Tag Archives: CDC

CannaSafe Accredited to ISO 17025

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

According to a press release sent out last week, Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc. announced the accreditation of CannaSafe Labs to ISO/IEC 17025. CannaSafe is based in Van Nuys, California and provides a number of different testing services, including full regulatory compliance testing for the state’s requirements.

CannaSafe was allegedly the first to break the news about vaping health issues caused by EVALI, the lung condition responsible for the 2019 vape crisis. According to the press release, they provided testing data that proved black market vapes contained dangerous chemicals, likely including vitamin E acetate, the chemical that the CDC says is linked to EVALI.

CannaSafe say they have plans to expand into a number of states beyond California. They are also planning to build a facility dedicated to CBD testing to meet market needs in the near future.

Biros' Blog

Judge Dismisses Claims in Vaping Illness Lawsuit

By Aaron G. Biros
3 Comments

In September of 2019, Charles Wilcoxen fell seriously ill after vaping cannabis oil from a cartridge. Just days after he began experiencing symptoms he was hospitalized and later diagnosed with lipoid pneumonia, the mysterious lung illness now known as EVALI associated with the 2019 vape crisis.

Wilcoxen spent three days in the hospital and ever since he was diagnosed, he has been unable to exercise, return to work full time or even play with his daughter. Attorneys for Herrmann Law Group representing Wilcoxen filed a product liability lawsuit, Wilcoxen v. Canna Brand Solutions, LLC, et al., in Washington State Court, naming six cannabis companies as defendants: Canna Brand Solutions, Conscious Cannabis, Rainbow’s Aloft, Leafwerx, MFused and Janes Garden.

This image came from the complaint filed, alleging that Mr. Wilcoxen believes this was a CCELL product.

This case was allegedly the first lawsuit in the wake of the 2019 vape crisis. The Vanderbilt University Law School Blog has a very comprehensive post on this case that has the original complaint and a lot of information on the lawsuit.

Canna Brand Solutions, the primary defendant named in the complaint, is a packaging supplier and distributor for CCELL vaping products (heating elements, pens and batteries) in the state of Washington. The complaint alleges that Wilcoxen believes he used a CCELL vape. CCELL is a Chinese company, which makes it notoriously difficult to pursue legal action against them, hence why Canna Brand Solutions was listed as a defendant instead.

On August 31, 2020, Judge Michael Schwartz dismissed all claims against Canna Brand Solutions. “All claims asserted by Plaintiff against Canna Brand in the above-mentioned matter shall be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs or fees to any of the parties to this litigation,” Judge Schwartz says in the dismissal. Judge Schwartz dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning it could be brought to the court again should the plaintiff’s attorneys decide to do so.

With the allegations against Canna Brand Solutions focusing on CCELL products, it seems that the case was dismissed largely due to a lack of evidence connecting exactly which product resulted in the illness, as well as the lack of culpability for a distributor of products they did not manufacture.

These are the vape cartridges that Mr. Wilcoxen purchased

Daniel Allen, founder and president of Canna Brands Solutions, claims that the product mentioned in the complaint did not come from his company. “We stand by our high quality and customizable CCELL vaporization products,” says Allen. “We feel vindicated in this case by the judge’s decision, which shows the claims against our company and products were completely unfounded from the beginning.”

He also added that the quality and safety of the products they distribute is their highest priority. “The product in question involved in this case did not come from Canna Brand Solutions,” says Allen.

Wilcoxen’s illness and subsequent long-term lung injury is extremely unfortunate. Thousands of people have been hospitalized and 68 deaths have been confirmed by the CDC. The CDC is still calling the illness EVALI (e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury). According to the CDC, there is no real known cause of EVALI, but they have found that vitamin E acetate is “strongly linked” to the outbreak. Knowing that, it is entirely possible that Mr. Wilcoxen’s illness was a result of one of the cannabis products he consumed, just most likely not anything that came from Canna Brand Solutions. A closer look at the contents with an independent lab test of the THC oil he consumed could shed some more light on what exactly caused the illness.

I would venture to guess that one of the products he consumed did have vitamin E acetate. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, it could be brought to the court again if, say, Mr. Wilcoxen’s attorneys were to obtain more evidence, such as an independent lab report showing vitamin E acetate in the contents of one of the products he consumed. If Mr. Wilcoxen’s attorneys can figure out which product actually contained vitamin E acetate, perhaps the lawsuit could get a second shot and Mr. Wilcoxen could have a greater chance at getting some long-overdue and much-deserved restitution.

California Employment Laws, COVID-19 & Cannabis: How New Regulations Impact Cannabis Businesses

By Conor Dale
1 Comment

As employers in the cannabis industry adapt to making their businesses run and thrive in the age of COVID-19, federal, state and local jurisdictions have issued new laws and regulations providing rules and guidance on returning employees to work. Employers in the industry should be aware of, and prepare for, these rules moving forward.

Federal guidance regarding COVID testing and employees’ return to the workplace:

Since March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQ) concerning employment-related COVID-19 topics. In its September update, the EEOC answered practical questions relating to COVID testing, questions to employees regarding COVID, and employee medical information.

Employee testing

The EEOC has already stated that employers may administer COVID-19 tests before initially permitting employees to enter the workplace. In its September FAQs, the EEOC confirms that employers may conduct periodic tests to ensure that employees are COVID free and do not pose a threat to coworkers and customers. The EEOC also clarified that employers administering regular COVID-19 tests is consistent with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance and that following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding employee testing and screening is appropriate. The EEOC acknowledges that the CDC and FDA may revise their recommendations based on new information, and reminds employers to keep apprised of these updates.

COVID questions for employees

The EEOC also confirmed that employers may ask employees returning to the workplace if they have been tested for COVID-19, which, presumably, permits employers to ask if the employee’s test was positive or negative. Please note that an employer’s right to ask employees about COVID testing is based on the potential threat that infected employees could pose to others if they physically return to work. As a result, the EEOC clarified that asking employees who exclusively work remotely and/or do not physically interact with other employees or customers about potential COVID-19 status would not be appropriate. The EEOC also stated that an employer may not directly ask whether an employee’s family members have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19. This is because the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) generally prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members. However, the EEOC clarified employers may ask employees if they have had contact with anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 or who may have symptoms associated with the disease.

Sharing information about employees with COVID

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to confidentially maintain information regarding employees’ medical condition. The EEOC’s updated FAQS clarify that managers who learn that an employee has COVID may report this information to appropriate individuals within their organization in order to comply with public health guidance, such as relaying this information to government contact tracing programs. Employers should consider directing managers on how, and to whom, to make such reports, and specifically instruct employees who have a need to know about the COVID status of their coworkers to maintain the confidentiality of that information. The EEOC also clarified that workers may report to managers about the COVID status of a coworker in the same workplace.

California state guidance on employees returning to work

The state of California also recently released a “COVID-19 Employer Playbook” which provides guidance on employees to return to work. That playbook states that employees with COVID related symptoms may return to work 24 hours after their last fever, without the use of fever-reducing medications, if there had been an improvement in symptoms and at least 10 days had passed since symptoms first appeared. This was also indicated in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Order, issued in June, about responding to COVID-19 in the Workplace.

More recently, on August 24th, the CDPH released similar guidance which reiterates when employees who have tested positive for COVID could return to the workplace when: (1) at least 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared; (2) at least 24 hours have passed with no fever (without the use of fever-reducing medications), and (3) their other symptoms have improved. Conversely, individuals who test positive for COVID and who never develop symptoms may return to work or school 10 days after the date of their first positive test.

Employers should also check local public health orders for their county when determining how and when to return an employee who has recovered from COVID-19. It is important to also confer with your employment counsel when implementing new policies and procedures related to COVID-19, particularly given that the guidance issued by government authorities continues to evolve at a rapid pace.

Return to work laws on the horizon

Finally, a number of local governments in California such as the City of San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles have enacted return-to-work ordinances generally requiring employers to offer available positions to former employees who have been separated from employment due to coronavirus related business slowdowns or government-issued shutdown orders. The California legislature is also in the process of enacting a potential law that would similarly require employers in the state to offer vacant job positions to former employees whose employment ended due to COVID.

While the San Francisco ordinance only addresses positions in San Francisco and the Oakland and Los Angeles ordinances primarily address large employers in the hospitality and restaurant industries, cannabis industry employers should strongly consider offering vacant job positions to former employees whose employment ended due to COVID in order to comply with these ordinances and other potentially applicable future laws and in an effort to avoid potential legal claims from former employees.

Employers are strongly advised to consult with counsel to make sure they are following the requirements of these new laws and regulations.

Navigating the Cannabis Industry in the Current Climate

By Serge Chistov
No Comments

All major industries took a hit during the COVID-19 pandemic, but in many states, cannabis dispensaries were labeled as essential, which has allowed the industry to continue with some alterations. The impact now will come from what innovations and improvements the industry can leverage going forward.

From changes to protocols and buyer behaviors to supply chain disruptions, there were many new hurdles for the industry in addition to the ones cannabis businesses already faced, such as funding. But the silver lining could be that businesses within the cannabis industry become less of a specialty and more ‘every day’ than ever before.

The effects of the pandemic on the cannabis industry

Overall, the industry has fared well, in part thanks to its distinction as an essential service in states where cannabis is legal. It’s possible states made this decision for the same reason that alcohol businesses were deemed essential in most places: hospitals are not equipped during pandemic times to take care of people who are being forced to detox or those suffering from anxiety because they don’t have access to their legal drug of choice.

In a multitude of ways, cannabis businesses have adapted to bring calm in a storm while at the same time making manufacturing adjustments to meet the CDC guidelines. For example, there is more attention placed on individually pre-packaged products for single use; something that is less sharable as an experience but eminently practical.

Another area that has shifted a little is in the limiting of the exchange and interaction between business owners and staff relative to the customers. It’s all in the aim of mitigating the risk of exposure, but it has changed the dynamic in many cannabis businesses. This is the new normal for the time being and the industry has adapted well.

Ultimately, retail cannabis businesses today are no different than the retail of candy, cigarettes or alcohol. Certainly, segments of the industry have still struggled. Lack of tourism and the curbside/take out circumstances at dispensaries took their toll. But without the opportunity to still conduct business in some capacity, 50-60% of all operators would have gone out of business. Plus, as many people use cannabis to offset medical symptoms, including pain management, there is a legitimate need for cannabis to be available. The pandemic has provided the opportunity for many who might not have tried it before to give it a chance to help them medicinally.

Behaviors have changed, including those of buyers

Driven by consumer interests, many dispensaries have adapted to provide curbside pickup options, delivery of online orders and more. That has meant that the customer also needs to be more knowledgeable about cannabis: the experienced consumer knows what they like and want and can make their choices at a distance. Someone who is new to cannabis use might find navigating the choices and options a little more difficult, without the help of experienced staff. The breadth of material online and the ability of some dispensaries to share content that helps the consumer to make choices, in the absence of walking around the dispensary, have been additional tools at the disposal of businesses.

That said, the cannabis industry today is not a vastly different one: it is adapting to the new rules and new reality. Whether this way of doing business—at a distance—is a temporary or permanent solution will be dependent upon what federal and state regulators dictate in the months ahead, but there is likely to be ongoing demand for being able to order online and keep social distance protocols in place.

An interesting example is the Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) in Ontario, Canada. This is a government run shop that has retail as well as a robust online presence, with free delivery during the pandemic. This has facilitated an increase in new customers, which had already jumped, post legalization. People who might have felt uncomfortable going into a dispensary can still learn about cannabis online and order it, from the relative comfort and safety of their sofa.

Supply chain disruptions and the cannabis industry

The industry has long been focused on overseas suppliers. With the arrival of the pandemic and restrictions on obtaining products from other countries, supply chains have been disrupted for many cannabis businesses. That has forced many to shift their supply chains to more local manufacturers, in North and South America.

In the long run, this should have a positive impact for the industry, so that despite the short-term disruption to the supply chain, which is having an impact on the industry as a whole, there could be an upside for local producers, growers and manufacturers. It will take time to know how this will all play out.

Funding and other issues for the cannabis industry

For a new cannabis startup in these times, the key will be what it has always been for any business, just to a greater degree: due diligence. Companies that want to open a cannabis business, whether during the pandemic or not, need to evaluate the opportunity as one would any investment. It’s all about the numbers: data for the industry as a whole and specifically from competition. These days, that data is widely available and more and more consultants and investors have expertise in this industry. “Overall, there is more interest in the industry than ever before”

It’s vital to be extremely well versed, particularly for businesses that are relatively new in the industry, because the single biggest issue for many has and will continue to be funding and investment. The cannabis industry is no different than any other business, except for the fact that it is a specialty business. With that comes the need to look for funding among investors who have some knowledge or appreciation for the industry.

Some of the key concerns traditional investors will have include:

  • Regulatory differences from state to state: since cannabis is still illegal at the federal level, there can be an array of hurdles at state and local level that make cannabis businesses trickier to work with.
  • There are religious based/morality issues for some lenders in dealing with the industry. These aren’t dissimilar from issues with other industries such as adult entertainment and gaming. It’s also fair to point out that, morality aside, these industries have thrived in the last several decades.

So, while traditional banking institutions will often deal with the proceeds from the cannabis industry, including allowing bank accounts for these businesses, there is far less of a chance that they would invest in a cannabis business, for fear of risking their license. They can even go so far as to refuse to include income from a cannabis business in the determination of a loan application.

There are more unique lending or investing groups that either specialize in cannabis or are starting to open their books to specialize in cannabis. Overall, there is more interest in the industry than ever before, as it becomes normalized in American society: more participants and more insiders of the industries that are willing to invest in the right idea.

Will legalization be more likely in the future?

The fact that cannabis businesses and dispensaries have been deemed essential services during the pandemic, where they legally operate, has shed new light on the relevance of these businesses and the advantages of more widespread legalization.“Consumers will help drive the innovations as they demand clean consumption methods”

In fact, the pandemic has normalized a lot of new behaviors, including the acceptable use of cannabis to help with stress and anxiety. People are, perhaps thanks to staying at home more, doing the legwork to understand how cannabis could be useful to them in managing their stress. The medicinal benefits of cannabis have long been researched and understood: consumers are coming into the fray to express their interest in it, which can only fuel the possibility of more widespread legalization.

Add to this the fact that the cannabis industry is a growth industry. There are companies and jobs that aren’t coming back, post-pandemic. There is an opportunity to grow the cannabis industry to the general benefit of many, both as business owners and employees. The revenue generated from taxation following legalization would also benefit many state coffers. Federal level legalization would be the panacea to eliminate the mixed message, state by state regulation that currently exists.

Opportunities for innovation, moving forward

As more and more people become interested in the industry, and as cannabis use is normalized within society through legalization, the opportunities for the industry can only expand.

For an industry that started on the simple concept of smoking cannabis, the advances have already been legion: edibles, nanotechnology-based formulations for effective, clean consumption and many more innovations.

In a world that increasingly sees smoking as a negative, for the obvious impact to lung health, there are so many opportunities to grow the industry to find consumption methods that are safe and still deliver the impact of the inhaled version.

Here again, consumers will help drive the innovations as they demand clean consumption methods. The technology is available to make this possible; it only takes innovation and education to find the best ways to move this industry forward.

As legalization expands—and particularly if it is dealt with at the federal level—the industry will be able to capitalize on existing infrastructure for manufacturing and distribution, allowing new businesses to grow, get funded and thrive in the new normal.

How to Protect Your Business from the Emerging Vaping Crisis

By Tom BeLusko, Kelly McCann
No Comments

The year 2020 may become a pivotal year for cannabis operators and service providers, including increased access to financial services, and increased exposure to product liability lawsuits. On a positive note, if enacted, the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (SAFE Banking Act) promises to enable cannabis businesses to gain access to financial services previously unavailable to them, including banking and insurance services. The House of Representatives passed the SAFE Banking Act of 2019 on September 25th, 2019. Skopos Labs, an automated predictive intelligence service, predicts there is a 52% chance of the SAFE Banking Act of 2019 becoming law. A recent discovery that vitamin E acetate is likely the culprit in the vaping-related illness epidemic may increase the exposure to costly litigation that cannabis businesses face.

An uptick in litigation like that currently affecting the vaping industry may soon affect cannabis businesses. More litigation affecting the vaping industry is due in large part to the growing number of lung injuries and deaths linked to vaping. As of November 13th, 2019, the CDC reported 2,172 cases of lung injury, and 42 deaths linked to vaping. The cases of lung injury and death have predictably resulted in an increase in litigation facing the vaping industry. Most of the plaintiffs in these cases allege they became addicted to vaping but at least two lawsuits go further. In one, a Connecticut man alleges that he suffered a massive, debilitating stroke as a result of vaping, while in another the parents of a teenage girl allege in a proposed class action suit that their daughter has suffered seizures linked to vaping. On November 14th, 2019, the CDC identified vitamin E acetate as a chemical of concern among people with vaping use associated lung injury. Vitamin E acetate is an additive commonly used as a cutting agent in vape cartridges. About 86% of individuals who have either vaping-related lung injuries, or died due to vaping had used a product containing THC.

The increase in perceived exposure cannabis businesses face has increased their interest in obtaining insurance, but unfortunately insurers are not always interested in insuring them. There are at least two reasons that getting insurance can be difficult for cannabis businesses: (1) insurance industry appetite for cannabis risk is very low due to its status under federal law and (2) express coverage exclusions or limitations of cannabis exposures from standard-form coverage are becoming more common. However, even if cannabis businesses are able to obtain insurance, their insurance may cover them for far less than they believe.

The product liability coverage (which is increasingly crucial for both growers and manufacturers given the mounting litigation facing the vaping industry) may cover far less than it at first appears. The interplay of exclusions and limited coverages in many cannabis-specific policies may leave a cannabis business uninsured.

It is vital now more than ever to ensure you are properly protected against loss.Crucial for cannabis businesses to appreciate is the distinction between “occurrence” and “claims-made” coverage triggers as it relates to both the premises on which cannabis businesses operate their business, and the products they sell.

Many cannabis businesses have an occurrence-based general liability insurance that might actually exclude: (1) product-liability risks; (2) any tobacco-related risks; and (3) any risk associated with governmental investigation or enforcement. These exclusions oftentimes concern cannabis businesses because there is a high likelihood one of these risks could manifest itself as an uninsured loss. Still, the costs of eliminating these exclusions in an occurrence-based general liability insurance policy is often large, assuming an insurer is willing to eliminate the exclusions on an occurrence basis at all. Therefore, cannabis businesses often pair their general liability insurance policy with a “claims-made” coverage trigger for products liability. Navigating the waters of managing the differences between “occurrence” and “claims-made” forms are best left to a qualified and experienced insurance professional.

Consult a local insurance professional that understands how to help your business become properly protected in what would be considered a tumultuous market for this burgeoning industry.

It is vital now more than ever to ensure you are properly protected against loss. As a first step, you must determine what your current insurance policy does and does not cover. After a loss, it is too late to change policies. Rely upon someone that knows the market of insuring this industry and has deep experience in managing both occurrence and claims-made policies.