the BCC while we make the required corrections. We are already hard at work making the needed changes to the instrument and revamping procedures so that we may get our license reinstated January 1.”

As of today, the lab’s license has not been reinstated.

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.

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.

Seven Steps To Avoid the Green Rush Blues: Investigate Water Supplies Before Planting Cannabis

By Amy M. Steinfeld
2 Comments

A clean, reliable water supply lies at the heart of every successful cannabis farm. It’s no surprise that the stakes for finding land with ideal growing conditions, including adequate water, are high. But new buyers (and lessees) caught up in the green rush often gloss over water rights or are unaware of California’s byzantine rules governing the irrigation of cannabis.

Water rights are complex. Water regulations applicable to cannabis cultivation are even more complex. And our new climate reality convolutes things further. Longer droughts, more volatile weather, political uncertainties, increased groundwater regulation and water quality concerns are exacerbating tensions over local and statewide water supplies. In many areas of California, landowners can no longer rely on local water districts to meet their needs.

A robust investigation of the property must consider water supplies. Because a property’s water supply is dependent on water rights, local ordinances, state regulations, politics and hydrology, it’s important to consult a water lawyer (and in some instances a hydrologist) before closing. A bit of foresight can prevent a grower from being left high and dry.

The following checklist provides a roadmap to conduct water rights’ due diligence. While many of these details are California-specific, this type of due diligence applies throughout the West.

Step 1: Identify Available Water Supplies and Consider Potential Limitations On Irrigation, Including Potential Future Changes

Conduct a site visit to identify existing water infrastructure, natural water features and existing or potential water service options. Next, determine if the property is served by a public water supplier. If that’s the case, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) does not require any specific documentation to irrigate cannabis, but the water supply must be disclosed in the CalCannabis license application.

Groundwater is generally the best supply for cannabis, but the era of unregulated groundwater pumping is over. Many groundwater basins in California are now governed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), which requires water agencies to halt overdraft and restore balanced levels of groundwater pumping from certain basins. As a result, SGMA may result in future pumping cutbacks or pumping assessments. It’s imperative to identify the local groundwater basin via the Department of Water Resources’ Bulletin 118, and determine whether the groundwater basin is adjudicated or governed by a groundwater sustainability agency. Growers should also test the local water supply’s pH and salt levels because cannabis plants are finicky and water treatment can be cost prohibitive. If a new well is needed, growers should consult with their local county before drilling a new well. In some areas, moratoriums and restrictions on drilling new wells are on the rise.

As a rule of thumb, cannabis cultivators should avoid using surface water to irrigate cannabis. Surface diversions are subject to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s permitting authority. And under the interim State Water Board Cannabis Policy, commercial cannabis cultivators cannot divert anysurface water during the dry season (April 1 through Oct. 31), even if they have a riparian right that can be used to irrigate other crops. During the dry season, cultivators may only irrigate using water that has been stored off-stream. And even during the wet season, cannabis cultivators must comply with instream flow requirements and check in with the state daily to ensure adequate water supplies are available. Cannabis cultivators are also required to install measuring devices and track surface water diversions daily. And buyer beware, a groundwater well that extracts water from a subterranean stream may be considered a surface-water diversion. So be especially cautious if the well is located close to a creek or river.Develop a water use plan to optimize water efficiency 

Step 2: Identify Water Supplies Used On the Property, Including the Basis of Right, and Quantify Historical Use

Review information on historic and existing water use. This may include past water bills and assessments. If there is a well on the property, the seller or lessor may have metering data, electrical records and crop data that can establish historic groundwater use. Cultivators must submit a well log to CalCannabis as part of the cannabis cultivation application. If surface water is available, the purchaser should review the State Water Board eWRIMs database for water rights permits, licenses, stock pond registrations and certificates, decisions and orders. The purchaser should also identify surface water diversion structures and review annual filings to determine compliance with all terms and conditions of the water right. Lastly, the purchaser should request all documents and contracts pertaining to water rights.

Realistically estimate water demand for irrigation and other on-site purposes.Step 3: Confirm Ownership of Right and Assess Any Limitations On Water Right

Determine whether the right has been abandoned, lost to prescription or forfeited. Evaluate the seniority of the water right, availability of the right, adequacy of place of use, purpose of use (must include irrigation), season of use, and quantity of any permitted or licensed post-1914 right. Determine whether historical diversions pursuant to an appropriative right support the full amount of the claimed right, and whether any changes to the water right are needed to support the proposed new use. Cultivators in California who plan to utilize surface water also need to file for a “Cannabis Small Irrigation Use Registration” to store water during the wet season for use during the dry season.

Step 4: Reconcile Water Demand With Available Supply

Realistically estimate water demand for irrigation and other on-site purposes. Develop a water use plan to optimize water efficiency (drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, water monitoring, hoop structures) regardless of supply sufficiency. Many counties, such as Santa Barbara County, require that cannabis growers meet certain irrigation efficiency standards. Determine whether available supplies can meet all proposed demands, including plans for full buildout. If not, consider whether additional supplies are available for use on the property.

Step 5: Determine Water Supply Compliance Obligations

 The rights associated with water supplies are defined by their source, the time frame during which supplies can be taken, the quantity of water to which the right attaches, and any limitations on the purpose of use of the water supply. There may also be reporting requirements associated with taking and using the supply—these can include requirements to report the quantity of water used as well as information regarding the end use of the water. Failure to timely report can have serious consequences. Cannabis cultivators are also subject to additional water quality regulations and restrictions, including waste discharge requirements pursuant to the State Water Board’s Cannabis General Order.

Step 6: Negotiate Deal and Draft Conveyance Documents

After obtaining an understanding of the water supply associated with the property, the property conveyance documents may be drafted to incorporate the transfer of rights associated with the property’s water supplies. These may include the assignment of contracts pursuant to which water supplies are obtained, the transfer of permits or licenses as to the water supplies, or the transfer of water rights arising out of a judgment or decree.

Step 7: Consider Unused Water Supply Assets That Could Be Monetized 

To the extent the water supply rights associated with the property exceed the cannabis plants’ water demand, it may be possible to monetize unused or excess water supply assets through transfer of the rights to a third party.

If you have any questions about water rights related to cannabis cultivation it’s always in your best interest to contact an experienced water attorney early on in the process.

Marguerite Arnold

A Busy 4th Quarter Heralds An Amazing Cannabis Year Globally

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
Marguerite Arnold

In retrospect, when the cannabis history books are written, 2018 may come to represent as much of a watershed year as 2014. Much has happened this year, culminating in a situation, much like at the end of the first year of modernization, where great victories have been achieved. But a long road to true acceptance and even basic and much broader medical use still beckons. Even if the new center left ruling coalition party in Luxembourg has just announced that recreational cannabis reform is on its agenda for the next five years.

This is a quick and by no means a full review of both fourth quarter activity globally, and how that ties into gains for the year.

Canada Legalizes Rec Sales

Beyond all the other banner headlines, October 17 will go down in history as the day that Canada switched the game.

Will 1017 replace 420? Not likely. But it is significant nonetheless.

What does this mean for the rest of the industry (besides international border checks and lifetime bans for Canadian executives and presumably others traveling into the U.S. to cannabis industry conferences at present)? For starters, a well-capitalized, public industry which is building infrastructure domestically and overseas like it is going out of style.

This is important for several reasons, starting with the fact that the big Canadian LPs are clearly not counting on supplying Europe from Canada for much longer. Why? The big European grows that were set up last year are starting to come online.

So Does California…

And other significant U.S. states (see Massachusetts this month and Michigan) are following suit. However the big issue, as clearly seen at least from Canada and Europe, is there is no federal reform in sight. That opens up a raft of big complications that so far, most U.S. firms have not been able to broach. That said, this situation is starting to change this fall, with two U.S. firms entering both Greece and Denmark, but in general, a big issue. Canadian firms are still trying to figure out how to both utilize the public markets in the U.S. without getting caught in detention when crossing the border.the U.S. is continuing to be a popular place to go public for Canadian firms

Regardless, the U.S. is continuing to be a popular place to go public for Canadian firms, who are also looking for access to global capital markets and institutional capital. Right now, Frankfurt is off limits for many of them. See the Deutsche Börse. That said, with the rules already changing in Luxembourg, one firm has already set its sights for going public in Frankfurt next spring.

The German Situation

Like it or not, the situation in Germany is key to the entire EU and increasingly a global enchilada, and no matter where companies are basing their cultivation sites at this point, there are two big gems in the European cannabis crown. Deutschland is the first one because of the size of the economy, the intact nature of public healthcare and the fact that the German government decided to mandate that sick people could get medical cannabis reimbursed by their public health insurer.

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

Ironies abound, however. In the last quarter, it is clear from the actions of the Deutsche Börse that Frankfurt is not a popular place to go public (Aurora went public on the NYSE instead in late October).

The cultivation bid was supposed to come due, but it is now likely that even the December deadline might get pushed back again, interminably at least until April when the most recent lawsuit against the entire process is due to be argued.

In the meantime, there is a lot of activity in the German market even if it does not make the news. Distribution licenses are being granted all over the country (skip Berlin as there are already too many pending). And established distributors themselves, particularly specialty distributors, are increasingly finding themselves the target of foreign buyout inquiries.

There are also increasing rumours that the German government may change its import rules to allow firms outside of Canada and Holland to import into the country.

The German market, in other words, continues to cook, but most of it is under the surface a year and a half after legalization, to figure things out.

The UK

Next to October 17, the other date of note this fall of course was November 1. The Limeys may not have figured out Brexit (yet). But cannabis for medical use somehow made it through the national political fray this summer. Hospitalized children are compelling.

UKflagNow the question is how do other patients obtain the same? The NHS is in dire straits. Patients must still find a way to import the drug (and pay for it). And with newly imposed ex-im complications coming Britain’s way soon, there is a big question as to where and how exactly, patients are supposed to import (and from where). All looming and unanswered questions at the moment.

But hey, British doctors can now write prescriptions for cannabis.

Greece and Malta

Greece and Malta are both making waves across Europe right now. Why?

The licensing process that has continued into the fall is clearly opening up inexpensive cultivation in interesting places. Greece is growing. Malta, an island nation that is strategically placed to rival Greece for Mediterranean exports across Europe is still formalizing the licensing process, but don’t expect that to last for long.

Look for some smart so and so to figure out how to beat Brexit and import from Malta through Ireland. It’s coming. And odds are, it’s going to be Malta, if not the Isle of Mann that is going to clinch this intriguing if not historical cultivation and trade route.

Poland

Just as October came to a close, the Polish government announced the beginning of medical imports. Aurora, which went public the same week in New York, also announced its first shipment to the country – to a hospital complex.

Let the ex-im and distribution games begin!

It is widely expected that the Polish market will follow in German footsteps. Including putting its cannabis cultivation bid online whenever the Polish government decides to cultivate medical supplies domestically. The country just finalized its online tender bid system in general.

Does anyone know the expression for “pending cannabis bid lawsuit in Warsaw” in Polish?

Notable Mentions

While it gets little press outside the country, the Danish four year experiment is reaching the end of its first year. While this market was first pioneered by Canopy/Spectrum, it was rapidly followed by both Canadian LPs and others entering the market. Latest entrant this quarter? A tantalizingly American-British conglomerate called Indiva Ltd. as of November 21.

Italy is also starting to establish a presence in interesting ways as multiple firms begin to establish cultivation there.

There are also increasing rumours and reports that Israel might finally be able to start exporting next year. That will also disrupt the current ecosystem.

And most of all, beyond a country-by-country advance, the World Health Organization meeting in early November and in the early part of December is likely to keep the pressure on at a global level for rescheduling and descheduling the cannabis plant.

This in turn, is likely to set the stage as well as the timeline for rec use in Luxembourg. Look for developments soon.

A busy time indeed. Not to mention a quarter to end a very intriguing year, and certainly destined to sow returns for years to come, globally.

FSC logo

Discussing Lab Accreditation: The New ISO 17025:2017 Standard

By Aaron G. Biros
2 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!

Why Comply: A Closer Look At Traceability For California’s Cannabis Businesses

By Scott Hinerfeld
3 Comments

Compliance should be top of mind for California’s cannabis operators. As the state works to implement regulations in the rapidly-growing cannabis industry, business owners need to be aware of what’s required to stay in good standing. As of January 1, 2019, that means reporting data to the state’s new track-and-trace system, Metrc.

What Is Track-and-Trace?

Track-and-Trace programs enable government oversight of commercial cannabis throughout its lifecycle—from “seed-to-sale.” Regulators can track a product’s journey from grower to processor to distributor to consumer, through data points captured at each step of the supply chain. Track-and-trace systems are practical for a number of reasons:

  • Taxation: ensure businesses pay their share of owed taxes
  • Quality assurance & safety: ensure cannabis products are safe to consume, coordinate product recalls
  • Account for cannabis grown vs. cannabis sold: curb inventory disappearing to the black market
  • Helps government get a macro view of the cannabis industry

The California Cannabis Track-and-Trace system (CCTT) gives state officials the ability to supervise and regulate the burgeoning cannabis industry in the golden state.

What Is Metrc?

Metrc is the platform California cannabis operators must use to record, track and maintain detailed information about their product for reporting. Metrc compiles this data and pushes it to the state.

Who Is Required To Use Metrc?

Starting January 1, 2019, all California state cannabis licensees are required to use Metrc. This includes licenses for cannabis: Proper tagging ensures that regulators can quickly trace inventory back to a particular plant or place of origin.

  • Cultivation
  • Manufacturing
  • Retail
  • Distribution
  • Testing labs
  • Microbusinesses

How Does Metrc Work?

Metrc uses a system of tagging and unique ID numbers to categorize and track cannabis from seed to sale. Tagged inventory in Metrc is sorted into 2 categories: plants and packages. Plants are further categorized as either immature or flowering. All plants are required to enter Metrc through immature plant lots of up to 100/plants per lot. Each lot is assigned a lot unique ID (UID), and each plant in the lot gets a unique Identifier plant tag. Immature plants are labeled with the lot UID, while flowering plants get a plant tag. Metrc generates these ID numbers and they cannot be reused. In addition to the UID, tags include a facility name, facility license number, application identifier (medical or recreational), and order dates for the tag. Proper tagging ensures that regulators can quickly trace inventory back to a particular plant or place of origin.

Packages are formed from immature plants, harvest batches, or other packages. Package tags are important for tracking inventory through processing, as the product changes form and changes hands. Each package receives a UID package tag, and as packages are refined and/or combined, they receive a new ID number, which holds all the other ID numbers in it and tells that package’s unique story.

Do I Have To Enter Data Into Metrc Manually?

You certainly can enter data into Metrc manually, but you probably won’t want to, and thankfully, you don’t have to. Metrc’s API allows for seamless communication between the system and many of your company’s existing tracking and reporting tools used for inventory, production, POS, invoices, orders, etc. These integrations automate the data entry process in many areas.As California operators work to get their ducks in a row, some ambiguity and confusion around Metrc’s roll out remains. 

Adopting and implementing cannabis ERP software is another way operators can automate compliance. These platforms combine software for point of sale, cultivation, distribution, processing and ecommerce into one unified system, which tracks everything and pushes it automatically to Metrc via the API. Since they’ve been developed specifically for the cannabis industry, they’re designed with cannabis supply chain and regulatory demands in mind.

As California operators work to get their ducks in a row, some ambiguity and confusion around Metrc’s roll out remains. Only businesses with full annual licenses are required to comply, leaving some temporary licensees unsure of how to proceed. Others are simply reluctant to transition from an off-the-grid, off-the-cuff model to digitally tracking and reporting everything down to the gram. But the stakes of non-compliance are high— the prospect of fines or loss of business is causing fear and concern for many. Integrated cannabis ERP software can simplify operations and offer continual, automated compliance, which should give operators peace of mind.