Events across the globe have been postponed or canceled due to the coronavirus. COVID-19 is taking down many industries and leaving hundreds of thousands of people without jobs. At Innovative Publishing Company, our top priority is safety. In light of the recent travel restrictions and our concern over attendees’ safety, we have made the decision to convert our Cannabis Labs/Food Labs Conference to a virtual event. The event will no longer take place June 3–4. Instead, we are in the process of reorganizing the agenda to give our attendees the full benefit of sessions over a period of June 1–5. Recognizing the strain on the industry, this event will be free to attendees and underwritten by our sponsors. Check back soon here as we update the website and announce the new agenda for the virtual program. We look forward to seeing everyone virtually there.
Additionally, the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo remains scheduled for October 21–23, 2020, however the Food Safety Consortium will now be postponed to December 2–4, 2020. More information on that can be found on Food Safety Tech. Innovative Publishing has developed a contingency plan in the event that COVID-19 continues to be a serious health concern throughout the fall season. This is very possible and we take these health concerns very seriously. That plan includes converting the conference to a virtual event, similar to our Cannabis Labs/Food Labs Conference.
A Message To Our Readers
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to get in touch with us via the Contact Us page. Our editorial content in the newsletters and on the website will continue as usual, so check back regularly for news articles, features and columns as we continue to work remotely and provide you with educational content. We look forward to the upcoming virtual event and hope you’ll join us. We feel this is the smartest decision to make in the midst of the global pandemic. We hope our readers and their families remain safe and healthy. We’ll all get through this together.
EDGARTOWN, MA, Jan. 23, 2020 – Innovative Publishing Co., the publisher of Cannabis Industry Journal and organizer of the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo is announcing the launch of the Cannabis Labs Conference. The event will address science, technology, regulatory compliance and quality management as they relate to the cannabis testing market. It will take place on June 2–3 at U.S. Pharmacopeia in Rockville, MD.
A few of the noteworthy topics that will be discussed at the conference include hemp testing under new federal guidelines, ISO 17025:2017 accreditation, potency and cannabinoid quantification, regulatory compliance and state regulations, microbiology and sample preparation best practices, among other topic areas.
The event is co-located with the Food Labs Conference, which will focus on regulatory, compliance and risk management issues that companies face in the area of testing and food laboratory management. More information about this event is available on Food Safety Tech. Some of the critical topics include a discussion of FDA’s proposed FSMA rule, Laboratory Accreditation Program for Food Testing; considerations in laboratory design; pathogen testing and detection; food fraud; advances in testing and lab technology; allergen testing, control and management; validation and proficiency testing; and much more.
“By presenting two industry conferences under one roof, we can provide attendees with technology, regulatory compliance and best practices that cannabis and food might share but also focused topics that are unique to cannabis or food laboratory industry needs,” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Co., Inc. and director of the Food Labs Conference.
This column is devoted to helping cannabis analytical labs generate valid data right now with a relatively small amount of additional work. The topic for this article is instrument calibration – truly the foundation of all quality data. Calibration is the basis for all measurement, and it is absolutely necessary for quantitative cannabis analyses including potency, residual solvents, terpenes, and pesticides.
Just like a simple alarm clock, all analytical instruments – no matter how high-tech – will not function properly unless they are calibrated. When we set our alarm clock to 6AM, that alarm clock will sound reproducibly every 24 hours when it reads 6AM, but unless we set the correct current time on the clock based on some known reference, we can’t be sure when exactly the alarm will sound. Analytical instruments are the same. Unless we calibrate the instrument’s signal (the response) from the detector to a known amount of reference material, the instrument will not generate an accurate or valid result.
Without calibration, our result may be reproducible – just like in our alarm clock example – but the result will have no meaning unless the result is calibrated against a known reference. Every instrument that makes a quantitative measurement must be calibrated in order for that measurement to be valid. Luckily, the principle for calibration of chromatographic instruments is the same regardless of detector or technique (GC or LC).
Before we get into the details, I would like to introduce one key concept:
Every calibration curve for chromatographic analyses is expressed in terms of response and concentration. For every detector the relationship between analyte (e.g. a compound we’re analyzing) concentration and response is expressible mathematically – often a linear relationship.
Now that we’ve introduced the key concept behind calibration, let’s talk about the two most common and applicable calibration options.
Single Point Calibration
This is the simplest calibration option. Essentially, we run one known reference concentration (the calibrator) and calculate our sample concentrations based on this single point. Using this method, our curve is defined by two points: our single reference point, and zero. That gives us a nice, straight line defining the relationship between our instrument response and our analyte concentration all the way from zero to infinity. If only things were this easy. There are two fatal flaws of single point calibrations:
We assume a linear detector response across all possible concentrations
We assume at any concentration greater than zero, our response will be greater than zero
Assumption #1 is never true, and assumption #2 is rarely true. Generally, single point calibration curves are used to conduct pass/fail tests where there is a maximum limit for analytes (i.e. residual solvents or pesticide screening). Usually, quantitative values are not reported based on single point calibrations. Instead, reports are generated in relation to our calibrator, which is prepared at a known concentration relating to a regulatory limit, or the instrument’s LOD. Using this calibration method, we can accurately report that the sample contains less than or greater than the regulatory limit of an analyte, but we cannot report exactly how much of the analyte is present. So how can we extend the accuracy range of a calibration curve in order to report quantitative values? The answer to this question brings us to the other common type of calibration curve.
A multi-point calibration curve is the most common type used for quantitative analyses (e.g. analyses where we report a number). This type of curve contains several calibrators (at least 3) prepared over a range of concentrations. This gives us a calibration curve (sometimes a line) defined by several known references, which more accurately expresses the response/concentration relationship of our detector for that analyte. When preparing a multi-point calibration curve, we must be sure to bracket the expected concentration range of our analytes of interest, because once our sample response values move outside the calibration range, the results calculated from the curve are not generally considered quantitative.
The figure below illustrates both kinds of calibration curves, as well as their usable accuracy range:
This article provides an overview of the two most commonly used types of calibration curves, and discusses how they can be appropriately used to report data. There are two other important topics that were not covered in this article concerning calibration curves: 1) how can we tell whether or not our calibration curve is ‘good’ and 2) calibrations aren’t permanent – instruments must be periodically re-calibrated. In my next article, I’ll cover these two topics to round out our general discussion of calibration – the basis for all measurement. If you have any questions about this article or would like further details on the topic presented here, please feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) recently implemented a set of temporary rules effective through June 28th of this year with the goal to establish a set of regulations for cannabis testing by October 1st. An investigation by The Oregonian highlighted some of the previous problems with cannabis testing in the state.
The most impactful rule changes include The NELAC Institute (TNI) mandatory standards for laboratories that the Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ORELAP) will use to accredit labs. Initial rules in the Oregon medical cannabis program, HB 3460 from 2013, did not specify accreditation rules for cannabis testing.
ORELAP currently performs accreditation for lab testing under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The new cannabis testing rules will give ORELAP the authority to accredit and regulate cannabis labs in the state of Oregon.
Rodger Voelker, Ph.D., laboratory director of OG Analytical in Eugene, OR, believes these rules are monumental in establishing legitimacy in cannabis testing. “These new rules have major repercussions mainly because they require not only getting accreditation, but maintaining it with very strict requirements,” says Voelker. “That also includes procedural guidelines that very carefully outline the quality of laboratory practices and establishes a set of criteria for method validation.”
Voelker notes that two of the biggest changes are in quality control and data management. “The documentation they require is very thorough and strict with the idea that any aspect of an analysis can be replicated,” adds Voelker. “This is a real win for us in my opinion because now we have an agency that can issue the appropriate credentials as well as have the authority to make punitive measures.”
The timeline for implementation with temporary rules allows state regulators to work with laboratories to perform accreditation and bring laboratories up to speed. According to Shannon Swantek, ORELAP compliance specialist, products that dispensaries sell in medical and recreational markets are required to be tested under the new rules and in the analyte lists by an ORELAP accredited laboratory, starting on October 1st.
Swantek’s job is to accredit cannabis labs to the TNI standards, which is essentially very similar to ISO 17025, just with more prescriptive measures and the ability to pair with state agencies to enforce rules after accreditation. “The timeline for accreditation is dependent on how ready the lab is and how compliant they are to the TNI standard already,” says Swantek. “The culture had gotten so fraudulent that the legislature felt Oregon needed some serious, more strict rules in place.”
One of the biggest changes coming to Oregon cannabis testing is the new sampling requirement. “An accredited laboratory employee must take the sample because sampling is where a lack of training or outright fraud is skewing results, which occurs when a grower brings in a sample not representative of the batch,” adds Swantek. Sample preparation methods will also be required to be more robust to meet the action limits of pesticide testing in particular, helping to identify lower levels like parts-per-billion, according to Swantek.
Reports were also lacking key information in the past. The new rules will require more information such as the procedure used, the analyst carrying it out, dilution factors and any other information you need to theoretically reproduce the result. This will result in more accurate labels on products.
Many are concerned that the new lab testing requirements will raise the price of testing too much. In reality, those current prices are not realistic for accurate data, which points to the rampant fraud that ORELAP is trying to eradicate. “The old rules were written in such an ambiguous way that the prices were set by laboratories without a proper quality program or even without proper instrumentation,” says Swantek.
The accreditation process will require particularly robust quality control systems in labs. “Accreditation to the TNI Standard means that lab quality systems will require a documentation system, training procedures, record keeping, personnel requirements, organization details, proof of no conflicts of interest and corrective actions if noncompliant,” adds Swantek. “We single out each method or procedure, look at their raw data and proficiency testing and determine if they are meeting the technical requirements.”
According to Voelker, other industries have learned to adjust their costs with stringent lab testing rules. “I get that no one wants to pay more for lab testing, but the reality is that joining the world of commodities comes with additional costs to ensure consumer safety,” says Voelker. These rule changes will undoubtedly bring more consistency to Oregon’s cannabis industry with accurate lab testing and help the OHA shed more light on issues surrounding consumer safety.
Nic Easley, chief executive officer at Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), delivered the keynote address at the first annual Cannabis Labs Conference, co-located with Pittcon. Easley begins with a discussion of the 2014 milestone where Colorado and Washington legalized recreational cannabis, opening the floodgates for a diverse range of products and business opportunities in quality and safety testing. With members of his team sitting on the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide working group, they are working with industry leaders and regulators to comprehensively write the standards. “The industry gets regulated in 2014 in Colorado with a total of $2.7 billion in sales in the first year of the industry’s history,” says Easley. “We have this giant influx of business, but without process validation, good agricultural practices and proper SOPs, each state is left to fend for themselves to write regulations.”
Nic Easley, chief executive officer at Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), delivered the keynote address at the first annual Cannabis Labs Conference, co-located with Pittcon. Easley set the tone of the conference early on by identifying safety and quality concerns in the current cannabis marketplace. “We can choose to do business as usual or we can create a new model with outside industry expertise to help guide this industry forward responsibly,” says Easley. Noting the existing comprehensive standards in food and agriculture, Easley emphasized the value of the Cannabis Labs Conference in bringing that expertise to the cannabis space. “We have the guidance and expertise in this room alone to help move the cannabis industry forward out of the closet and into the sunlight,” adds Easley.
A lot has been changing quickly in the world of cannabis across North America. While international drug treaties sit back and watch in horror, cannabis and cannabis-infused products have been popping up in households across Canada, on retail shelves and in private delivery services across the US. How each jurisdiction in North America accepts and regulates (or draws a blind eye) to the sale of cannabis is different depending on where you are located. Here are a few key distinctions between the current Canadian and US regulatory approaches to marijuana.
In Canada, cannabis is regulated at the federal level by Health Canada through the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, (MMPR). The MMPR allows persons to obtain dried cannabis for their own personal medical purposes or for another person for whom they are responsible. To obtain dried cannabis, a person must obtain a medical document from a physician, or nurse practitioner to register as a client with a licensed producer of their choosing. After registering as a client, they are able to order dried cannabis and possess up to a maximum of 150 grams at any one time, depending on the recommendation of their physician. More recently, in 2015, regulations allow the distribution of not only the dried form of cannabis but also their extracted forms.
In the US, at the federal level, cannabis is still 100% illegal. Public statements from the federal administration dictate that they steadfastly oppose legalization of cannabis and other drugs. They are concerned that legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people. At the state level, legalization laws are rapidly changing. The office of National Drug Control Policy lists 23 states (a rising number) and Washington DC that have passed laws allowing cannabis to be smoked for a variety of medical conditions. The state laws do not change federal regulation. Many local governments are creating zoning and other restrictions that prohibit dispensaries from operating in their communities. That being said, voters in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington state support legalizing the sale and distribution of cannabis to adults over 21. There are many differences in the regulation of marijuana within each state, municipality and within the country itself.
Internationally, Canada has a platinum reputation for delivering and regulating quality consumer products. Within the Canadian cannabis industry, many feel Health Canada’s regulatory regime is inaccessible, restricts production to large corporations and limits distribution channels. The average start up cost of even a small licensed facility is around $4-5M CAD. On top of the financial costs, production companies have to compete with the other 2000 or so applicants who have been waiting, in some cases up to two years, to hear back from Health Canada if they will succeed in the licencing application process. In response, Canada has seen many tolerances made to allow dispensaries to distribute marijuana at the municipal level, even though not allowed as per regulation.
Many Canadian dispensaries operate with professional policies and procedures including providing customers with access ID cards and offering physician consults. Vancouver became the first city in Canada to license and regulate marijuana dispensaries. The number of licenses within the city exceeds both Tim Hortons and Starbucks Franchises combined. Many dispensaries provide bar and café settings for people to enjoy a “bong shot” or café au lait infused with cannabis. Licensing dispensaries has become a great financial resource for the city, charging $30,000 CAD per licence. Vancouver’s dispensaries have been a topic of debate across all levels of government. The Health Minister asked Vancouver to shut the dispensaries down, while other municipalities have started to expand the same concept. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada’s federal police force, has started raiding various dispensary locations. Part of the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau’s, political platform and claim to fame is to legalize cannabis recreationally across Canada. How the framework will unfold is still in the works and subject not only to local jurisdictional reform but also to international negotiations.
This is the first part of a series dedicated to understanding more about defense, security and safety as they relate to the cannabis industry, the importance of having standards and some tips for cannabis business plans. Over the next few weeks, we will hear from multiple industry pioneers discussing those topics and offering practical solutions for problems that many cannabis businesses face daily.
Security and defense is one particular area of the cannabis industry that still needs a benchmark for businesses to follow. In this series, we sit down to discuss security, defense and safety with Bruce Lesniak, president of the Food Safety and Defense Institute and member of the oversight committee for the establishment of standards in the cannabis industry in conjunction with FOCUS.
Cannabis Industry Journal: What changes do you see coming to the cannabis industry related to product safety, defense and security?
Bruce Lesniak: As in every industry that provides a public consumable product, the primary objective is to protect the consumer by providing products that are consistently safe. The largest change coming to the cannabis industry will be the implementation of enforceable, nationally uniform standards across all states and all product lines. I believe that the standards and regulations developed for the cannabis industry will mirror those of the food industry. Companies are already busy working to develop this uniform standard, one such group is FOCUS. Founded by Lezli Engelking, FOCUS works with diverse professionals from regulatory, quality assurance, medical, law enforcement, business, research, and the government officials, medical and research professionals along with subject matter experts from numerous business disciplines across the industry to develop impartial, comprehensive, cannabis specific standards that will be presented for adoption by state and federal governing bodies. Lezli summarizes the FOCUS Mission as “ To protect public health, consumer safety, and safeguard the environment by promoting integrity within the cannabis industry.” Look for more on this in our next Ask the Expert update, on CannabisIndustryJournal.com or you can contact Lezli Engelking at FOCUS here: 866-359-3557 x101.
This series will highlight important issues involving security, defense and safety in the cannabis industry. Next week, Bruce, along with cannabis security professional, Tony Gallo of Sapphire Protection, will provide some advice on what companies can do to improve their master business plan. Stay tuned for next week’s Part II of Ask the Expert: Straight Talk on Safety, Defense and Security with Bruce Lesniak.
Living in a world of ever-increasing interdependence and an era of limited state government, financial and human resources, it is imperative that those charged with protecting the health and safety of patients and users of medical and recreational cannabis products leverage what private sector institutions and existing frameworks already offer in setting up quality standards for laboratory testing operations. That this moment arrives now – at a point where state governments are being tasked with undertaking the most significant change in the regulation of this substance whilst the federal government appears unwilling to play a substantial role – makes this partnership both inevitable and absolutely necessary.
Accreditation is an internationally accepted conformity assessment tool for ensuring laboratory competence and confidence in the accuracy and reliability test data. The accreditation infrastructure is well-established through accreditation bodies (ABs) and the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), supported by regional cooperative arrangements, including those of the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) and the Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC). ILAC functions as a forum for harmonization of laboratory accreditation procedures and policies, thus reducing technical barriers to trade and promoting laboratory accreditation as a mechanism for establishing confidence in testing facilities. ILAC MRA signatory ABs are recognized, through a rigorous peer evaluation process, as competent to accredit testing organizations. All signatory ABs must meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011 and use ISO/IEC 17025 as the basis for accreditation of laboratories. In turn, under the ILAC MRA and the regional co-operations, competent laboratories are recognized globally, thus facilitating acceptance of the test results that accompany goods across international borders.
In other areas, such as the food supply and energy, both state and federal government have been an active participant in accreditation activities. According to The Administrative Conference of the United States in its Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance*, “…agencies in diverse areas of regulation have developed third-party programs to assess whether regulated entities are in compliance with regulatory standards and other requirements. Through these programs, third parties are charged with assessing the safety of imported food… Third parties also ensure that products labeled as organic and energy-efficient meet applicable federal standards. In these regulatory third-party programs, regulated entities generally contract with third parties to carry out product testing and other regulatory compliance assessment activities in the place of regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies take on new roles in coordinating and overseeing these third-party actors.” While this reference largely deals with areas outside of cannabis regulation, it remains useful and relevant because of the manner in which cannabis products are used.
Traditionally, ABs have worked with regulators to establish specific technical requirements to supplement the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation framework. In this partnership, the AB is responsible for executing the assessment and accreditation process but the regulator retains responsibility for the ultimate decisions on the acceptance of that organization’s accreditation. In the example of our food supply and its various sources, governmental recognition of accreditation bodies operating in accordance with international standards is much more practical than government agencies themselves accrediting the individual testing organizations or ABs. Thus the public/private partnership paradigm: To assess regulatory compliance a Regulatory Agency approves ABs that accredit organizations that assess whether Regulated Entities or Regulated Products are in conformity with a Regulatory Standard.*
In this example, all of the organizations are treated equally by the regulatory agency since they use the same recognition criteria for ABs and the same accreditation requirements in the assessment of conformity assessment bodies. This approach would also provide consistency at a point in time where many states are grappling with trying to find the best quality standard to use and which, to date, has resulted in many different standards being chosen or considered for implementation. This is especially true when one looks at the requirements put into place by the “early adopter” states. However, in those states that have entered this area more recently, it seems clear that the consensus is use of ISO/IEC 17025 as the most appropriate quality management standard for testing laboratories.
There are many factors to consider when selecting a third party analytical laboratory:
Why are you testing?
Does a governing body require it?
Are you testing to meet compliance with industry trends?
Are you testing as supplemental protection to an in house laboratory operation?
Are your results being used to help you market your product?
Are the results being utilized for internal R&D?
What are you looking to get out of testing?
Perhaps it is a combination of all these things. Regardless, whomever you contract with for whatever reasons, it is important to understand what you are getting, know what you are entitled to, understand your results, and understand where you and your company remain vulnerable. You must also be prepared with a plan to handle adverse results. Testing at a third party analytical contract laboratory does not mean they assume all of your product’s or company’s liability, regardless of the lab’s reputation.
Ask your third party laboratory about any accreditations, certifications, and licenses that the lab should be accredited and/or certified for. Each state has different certifications and licensing requirements; make sure the entity you are using is licensed or certified for the services you need. Additionally, there is an accreditation called International Standards Organization (ISO) 17025 that is the pinnacle of third party laboratory accreditation. ISO 17025 is a set of protocols that your third party lab should follow to do everything it can to ensure your data is accurate and produced with reliable standards, control samples, matrix control samples and proficiency tests to verify the accuracy of the lab’s employees and methods, among a number of other criteria included in the standard. A number of different entities offer accreditation to ISO 17025 but it is important that the the accrediting body is also accredited to their ISO standard. Simply buying ISO 17025 compliant materials or standards does not mean that the vendor service or product is accredited to ISO 17025. Cannabis laboratories are just starting to implement and build systems around ISO 17025 but it has been prevalent in the third party lab business in many industries for decades and should be applied to the cannabis industry.
Visit your lab and understand their background and experience. Start by requesting a tour of the laboratory you choose; you want to know how things look behind the scenes. Is the lab orderly and doing its best to protect sample integrity? There may be a lot of things going on in the laboratory and it may look chaotic but it should be relatively clean. This prevents contamination and sample mix-ups. Further your relationship with your laboratory by understanding the laboratory’s experience and getting to know your laboratory staff. Consider the lab staff as part of your extended team, they are there to help you and help bring your product to market. The more they understand your goals, the more they can help.
Understand your lab’s history and background: Have they worked with products and/or analytes similar to yours? Have they worked with your sample matrix or one similar to it before? Their prior knowledge and laboratory experience, as it relates to your product, will help provide accurate data and navigate complex matrices.
Most importantly, a laboratory should be willing to release the data packet that is used to generate test results to the client. Releasing this data does not divulge any proprietary information of the lab. It is the laboratory’s job to provide you with the data upon request. It is important to note, looking at your raw data is not the same as looking at the laboratory method, also known as a work instruction or operating procedure. The lab most likely won’t give you the method as those are typically trade secrets, but there is no reason not to share with you the chromatography that the HPLC, GC, GC/MS, or LC/MS generated. This will demonstrate the lab’s sound analytical data and increase your confidence in the analysis you are receiving. When you pay for the results, you are also paying for your data and if your laboratory is not releasing that information to you at your request, you should be skeptical. This data needs to be able to stand up to audits and legal action.
Finally, confidentiality: your data is your data. Yes, you may have to report results to a governing body, but your laboratory should not be sharing your name and your data with anyone but your authorized list of contacts without your permission. They should not even disclose that you are their client without your prior authorization. Confidentiality is not just applicable to a few key employees at the laboratory, it is pertinent to everyone from the sample pickup driver, if you have one, to the chemists and upper level management.
Understanding your contract laboratory’s certifications, licenses, and accreditations, requesting and receiving raw data packages, and ensuring that you feel comfortable with the laboratory, its staff and their practices are key elements to ensuring a successful relationship with your laboratory.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.