Tag Archives: cbd

Spotlight on AOAC: New Leadership, New Initiatives In Cannabis & Food

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

AOAC INTERNATIONAL is an independent, third party, not-for-profit association and voluntary consensus standards developing organization. Founded in 1884, AOAC INTERNATIONAL was originally coined the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Later on, they changed their name to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Now that their members include microbiologists, food scientists as well as chemists, the organization officially changed its name to just AOAC INTERNATIONAL.

Much of AOAC’s work surrounds promoting food safety, food security and public health. Their work generally encompasses setting scientific standards for testing methodology, evaluating and adopting test methods and evaluating laboratory proficiency of test methods. The organization provides a forum for scientists to develop microbiological and chemical standards.

In December of 2018, they appointed Dr. Palmer Orlandi as deputy executive director and chief science officer. Dr. Orlandi has an extensive background at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), serving the regulatory agency for more than 20 years. Most recently, he was the CSO and research director in the Office of Food and Veterinary Medicine at the FDA. He earned the rank of Rear Admiral and Assistant Surgeon General in 2017.

Dr. Palmer Orlandi is the new Deputy Executive Director and Chief Science Officer at AOAC.

Where It All Began With Cannabis

As recently as three years ago, AOAC began getting involved in the cannabis laboratory testing community, with a working group dedicated to developing standard method performance requirements for AOAC Official MethodsSM for cannabis testing. We sat down with Dr. Palmer Orlandi and a number of AOAC’s leaders to get an update on their progress working with cannabis testing as well as food security and food fraud.

According to Scott Coates, senior director of the AOAC Research Institute, they were approached three years ago to set up a working group for cannabis testing. “We created standards that we call the standard method performance requirements (SMPR®), which are detailed descriptions of what analytical methods should be able to do,” says Coates. “Using SMPRs, we issued a series of calls for methods and looked for methods that meet our standards. So far, we’ve completed four SMPRs- cannabinoids in plant material, cannabinoids in plant extracts, cannabinoids in chocolate (edibles), and one for pesticides in cannabis plant material.” AOAC doesn’t develop methods themselves, but they perform a comprehensive review of the methods and if they deem them acceptable, then the methods can be adopted and published in the AOAC compendium of methods, the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL.

Deborah McKenzie, senior director of Standards and Official Methods at AOAC

Deborah McKenzie, senior director of Standards and Official MethodsSM at AOAC, says the initial working group set the stage for really sinking their teeth into cannabis testing. “It started with methods for testing cannabinoids in plant dried material and plant extract,” says McKenzie. “That’s where our previous work has started to mold into the current effort we are launching.” McKenzie says they are looking forward to getting more involved with methods regarding chemical contaminants in cannabis, cannabinoids in various foods and consumables, as well as microbial organisms in cannabis. “We are pretty focused on testing labs having reliable and validated analytical solutions as our broad goal right now.”

Moving Forward, Expanding Their Programs

Coates says the work they’ve done over the past few years was more of a singular project, developed strictly for creating standards and to review methods. Now they are currently developing their Cannabis Analytical Science Program (CASP), which is expected to be an ongoing program. “We are looking to fully support the cannabis analytical community as best we can, which will potentially include working on reference materials, proficiency testing, education, training and ISO 17025 accreditation, all particularly as it applies to lab testing in the cannabis industry,” says Coates. “So, this CASP work is a much bigger and broader effort to cover more and to provide more support for labs doing the analysis of cannabis and its constituents, as well as hemp.”

According to Dr. Orlandi, they want this program to have a broad reach in the cannabis testing community. “As Scott pointed out, it’s not just strictly developing standards and methods,” says Dr. Orlandi. “It is going to be as all-encompassing as possible and will lead to training programs, a proficiency testing program and other areas.” Arlene Fox, senior director of AOAC’s Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program, says they are actively engaging in proficiency testing. “We are in the process of evaluating what is out there, what is possible and what’s needed as far as expanding proficiency testing for cannabis labs,” says Fox.

Regulatory Challenges & Obstacles

The obvious roadblock to much of AOAC’s work is that cannabis is still considered a controlled substance. “That creates some challenges for the work that we do in certain areas,” says Dr. Orlandi. “That is why this isn’t just a one-year project. We will work with these challenges and our stakeholders to address them.” AOAC had to put some limits on participation- for example, they had to decide that they cannot look for contributions or collaborations with producers and distributors, so long as cannabis is still a Schedule I controlled substance in the US.

Arlene Fox, senior director of AOAC’s Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program

Muddying the waters even further, the recent signing of the Farm Bill puts a clear distinction between most types of cannabis and industrial hemp. David Schmidt, executive director of AOAC realizes they need to be realistic with their stakeholders and in the eye of federal law.

While scientifically speaking, it’s pretty much the same plant just with slightly different chemical constituents, AOAC INTERNATIONAL has to draw a line in the sand somewhere. “As Palmer suggests, because of the Farm Bill being implemented and hemp being defined now as a legal substance from a controlled substance standpoint, industrial hemp has been given this exclusion,” says Schmidt. “So, we are trying to be realistic now, working with our stakeholders that work with hemp, trying to understand the reality of the federal law. We want to make clear that we can meet stakeholder needs and we want to distinguish hemp from cannabis to remain confident in the legality of it.” Schmidt says this is one of a number of topics they plan on addressing in detail at their upcoming 9thannual 2019 Midyear Meeting, held March 11-14 in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Uniformity in Methodology: The Future of Cannabis Testing

Dr. Orlandi says his experience at the FDA has prepared him well for the work being done at AOAC. “The role that I served at the FDA prior to joining my colleagues here at AOAC was very similar: And that is to bring together stakeholders to accomplish or to solve a common problem.” Some of their stakeholders in the CASP program include BC Testing, Inc., the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), Bia Diagnostics, Bio-Rad, Industrial Laboratories, Materia Medica Labs, PerkinElmer, R-Biopharm AG, Supra R & D, TEQ Analytical Laboratories, Titan Analytical and Trilogy Analytical, among others.

David Schmidt, executive director of AOAC

“The underlying reason behind this effort is to create some level of harmonization for standards and methods,” says Dr. Orlandi. “They can be used in the near future to stay ahead of the curve for when regulatory agencies become involved. The idea is that these standards for analytical methods will already be established and as uniform as possible.”

When comparing cannabis to other industries in the US, Scott Coates mentions that most standards are signed off by the federal government. “When we started looking at pesticides in cannabis, it became really clear that we have a number of states doing things differently with different limits of quantification,” says Coates. “Each state, generally speaking, is setting their own standards. As Palmer was saying, one thing we are trying to do with this CASP program eventually will be to have some harmonization, instead of 30 different states having 30 different standards and methods.” So, on a much broader level, their goal for the CASP program is to develop a common set of standard methods, including hemp testing and even the Canadian market. “Hopefully this will be an international collaboration for standards for the methodology,” says Coates. They want to create a common set of standards, setting limits of quantification that will be accepted internationally, that will be accurate and repeatable and for the entire cannabis industry, not just state by state.

Food Authenticity & Fraud

One of the other activities that AOAC just launched recently is the food authenticity and fraud program. As the name implies, the goal is to start developing standards and methods and materials to look at economically adulterated foods, says Dr. Orlandi. That includes non-targeted analyses looking at matrices of food products that may be adulterated with an unknown target, as well as targeted analytes, identifying common adulterants in a variety of food products. “One example in the food industry is fraudulent olive oil,” says Dr. Orlandi. “Honey is another commodity that has experienced adulteration.” He says that in most cases these are economically motivated instances of fraud.

AOAC INTERNATIONAL is working in a large variety of other areas as well. All of these topics will be explored in much greater detail at their upcoming 9thannual 2019 Midyear Meeting, held March 11-14 in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

FDAlogo
Soapbox

Hemp Products & Confusion Over FDA Remains

By Charlotte Peyton
4 Comments
FDAlogo

Hemp

The hemp industry is the marijuana industry’s half-sister. Both are variations of the plant Cannabis sativa and both were made illegal in 1937 with the passing of The Marijuana Tax Act. Despite this federal status, in recent years 33 individual states have legalized some type of medicinal marijuana use and 11 states now allow legal recreational marijuana within their borders. This prompted congress to modify the legality of hemp which was addressed in The Agricultural Act of 2014, but it only allowed hemp to be used for research purposes. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill) that was signed into law on December 20, 2018 was a huge step forward for public access to hemp and hemp products. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the growing of hemp in states with a state-mandated hemp program and removed hemp and its derivatives from Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule I status. Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote. Consumers and the cannabis industry alike were very excited about this legalization of hemp…. but that was when the confusion began.

FDA & Hemp

FDAlogoWithin two hours of the 2018 Farm Bill being signed, the Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, issued a statement reiterating the FDA stance on cannabis products and cannabidiol (CBD) in products for human and animal consumption: “Congress explicitly preserved the agency’s current authority to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.” Currently the FDA only permits CBD products submitted as an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application as a pharmaceutical. There is only one such accepted CBD product, Epidiolex, manufactured by G.W. Pharma. All other CBD products are illegal for interstate shipment.

Every product for sale in the US which is either ingested or applied to a human or animal body has a regulatory category in the FDA. Hemp-derived CBD products will have to fit into one of those categories or it will not be legal. Many hemp manufacturing companies will argue with the illegality of CBD products, but it will get them nowhere. If you manufacture and sell hemp products inside of a state with a state mandated hemp program, you are legal and protected under state laws, but the minute you sell across state lines, it becomes the jurisdiction of the federal government and, more specifically, the FDA. Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill states that (c) Nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify:

  • (1) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.);
  • (2) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262); or
  • (3) the authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services- ‘‘(A) under- ‘‘(i) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or ‘‘(ii) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262); or ‘‘(B) to promulgate Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to the production of hemp under the Act described in subparagraph (A)(i) or the section described in subparagraph (A)(ii).”

There is nothing unclear about this issue. The same 2018 Farm Bill that hemp manufacturing companies use to justify the legality of hemp and CBD products is the same bill that spells out the authority of the FDA in this matter.

The mission of the FDA is “to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices.” The agency also is responsible for “the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.” Health or medical claims not supported by clinical proof will not be tolerated. An unsafe, unclean or untested product will also not be tolerated in the marketplace.

CBD Oil vs. Isolate

The structure of cannabidiol, one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

Then there is the matter of CBD as either a full spectrum oil vs. an isolate…Unlike marijuana flower which is a very popular product, hemp flower is very rarely sold at the retail level. Full spectrum oil is extracted from the plant, and depending on the solvent used, produces an oil with the same, or close to the same, naturally occurring chemicals from the plant. The oil therefore, includes all the cannabinoids present along with any terpenes, lipids or other compounds present in the plant. Full spectrum oil is a botanical extract and is a dark thick oil. Isolate is produced by separating the constituents of the full spectrum oil by molecular weights or boiling points to have very pure chemicals in the 95%+ purity range. CBD isolate is a white crystalline substance and bears the greatest resemblance to a synthetic raw material and at its purest form cannot be distinguished as coming from a plant in the dirt or a synthesized chemical. Epidiolex is produced from hemp isolate and was approved by the FDA as a pharmaceutical. Full spectrum hemp oil is a botanical extract, often as an ethanol extraction. Full spectrum oil bears the greatest resemblance to a botanical dietary supplement. It remains to be seen what the FDA will allow in the future.

Product Labeling

The FDA has made it abundantly clear in numerous warning letters issued to the cannabis industry that drug claims (articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease) regarding CBD, oil or isolate, cannot be made without pharmaceutical approval of the Drug Facts (Epidiolex) lest there be enforcement consequence.

An excerpt of an FDA warning letter sent to a CBD company in November of 2017

The labeling of other types of products are less clear. Dietary supplements are a category of foods with the FDA and as such both the labeling of dietary supplements and foods are dictated in 21 CFR 111, Food Labeling. Botanical dietary supplements frequently call out a chemical constituent within a particular botanical material or extract on the Supplement Facts Panel: Milk thistle seed extract containing standardized and labeled silymarin is such an example. Is this strategy acceptable for CBD with the FDA? What about “naturally occurring” CBD? Food claims are indicated in the Nutrition Facts, what can these be for CBD? Cosmetic product claims can only address articles intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions. What is the purpose of CBD in a cosmetic?

FDA guidance would be very beneficial in all of these labeling areas, and there is hope. The FDA is promising public hearings this spring to discuss a path forward for having hemp food and dietary supplements. The FDA will ask for public comment and hopefully, there will be a lot of public comments provided to them. The public’s huge demand for CBD products will bear pressure on the FDA to at least listen and consider.

cGMPsRegulatory compliance will be difficult, and it will be expensive.

Those currently in the hemp manufacturing industry should pay attention and take the FDA seriously. If the FDA allows hemp products with CBD to be sold in the future, it will be the FDA who makes those regulations and those products will have to fit into an already existing FDA category: human food, animal food, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical or cosmetic. If you are a hemp product manufacturer, you must learn the applicable requirements for Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) by hiring experienced FDA compliance personnel, and/or seeking out FDA regulatory consultants, to develop and implement a quality system accordingly:

  • 21 CFR 117, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Rick-Based Preventative Controls for Human Food
  • 21 CFR 507, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Rick-Based Preventative Controls for Food for Animals
  • 21 CFR 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements
  • 21 CFR 210, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing, Packing, or Holding of Drugs; General
  • 21 CFR 211, Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals
  • FDA Draft Guidance for Industry, Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practice, June 2013

I believe in this industry and I am rooting for the pioneers who have taken all the risk thus far, but the level of denial of the FDA’s authority that I am hearing in the hemp industry community is disturbing to me because those companies will not manage the transition to a regulated future. Most don’t understand it and they don’t think it applies to them or their products. Regulatory compliance will be difficult, and it will be expensive. The hemp pioneers deserve to benefit from their labor and the risk they have taken. For those hemp product companies that do not think compliance is worth the effort or cost, there are many FDA-compliant human food, animal food, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical, or cosmetic companies that are waiting to take your business…

Editor’s Note: While Cannabis Industry Journal typically does not use the term ‘marijuana,’ the author here is speaking from a regulatory point of view and creates an important distinction. Peyton chose the word “marijuana” instead of “cannabis” because the FDA has chosen “cannabis” to refer to both marijuana and hemp. 

The Impact of The Trump-Brexit Trade Deal On The Cannabis Industry

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

For those in the cannabis industry who have missed the latest “Trump Trade Deal“- this time with the UK, don’t slumber too long before at least getting a summary update soon.

The implications of the agreement, which U.S. President Donald Trump sees as great for business (namely increasing access to the UK market for pricey U.S. pharmaceuticals) are not uniformly welcomed everywhere, and for various reasons.

President Donald J. Trump Image: Michael Vadon, Flickr

The impact, however, on the U.S. cannabis industry, and beyond that, both the Canadian and burgeoning European one, will be significant, no matter what happens with the details of Brexit. There are a number of scenarios that might play out at this point. And how they do will certainly direct the future of the cannabis industry as it develops in the UK.

The one piece of good news out of all of this is that the industry will also certainly continue to flourish no matter what- and no matter where the product comes from. Even a hard Brexit will not roll the prohibition clock back.

Brexit Might Not Happen
There is this recurrent fantasy still in the room that the status quo will be retained just because (fill in the blank), but generally motivated by facing realities caused by basic survival. Let’s indulge it for a moment, presuming that British Prime Minister Theresa May does not survive her leadership post and Parliament comes to its collective senses. All of the splits right now in both the Labour and Conservative parties over the looming disaster continue to complicate things. Failing a hard Brexit disaster, however, look for things like “customs unions” and all sorts of “exemptions” to make the entrance into the UK for European food and medicine a permanent backstop. See the just announced Belgian-based emergency supply drop and alt import routes into the UK as just one example of what is likely to develop no matter what. This will also conveniently prevent the UK from starving and running out of medicine.

The Brexit Referendum
Image: Mick Baker, Flickr

In other words, the trade deal will not do much to those cannabis firms who get into the market and reach end users with highly competitive pricing and smart entry strategies. U.S. producers and Canadians importing product across the Atlantic will lose on price to both homegrown British, Irish and EU produced crop. European producers will be far more competitive than U.S. firms just because pre-negotiated drug prices are not going anywhere anytime soon in the rest of Europe.

March Madness
On the EU side of things, countries are prepping for worst case Brexit. It is, after all, just next month. Which is now less than a week away from starting. This means that anything related to ex-im, no matter the “trade deals” in place, is going to face delays, problems and paperwork of the additional kind. Inevitably. Even if it is just confused customs personnel uncertain of the new rules. Whatever those are. Or even if there are new rules and routes. Borders, even without walls, are respected at least in Europe.

Short of dedicating the new runway at Heathrow exclusively to food and drug imports of the emergency kind, however there is no way to avoid a few predictable and looming shortage crises. There is friction in other words, in every direction. Cannabis producers will not get a pass.

The Deal Is Aimed At Destroying The NHS
On the British side of the discussion, the new UK-US trade deal has not been popular since it surfaced last summer. Why? The government would either significantly water down or lose entirely the ability to pre-negotiate drug prices in bulk (and thus hold drug company profits down). That means no more “public” health care. That alone may cause social unrest. Particularly given the shrewd marketing of the Leave Campaign that promised to “save” the NHS. Perhaps the criminal inquiries into the politically dodgy social media campaigning and fundraising techniques used to trigger the entire mess will manage to do in the courts what Parliament so far refuses to face. Then again, maybe not. American cannabis producers in particular face no particular “wins” here in the current regulatory environment. Cost is still going to be an issue.

The Business Bottom Line
Beyond the morality of this (let alone Trump or Brexit beyond that) there is the business analysis of the deal. It could well be good for some American pharmaceutical companies, although that is still a big if along the other ones. People have to be able to afford their meds, particularly if the NHS (or private insurers) do not pay.

That does not count out the cannabis industry at this point. See Tilray, for starters. Also remember that the first details of this deal began to be discussed last summer – right before GW Pharmaceuticals began exporting Epidiolex into the U.S.

Cannabinoids, in other words are already in the room, and might in fact have been a figleaf gesture, President to Prime Minister, where at least in the latter case, May has now personally benefitted financially, all along. No matter what happens with Brexit. Or even if there is one. This is not the first time Trump has used the cannabis card to further political means. See the delay of Israeli cannabis to the global market for two years in exchange for moving the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem just one year ago.

The U.S. and Canada Still Face Stiff EU Cannabis Competition
How well will American (or only Canadian based producers) compete with EU-produced medical cannabis? That is now a very interesting question, not only for the European-based cannabis market but that based in the UK. It is hard to imagine pharmaceutical cannabis produced in either the U.S. or Canada right now competing with that which is more locally grown. Even the big Canadian LPs have conceded to that. Canopy, let’s not forget, is growing in Spain. Tilray is in Portugal. And that by now, is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention, of course, that the UK just saw its first bulk import from Holland.

Bottom line, no matter how proud President Trump and the PM are over their “deal” and indeed, whether the larger disaster will actually occur to trigger it, end users also known as patients are going to look for options based on price and accessibility. And the companies who succeed here are going to have to look for ways to address that.

Food Safety Hazards for the Cannabis Industry: ERP Can Help

By Daniel Erickson
No Comments

To say that there has been explosive growth in the cannabis edibles market is an understatement. In the next 5 years, edibles are expected to become a $5.3 billion industry according to the Brightfield Group, a cannabis market research firm. Skyrocketing demand for cannabis infusion in food and beverage products, both recreational and medical, has prompted concern for the health and safety of consumers due to the lack of federal legality and regulatory guidelines for these products. Edibles consumers assume the same level of safety and quality present in other food and beverage products in the market. Progressive cannabis operations are opting to follow current food safety guidelines to mitigate hazards despite not being legally required to do so. Utilizing these guidelines, as well as incorporating an industry-specific ERP solution to automate processes, enables cannabis businesses to provide quality, consistent products and establish standards to support the eventuality of federal cannabis legalization.

FDAlogoEdibles consumption has grown not only in a recreational capacity but also for medicinal use to treat chronic pain, relieve epilepsy symptoms, decrease nausea, combat anxiety and other health issues. Cannabidiol (CBD) infused products take many forms including candies, baked goods, chocolate, oils, sprays, beer, soda, tea and coffee. Their popularity is partly due to their more socially acceptable use, creating an appeal to a wider audience. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for overseeing food and beverage safety for products sold in the United States, their regulations are not enforced in the cannabis-infused marketplace. Without federal regulatory standards, there exist inherent food safety concerns that create risks to consumers. The average cannabis edibles customer is likely unaware of the “consume at your own risk” nature of the products.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

There are many consequences of not addressing food safety hazards, as the possibility of food-borne illnesses resulting from unsafe and unsanitary manufacturing facilities have become increasingly likely in an unregulated market. In addition to these concerns, problems particular to cannabis growing and harvesting practices are also possible. Aflatoxins (mold carcinogens) on the cannabis bud, pesticide residue on plants, pest contamination, improper employee handling and training and inaccurate levels of CBD all contribute to the risk of outbreaks, hefty fines, recalls or business closure. To mitigate the risk of exposure, it is recommended that edible manufacturers employ a proactive approach of observing proper food safety standards that encompass the growing, manufacturing, packaging, handling, storing and selling of products. With a focus on safety, cannabis edible manufacturers utilizing an ERP solution and vendor with experience in food safety management will reap the benefits that food and beverage businesses have experienced for decades.

Following established food safety protocols and guidelines of the food and beverage and dietary supplement industry, allows manufacturers of cannabis-infused edibles to implement a proactive approach by focusing on safety and reducing the risk to their operations. Food and beverage manufacturing best practices include: maintaining supplier list, quality control testing, sanitary handling of consumables, maintaining clean facilities and mitigating cross-contamination. Successful food and beverage manufacturers also incorporate a food safety team, preventative controls, and a food safety plan (FSP) including a detailed recall plan into their safety initiatives.HACCP

Establishing and maintaining a supplier list with approved quality ingredients is an essential building block for reducing food safety hazards and can be easily maintained within an ERP. Documentation of vendor information and recording of stringent testing results ensures that specific quality standards are met. Conducting extensive research regarding the source of the ingredients for use in cannabis edibles allows companies to confirm that raw ingredients were processed in a safe environment. The importance of supply chain visibility cannot be understated, as suppliers are in control of potential hazards. Quality processes and regularly performed testing is automated through the workflow of an ERP solution in the manufacturing facility – enabling noncompliant raw materials to be quarantined and removed from production. The ERP solution allows for management of critical control points to catch non-compliance issues and set-up of alternate suppliers in case of supplier-related issues. Maintaining approved supplier lists is an industry best practice that provides current and accurate information in the event of possible consumer adverse reactions.

GMPFollowing current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) should underlie efforts to address food safety concerns in the cannabis edibles industry. An ERP solution assists with documenting these quality initiatives to ensure the safe and sanitary manufacturing, storage and packaging of food for human consumption. This includes evaluating equipment status, establishing cleaning and sanitation procedures and eliminating allergen cross-contamination. Employee training is conducted and documentation maintained in the ERP solution to ensure hygienic procedures, allergen awareness, illness reporting and required food or cannabis handling certifications.

Cannabis businesses can benefit from establishing a food safety team tasked with developing a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan to provide effective procedures and protect consumers from the hazards inherent in edible cannabis products – including biological, chemical and physical dangers. Automating processes within an ERP solution prevents and controls hazards before food safety is compromised. Since HACCP plans have historically been used by food and beverage manufacturers to ensure a safe product for the consumer, cannabis edibles manufacturers can apply the lessons from these food safety protocols and procedures in their initiatives.By utilizing food safety best practices partnered with an ERP solution, cannabis businesses can avoid the negative consequences resulting from failure to address food safety hazards in manufacturing, storage and packaging. 

A comprehensive FSP, as required by the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), identifies food safety hazards and guides the development of a company-specific, validated plan. This plan documents processes throughout the manufacturing, processing, packaging and storage stages of the operation. ERP software provides real-time, forward and backward lot traceability from seed-to-sale with the ability to track materials, document recipes and accurately label products. This detailed level of traceability provides an automated system that implements and documents food safety policies throughout the manufacturing process. With a trained Preventative Control Qualified Individual (PCQI) implementing the FSP, preventative controls, recall plans and employee training records are maintained in an integrated system.

The cannabis market’s tremendous growth has driven edibles manufacturers to follow the same guidelines as mainstream food and beverage companies to ensure safety is afforded equally to consumers of cannabis edibles. By utilizing food safety best practices partnered with an ERP solution, cannabis businesses can avoid the negative consequences resulting from failure to address food safety hazards in manufacturing, storage and packaging. At the end of the day, it’s up to cannabis manufacturers to be proactive in ensuring cannabis edibles are safe to consume until regulations are mandated.

Marguerite Arnold

Italian Canapar Moves On European Hemp Extraction

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment
Marguerite Arnold

Canapar SL, an Italian organic hemp producer has just announced it is breaking ground on what it is being billed as “Europe’s largest hemp processing facility.”

Located on Sicily, Canapar is already established as a manufacturer and processor of CBD oil and concentrates. On its roadmap already is to become a leader in the CBD-infused cosmetics, skincare and beauty industry with the additional benefit of bearing the “Made in Italy” imprimatur. In addition to the upscale export market of course, Italy is Europe’s fourth largest consumer of such products.

Canopy Rivers now owns 49% of the company.

Why Is This Significant?

There has been much noise made about the CBD market in Europe, which even surprised experts by the end of year when it reached a magical 1-billion-euro sales cap.

However, things are not all smooth sailing on this front, no matter how much the market exploded. With the success of CBD, in Switzerland, Spain and beyond, regulators in Europe began looking at how the entire enchilada was regulated.

CBD isolates are falling into a very strange gray territory at the present across the continent. Why? As a plant extract, extracted CBD from cannabis absolutely falls into territory ruled “novel food” in the EU. In effect, what this means is that anything with CBD distillates that do not come from hemp, now requires an expensive licensing process to prove they are not harmful. In places like the UK, Spain and Austria, this became so contentious that police raided Spanish stores over health food products. The UK is now requiring tighter licensing and labelling for these products. Last December, the Austrians banned the entire industry. Take that, Switzerland!

CBD distillate made from hemp, however, seems, for now, to have survived this battle, which is why the strategic investment of Canopy last December was also so intriguingly timed. Why? It appears to be the loophole in the EU in which CBD producers will have to hang their hats until the broader CBD question is answered satisfactorily at both the UN and EU level.

Producing hemp distillate on the Italian island of Sicily also represents an interesting step for the entire cannabis industry as it develops in the country. There have been many efforts to legalize cannabis because this will then end the direct involvement of the Mafia. Perhaps the multi million investment from Canopy will be enough foreign capital to start to do the trick if not turn the tide.

But Won’t CBD Just Be “Rescheduled” By the UN?

There are many reasons why this is a strategic move for Canopy (if not producers moving in similar waters). Yes, CBD is likely to be descheduled by the UN at some point in the near future, but this still will not solve the larger question of “novel food” issues until the EU formally issues regulations on the same. Until then, EU will be a state by state hop for CBD, much as the United States has been so far. And will be, until that debate is settled across the EU at least, sourced from hemp.

With Italian food products export just behind things like cosmetics, Canapar is clearly moving into strategic and potentially highly lucrative territory.

The New ISO/IEC 17025:2017: The Updated Standard

By Ravi Kanipayor, Christian Bax, Dr. George Anastasopoulos
No Comments

As state cannabis regulatory frameworks across the country continue to evolve, accreditation is becoming increasingly important. Because it provides consistent, turnkey standards and third-party verification, accreditation is quickly emerging as an important tool for regulators. For cannabis testing laboratories, this trend has been especially pronounced with the increasing number of states that require accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025.

As of 2017 there were nearly 68,000 laboratories accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, making it the single most important benchmark for testing laboratories around the world. ISO/IEC 17025:2005 specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests including sampling. It covers testing performed using standard methods, non-standard methods and laboratory-developed methods. It is applicable to all organizations performing tests including cannabis labs. The standard is applicable to all labs regardless of the number of personnel or the extent of the scope of testing activities.  Developed to promote confidence in the operation of laboratories, the standard is now being used as a key prerequisite to operate as a cannabis lab in many states.

There are currently 26 states in the United States (also Canada) that require medical or adult-use cannabis to be tested as of February 2019. Of those states, 18 require cannabis testing laboratories to be accredited – with the vast majority requiring ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. States that require testing laboratories to attain ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation represent some of the largest and most sophisticated cannabis regulatory structures in the country, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio. As a consequence, many cannabis testing laboratories are taking note of recent changes to ISO/IEC 17025 standards.

ISO/IEC 17025 was first issued in 1999 by the International Organization for Standardization. The standard was updated in 2005, and again in 2017. The most recent update keeps many of the legacy standards from 2005, but adds several components – specifically requirements for impartiality, risk assessment and assessing measurement uncertainty. The remainder of this article takes a deeper dive into these three areas of ISO/IEC 17025, and what that means for cannabis testing laboratories.Objectivity is the absence or resolution of conflicts of interest to prevent adverse influence on laboratory activities.

Impartiality

ISO/IEC 17025:2005 touched on an impartiality requirement, but only briefly. The previous standard required laboratories that belonged to organizations performing activities other than testing and/or calibration to identify potential conflicts of interest for personnel involved with testing or calibration. It further required that laboratories had policies and procedures to avoid impartiality, though that requirement was quite vague.

ISO/IEC17025:2017 emphasizes the importance of impartiality and establishes strict requirements. Under the new standard, labs are responsible for conducting laboratory activities impartially and must structure and manage all laboratory activities to prevent commercial, financial or other operational pressures from undermining impartiality. The definitions section of the standard defines impartiality as the “presence of objectivity.” Objectivity is the absence or resolution of conflicts of interest to prevent adverse influence on laboratory activities. For further elaboration, the standard provides similar terms that also convey the meaning of impartiality: lack of prejudice, neutrality, balance, fairness, open-mindedness, even-handedness, detachment, freedom from conflicts of interest and freedom from bias.

To comply with the new standard, all personnel that could influence laboratory activities must act impartially. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 also requires that laboratory management demonstrate a commitment to impartiality. However, the standard is silent on how labs must demonstrate such commitment. As a starting point, some cannabis laboratories have incorporated statements emphasizing impartiality into their employee handbooks and requiring management and employee training on identifying and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Risk Assessment

Both the 2005 and 2017 versions contain management system requirements. A major update to this is the requirement in ISO/IEC 17025:2017 that laboratory management systems incorporate actions to address risks and opportunities. The new risk-based thinking in the 2017 version reduces prescriptive requirements and incorporates performance-based requirements.

Under ISO/IEC 17025:2017, laboratories must consider risks and opportunities associated with conducting laboratory activities. This analysis includes measures that ensure that:

  • The lab’s management system is successful;
  • The lab has policies to increase opportunities to achieve its goals and purpose;
  • The lab has taken steps to prevent or reduce undesired consequences and potential failures; and
  • The lab is achieving overall improvement.

Labs must be able to demonstrate how they prevent or mitigate any risks to impartiality that they identify.To comply with ISO/IEC 17025:2017, labs must plan and implement actions to address identified risks and opportunities into management systems. They must also measure the effectiveness of such actions. Importantly, the standard requires that the extent of risk assessments must be proportional to the impact a given risk may have on the validity of the laboratory’s test results.

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 does not require that labs document a formal risk management process, though labs have discretion to develop more extensive methods and processes if desired. To meet the requirements of the standard, actions to address risks can include sharing the risk, retaining the risk by informed decision, eliminating the risk source, pinpointing and avoiding threats, taking risks in order to pursue an opportunity, and changing the likelihood or consequence of the risk.

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 references “risks” generally throughout most of the standard. However, it specifically addresses risks to a laboratory’s impartiality in section 4.1. Note, the new standard requires that labs must not only conduct activities impartially, but also actively identify risks to their impartiality. This requirement is on-going, not annually or bi-annually. Risks to impartiality include risks arising from laboratory activities, from laboratory relationships, or from relationships of laboratory personnel. Relationships based on ownership, governance, shared resources, contracts, finances, marketing, management, personnel and payment of a sales commission or other inducements to perform under pressure can threaten a laboratory’s impartiality. Labs must be able to demonstrate how they prevent or mitigate any risks to impartiality that they identify.

Assessing Measurement Uncertainty With Decision Rules

ISO/IEC 17025:2005 required (only where necessary and relevant) test result reports to include a statement of compliance/non-compliance with specifications and to identify which clauses of the specification were met or not met. Such statements were required to take into account measurement uncertainty and if measurement results and uncertainties were omitted from the statement, the lab was required to record and maintain the results for future reference.

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 requires similar statements of conformity with an added “decision rule” element. When statements of conformity to a specification or standard are provided, labs must record the decision rule it uses and consider the level of risk the decision rule will have on recording false positive or negative test results. Like the 2005 version, labs must include statements of conformity in test result reports (only if necessary and relevant- see 5.10.3.1 (b)). Now, test result reports on statements of conformity must include the decision rule that was employed. 

Moving Forward

Because many states require ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for licensing, cannabis testing labs across the country would be well advised to closely monitor the implications of changes in ISO/IEC 17025:2017 related to impartiality, risk assessment and measurement uncertainty. If you run a cannabis testing lab, the best way to ensure compliance is education, and the best place to learn more about the new requirements is from a globally recognized accreditation body, especially if it is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) for testing laboratories, calibration laboratories and inspection agencies.

References

Facts & Figures

ISO/IEC 17025:2005: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

ISO/IEC 17025:2017: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories 

Wayland Group’s GMP Certification Begins To Clarify German Cultivation Scenarios

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Wayland Group just announced that they received GMP (good manufacturing practices) and GDP (good distribution practices) certification for their Ebersbach facility near Dresden, Germany. The plant already produced 2,400 kg of CBD isolate last year.

The certifications give Wayland the right to sell directly into German and other EU markets, and more significantly, the ability to store bulk product domestically.They have, by far, the largest cultivation site now legal in the country, with distribution to not only German pharmacies, but Europe beyond that.

Wayland is also widely believed to have applied for the much-stalled German cultivation bid. With per-gram production prices at Ebersbach cited at 1.34 euros, this certainly also sends an interesting message about who might win what in the bid, and where the price of cannabis might be headed.

Currently, cannabis is being sold to pharmacies in Germany at prices almost twice the retail price per gram in Canada. In turn, this means that the “retail” price of floss (flower) is running much higher than it is in more established markets (read Canada and of course the U.S.). Point of sale prices in Germany, for example, run between $2-3,000 per month per user. That is an era that is clearly also now coming to an end.

The Cultivation Bid

With the news of Wayland’s certifications, comes an almost certainty that they will become finalists in the pending cultivation bid in Germany. Why? They have, by far, the largest cultivation site now legal in the country, with distribution to not only German pharmacies, but Europe beyond that.

If Bedrocan was the incumbent favorite to win the majority of the licenses handed out to any one firm (especially given the recent increase in cannabis allowed to be sold into Germany across the Dutch border), this places Wayland in a strong second. If Bedrocan is not involved in the bid, this news might indicate that Wayland might be the largest winner in German cultivation licenses this time around.

The plot indeed thickens.

Prices: In General, Across Europe

The firm will be providing product, no matter what the outcome of the bid, at a production price, which is in line with the widely estimated requirements of the bid itself. Winning firms must also be able to provide pricing that is competitive to each other. It is unclear where the government will set that floor, but all medical cannabis sold in Germany after that, will then be competing with that price.

Could it be that the reference price of cannabis, in other words, has just been indirectly announced with the Wayland certifications?

Then there is this wrinkle. Given that production in Germany is more expensive than other countries in Europe (see Portugal, Spain and Greece in particular), the difference in labor costs may still outweigh the costs of shipping across the continent. Or, as the market gets going, it may not. Regardless, in a country like Germany where drug prices are routinely pre-negotiated in bulk by the government, cannabis prices will start to be regulated in a way they have not in other places, notably Canada. This means that heady visions of “mark-ups” to meet a so far unmet demand are also probably not in the cards, although government supported cannabis exports might be.

Insurance “Brands” And Bulk Buys Ahead?

Then there is this intriguing wrinkle. German “public” insurance patients (in other words 90% of the population) are not always free to choose the products they use. Why not? Beyond bulk purchases by the government, insurance companies are also allowed to enter into bulk contracts with some providers, namely medical equipment manufacturers. This is sort of the same situation as visiting an “in network” provider in the United States. In other words, the equipment is free (or vastly cheaper) to the patient if the selected brand is chosen.

Could cannabis go the same route?

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

At this juncture, that is unclear. Dronabinol, the only widely available source of cannabinoids in the country until 2016, is considered more of a generic than “name brand.” So far, neither it nor Sativex were pre-negotiated drugs. This was also for a very simple reason. There were only 800 registered patients in Germany until that year. That is far under the “orphan drug” category, which in Germany is 10,000 people. At this point, there are already much higher patient numbers (some cite as many as 79,000), with the majority of treatment going to patients with chronic pain.

By definition, this means that cannabis prices here will continue to be negotiated with little room for high mark-ups as the market consolidates. The more patients there are, the more attention will be paid to ensuring that the drug becomes affordable- not just to patients, but also insurers.

There is zero chance that the government will allow German public healthcare to be bankrupted over this still stigmatized plant, no matter how medically efficacious it is.

Germany and Israel at this point, have the longest established insurance mandate for cannabis- and in the German situation, this is now just two years old. The British NHS just announced that cannabis would be covered, with Luxembourg and Poland now also in the mix. However, the place of the insurance community in this debate is also a factor to be considered into the entire conversation as it unfolds here, beyond efficacy.

Dutch insurers in fact, stopped covering the drug almost as soon as Germany announced its own experiment.

It is unlikely that Wayland is unaware of such realities. The company has former executives from AOK on its German board. AOK is one of the largest statutory health insurers in Germany and one on the front line of cannabis reimbursements for the last two years.

Mission Mountain Laboratories: The First Accredited Cannabis Testing Lab in Montana

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

Last week, Mission Mountain Laboratories (MML), based in Arlee, Montana, received their ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation from Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation (PJLA). This marks the first cannabis testing lab in Montana to get ISO 17025-accredited.

According to a PJLA client spotlight, MML is a female-owned business with two generations of family-run business experience. Before they took the plunge into medical cannabis testing, MML started out testing in public water systems in Montana. They have since expanded their regimen of testing services to offer a host of other services, but most recently adding compliance testing for medical cannabis and cannabis related products.

The Mission Mountain Labs team

According to Kimberly Nuccio, president of MML, this accreditation allows them to grow their business considerably. “Accreditation has opened greater opportunities for business growth by attracting larger companies that are looking for reassurance that a laboratory follows the highest testing standards,” says Nuccio. “Being an accredited lab gives them that added confidence necessary when deciding which lab to partner with for their testing needs. Mission Mountain Laboratories is the first Medical Marijuana Lab to achieve ISO accreditation in the state of Montana, and PJLA accreditation helped expand us into the new arena of Medical Marijuana compliance testing.”

MML has plans to expand their operations greatly, including opening a location in Florida by 2020. “We are aware of the increased and urgent demand for quality Cannabis compliance testing nationwide and are currently working on a 3-year plan to expand into Florida and several other states to fill this void,” says Nuccio. “These new locations will also be equipped to provide full service testing for Nutraceuticals, Food manufacturing, and Environmental businesses.”

8 Mistakes Businesses Make When Managing Product Labels: Part 2

By Rob Freeman
No Comments

Editor’s Note: This article contains the last four common labeling mistakes that businesses can make. The previous four mistakes were published last week here. 

Mistake #5: Planning Just-In-Time Inventory Too Close to Production; Effecting On-time Deliveries

Using JIT (Just-In-Time) management is common throughout North America. JIT involves manufacturers and suppliers trying to minimize, or even eliminate, their inventory. This approach relies on suppliers to deliver materials just before production is started. When this method is done properly, it is a very efficient way to minimize production costs, but when companies do not prepare for a “crisis” situation, they will have nothing in stock to fall back on.

Minimizing inventory costs is always a challenge. It’s a never-ending contradiction trying to maintain low inventory costs while factoring the percentage of potential new growth. Calculations can fluctuate from month to month, especially when industries rely on commodity ingredients or are impacted by sudden regulatory changes like we see with the cannabis, food packaging, and health supplement markets. Front runners in these markets practice minimizing their product label inventories, but their needs might quickly change from one day to the next. They do not want to place a one-time annual label order for each SKU. If an ingredient runs out of supply or a regulatory change affects their production profile, they would be sitting on unusable labels that will go to waste.

Best Method Approach: Think in terms of what the bottom line effect will be when factoring how you should manage your inventory. Try not to reduce your inventory too low. This could cause your company to experience shipping delays when complications arise with suppliers or quality control. You should have at least one-to-two production cycles worth of inventory available for those “crisis” moments.

Rob Freeman, author of this article, is the Director of Business Development and Marketing at Label Solutions Inc.

This backup inventory can also help reduce paying for excessive rush fees. Sometimes businesses can experience unexpected demand for a product, especially when companies consolidate production plants, acquire other companies, or have a new product launch. Supplier material shortages can greatly impact internal quality control and delay delivery times. Building a strong business relationship with your label provider is key to working around business demands and potential problems; which in turn, will help your label provider ship on-time deliveries so your production deadlines are met.

Mistake #6: Selecting the Lowest Price, But Approving the Wrong Materials for Your Product Needs

Sometimes clients buy the lowest priced labels without their procurement department knowing what the label specification requirements should be. It’s always a good business practice to shop for the best price, but it is equally as important to make sure you understand what you’re buying for that price.

Label providers vary on the quality of work they do, value-added services they offer, their production expertise, and the quality of material they use. Additionally, the hidden potential costs to lowest price shopping is that once the construction of those labels fail, it could cost you much more than a simple reorder.

Best Method Approach:Establish clear and concise procedures so your production team can forward the necessary criteria for your procurement department to have during the buying process.

brands want strong, eye-catching labels that stand out online, on the shelf, and/or on the retail floor. On a separate note, some businesses and manufacturers don’t care how long their brand and contact information remains on their product after the purchase. This gives them the flexibility to buy extremely low-quality material, but the outcome is a much lower brand awareness reminder at the end of the product’s use. But if your business model is such that you sell a “one-time use” product and all that you need is the label to survive through the POS, then the cheapest materials and lowest price might be your best solution.

In most cases, brands want strong, eye-catching labels that stand out online, on the shelf, and/or on the retail floor. Manufacturers want their labels to remain on their product, so their customers have a reminder of what they need to buy again or the ability to reread product use instructions and label warnings. Even if you don’t require the most expensive materials, using good quality, durable substrates and inks is always a solid approach.

Mistake #7: Not Preparing for Oil Based Products

One of the most popular products expected in retail for 2019 will be essential oils and/or CBD infused oil ingredients in foods, drinks, and wellness supplements. One of the most common mistakes relating to oil-based products is that entrepreneurs often forget that oils can soak into paper substrates and/or disperse certain inks, even when laminated.

Whether your product is on display in retail, or being sampled at a trade show, the last thing you want to be concerned about is your product name and contact information smearing or washing out. Even the smallest drop of oil can seep into a paper label and spread the ink to the point that you’ll have your own little tie-dye action on the label. That might look cool to some, but you lose your branding and the perception with most retail customers will be that your company is either cheap or is not professional.

Best Method Approach: There are affordable films such as polypropylene materials that will allow you to print the look you want while still protecting your branding and product. From cooking oils to industrial grade oils, the approach is the same but may require different types of films and ink solubility, so each bottle and container has oil resistant labels that maintain a professional look.Whenever one of our clients launch a new product or changes the intended surface conditions for label application, testing the label is always extremely important

If you’re feeling overwhelmed, remember that you don’t need to select all the label materials on your own. Your label provider should help you settle on the best solution.

Mistake #8: Not Properly Testing New Labels and New Product Surfaces

This is one of the most common and overlooked issues. Whenever one of our clients launch a new product or changes the intended surface conditions for label application, testing the label is always extremely important. This is especially critical when dealing with high quantity orders.

Best Method Approach: Testing parameters should be outlined by you and your label provider so both parties understand how long the label and the ink consistency should remain on the surface after purchase and use of product. There are wide variations of testing, so it will depend on the type of product and the intended industry.

For example, testing hand-applied, durable labels on powder coated metals for the boat and trailer industry require a completely different testing method compared to tests for typical food and beverage products that are machine applied. Usually, with uniform container products like food clamshell packaging, beverage cans, and supplement jars, all you will need to do is make sure to test labels on your production line, so your team is confident with the results.

Final Thoughts

In summary, preventing just one of these mistakes can yield huge cost savings no matter if your company is a start-up or a large corporation. Even if these eight common mistakes do not directly apply to your own issues, hopefully the “Best Methods” approach will give your company ideas about how you can prepare for future product releases, reduce product label issues, and improve your own quality control metrics.

If you have topics relating to product labeling that you would like me to discuss, please write to info@easylabeling.com. Be sure to save this article and forward it to your peers for future reference.

WHO Makes Noise About Cannabis “Rescheduling”

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

At this point in the end of prohibition, not even the United Nations (UN) or the World Health Organization (WHO) are immune to the great green wave sweeping the planet. Yet, lest anyone get too optimistic about developments at the nose bleed level of international drug reform, the newest round of headlines regarding “WHO cannabis reform” is hardly cause for celebration.

The Story At The International Level So Far

In documents obtained by Cannabis Industry Journal last fall, it appeared that cannabis reform of the serious kind had caught the eye of senior leaders at the WHO. Further, it also appeared that some kind of decisive action or declaration would be forthcoming by the end of the year.

Yet as reported at the end of January, such decisions appear to be headed for a tortoise speed approvals track. Yes, it appears that CBD will probably be descheduled, and from both the hemp and cannabis perspective. That should be good news to many who are caught in a raft of international standards that are confusing and all over the place on a country-by-country level. However, this will not be much of a boon to the industry in Europe, in particular, where the discussion is less over CBD but the source of it, and how distillates are used. From this perspective, the draft WHO documents will make no difference, except perhaps to speed the acceptance of CBD, and create clearer regulations around it.

On the THC front, the WHO appears to do nothing more than move cannabis squarely into international Schedule I territory. More interesting of course, is the intent of international regulators to keep cannabis very much in uncertain status while moving “pharmacized” versions of the same into Schedule III designation.

What Does The Opinion of The WHO Really Mean?

What this means is also still unclear except that those who want to sell to regulated medical and nonmedical markets have to get their products (whatever those are) registered as medicine or a legitimate consumer product in every jurisdiction and eventually at a regional level (see Europe). That is clearly underway right now by both the big Canadian and emerging Israeli entities in the market as well as savvy European players in both verticals. That said, it is also a game that is about to create a very interesting market for those who are able to produce cheap, but high-grade oils in particular.

What Does This Mean For The Future Of Flower?

On the medical front, Germany became the third country in the world to consider reimbursing flower via national healthcare. Of the three who have tried it to date so far (and it is unclear what Poland will do at this point longer term), Israel is inching away and Holland nixed the entire cannabis covered by insurance conversation at the same time Germany took it on. Where that plays out across Europe will be interesting, especially as the cost of production and end retail cost continues to drop. And doctor education includes information about “whole plant” vs. pre-prescribed “dosing” where the patient has no control. The reality in the room in Europe right now is that this drug is being used to treat people with drug resistant conditions. Dosing dramas in other words, will be in the room here for some time to come as they have in no other jurisdiction.

european union statesBeyond dosing and control issues that have as much to do with doctors as overall reform, flower is still controversial for other reasons. One, it is currently still being imported into Europe from highly remote and expensive import destinations. That will probably change this year because of both the cultivation bid and Israel’s aggressive move into the middle of the fray as well as widely expected ex-im changes that will allow imports from countries throughout Europe. However, in the meantime, this is one of the reasons that flower is so unpopular right now at the policy and insurance level. The other is that pharmacists in Germany are allowed to treat the flower as a drug that must be processed. In this case, that means that they are adding a significant surcharge, per gram, to flower because they grind it before they give it to patients.

How long this loophole will exist is unclear. However, what is also very clear is that oils in particular, will play a larger and larger role in most medical markets. Read, in other words, “pharmaceutical products.”

For this reason, the WHO recommendations, for one, are actually responding to unfolding realities on the ground, not leading or setting them.

Setting A Longer-Term Date For Widespread Recreational Reform

This conservative stance from the WHO also means, however, that in the longer run, individual country “recreational reform” particularly in places like Europe, will be on a slower than so far expected track. There are no countries in the EU who are willing to step too far ahead of the UN in general. That includes Luxembourg, which so far has made the boldest predictions about its intentions on the recreational front of any EU member. However, what this also may signal is that the UN will follow the lead set by Luxembourg. Even so, this legitimately puts a marker in the ground that at least Europe’s recreational picture is at least five years off.

In the meantime, the WHO recommendations begin to set international precedent and potentially the beginnings of guidelines around a global trade that has already challenged the UN to change its own regulations. In turn, expect these regulations to guide and help set national policy outside a few outliers (see Canada, Uruguay and potentially New Zealand) globally.

Bottom line, in other words? The latest news from the UN is not “bad” but clearly seems to say that cannabis reform is a battle that is still years in the making. That said, from the glass is half full perspective, it appears, finally, there might be the beginning of a light at the end of the international tunnel of prohibition.