Tag Archives: compliance

December 3, 2018

Discussing Lab Accreditation: The New ISO 17025:2017 Standard

By Aaron G. Biros

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

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

The panelists included:

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

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

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

Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA

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

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

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

Natalia Larrimer, engagement and program development manager, ANAB

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

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

December 3, 2018

The Ever-Pending German Cultivation Bid

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

It was supposed to be cut and dried. Change the law (after getting sued by patients). Eliminate “home grow” by the same. Set up a nice, neat, efficient sub-department of the German version of the FDA (or BfArM for short). Put the bid online, in an attempt to take the paperwork out of the whole process, and let it rip.

Done and dusted by last summer. Right? Wrong.

In fact, as of now, the second bid deadline has been extended to (at least) December 2018. There is already a pending lawsuit, which has pushed the deadline back this fall several times.

BfArM as usual, is sending out non-statements. They cannot comment. This is, again, a pending EU bid.

However, this is, as Germans at least are rapidly realizing, not just another bid. To begin with, there is never a normal first in this industry. And the highly bumpy road auf Deutsch is just a redo of industry realities in every other legalizing jurisdiction.

That the dramas involved are both Shakespearean and of a lesser kind is also part of the mix. Here, for our reader’s benefit, are the summaries of the acts:

The Story So Far

Cue the German Parliament. Change the law. Issue the tender. Get sued. And this is all before last summer was over. Generally speaking that was more or less Act I.

Act II, so far, has been the response. The government, along with BfArM have been engaged in a remarkable discussion in public that is already dramatic by German standards anyway.

enterprising entities are getting import licenses.First, a federal German court called out a fault by a federal agency, which was bad enough.

However, in what appears to be an ongoing act of defence in this very strange second act indeed, BfArM appears to be playing defence to prevent any more legal action. Notably, as the threat of a second lawsuit appeared this fall against the second bid and revised bid issuance, the agency just moved the deadline back, repeatedly. It is now set for some time in December, although industry rumours suggest that the agency will continue to move the goalposts back until after the court date next spring, if necessary.

That does extend the time for intermission. In the meantime, enterprising entities are getting import licenses.

The Major Drama

As in all of the greatest acts and periods of historical change, there are far greater currents that carry the main story line forward. The revolutionary rumbles surrounding cannabis legalization earlier in the decade in the United States have now been felt on a far greater, global scale. Politically, the right to take cannabis has been tied closely to states’ rights in the U.S. since the turn of the century.

Now in the second decade of all of this tumult, cannabis reform as global revolt echoes the zeitgeist of the times. The Donald is now in the second part of an already historically constitutionally convoluted time in the U.S. The U.K, potentially spurred by similar forces might appear to still be on the brink of Brexit. And the EU has begun to try to organize, both on an individual country basis as well as collectively, to deal with political populism.

Shifting regulation in Europe may be groovy, but from a public health perspective, there is much to prove.There is a great deal of political and economic discontent just about everywhere. Law suits, particularly against governments over issues as intransigent as cannabis, in other words, are a powerful tool right now for the disaffected just about everywhere. Not getting a license to grow cannabis and participate in a valuable, multi-billion dollar economy is a powerful grudge.

There is also, beyond this, the overarching flavour of a new trade agreement called CETA which specifically gives corporations the right to sue federal governments. Strange times indeed. Maybe that is why the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, just oversaw a historic lifting of the import quota of medical cannabis from Holland to Germany?

The Minor Drama

There are quite a few acts to this play too right now. Shifting regulation in Europe may be groovy, but from a public health perspective, there is much to prove. This is true of cannabis that is reimbursed by health insurers. It is also true of the novel food debates now springing up across the continent, particularly tied to isolates that have made their landing here.

There are also other issues in the mix that include the idea of an agriculturally based economy that might also damn the bid to a kind of strange purgatory for some time. Germans, despite their historical nostalgia for the same, are not an agrarian society. This is a culture ruled by tradition and science, for all the many conflicts that generates. This means the “cannabis as pharmaceutical” conversation is in the room is a part of the national DNA. No matter how much cheaper unprocessed flower might be.

The Players

There are two, broad camps here at the moment. The first are firms that made the cut the first time around (i.e. the large public Canadian LPs). The second is everyone else.

Nobody seriously expects more than one upstart German firm to make it through to getting a cultivation or processing license at this time. Those are widely expected to go to the major firms who have been in the front position from last spring, such as Canopy, Wayland, Aphria and the Dutch Bedrocan.

But those “upstart” Germans are furiously trying to deal themselves into the game. For some it means starting with CBD cultivation. For others it means slinging lawsuits. The last go around, one of the most serious litigants was not an agricultural producer, in fact, but a German wheelchair company.

In other words, while a bit more European in flavour, those who still clamour for a chance to cultivate are every bit as iconoclastic as those on in other climes.In the meantime, the import business is flourishing.

The Concluding Act?

There are several ways the current situation could end. The first is that the bid is concluded next April. The second is that it is not. In the meantime, the import business is flourishing. And, even better for the German government, the industry is not cultivating domestically.

In the eventuality that the bid is run off the road again next spring, in other words, the government is gamely lining up behind the idea that imports, at least for now, are the way to move into the next segue.

That said, at some point, tired of getting sued if not delayed, the German bid will conclude and German crops will be grown. For now, however, the safest conclusion for this particular drama looks to be 2019. But with plenty of room for a curtain call the year after that too.

November 30, 2018

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

By Scott Hinerfeld

3 Comments

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

What Is Track-and-Trace?

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

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

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

What Is Metrc?

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

Who Is Required To Use Metrc?

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

Cultivation
Manufacturing
Retail
Distribution
Testing labs
Microbusinesses

How Does Metrc Work?

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

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

Do I Have To Enter Data Into Metrc Manually?

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

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

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

November 27, 2018

Massachusetts Opens Recreational Market

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

Last week, on November 20, dispensaries in Massachusetts began selling cannabis to recreational consumers. The market was off to an obviously electric start, following the path of other states that legalized recreational cannabis. Consumers waited in long lines on opening day, more than two years after voters in the state legalized cannabis.

While this marks an important milestone as the first legal recreational cannabis sales began on the East Coast, regulators only approved two licensed dispensaries to begin operations on opening day. Those two retailers allowed to begin sales are Cultivate Holdings in Leicester and New England Treatment Access in Northampton.

The Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), the state’s regulatory body overseeing the new marketplace, received some criticism for taking more than a year to establish and implement regulations for the industry. In April of this year, regulators were just preparing the final rules.

It has taken them a fair amount of time to establish the regulatory framework, but much of the recent delays were due to a lack of laboratory licenses. Earlier in November, the CCC finally approved two laboratories for testing in the recreational market. Those two labs are MCR Labs LLC of Framingham and CDX Analytics LLC of Salem. With the labs approved for third-party independent testing in the recreational market, regulators began allowing retailers to open shortly after.

Shawn Collins, executive director for the CCC, told Boston 25 News that they are delivering on the voters’ requests to provide for a safe marketplace. “When Massachusetts voters legalized adult-use cannabis, they communicated a desire to purchase products that are safely regulated and properly tested,” says Collins. “The Commission has done scrupulous due diligence to make that vision a reality and ensure licensed independent testing labs maximize public health and public safety.”

November 21, 2018

The UK Starts Prescribing Cannabis

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

It is official. British doctors as of November 1, 2018, can now write prescriptions for medical cannabis. But what does that really mean? And is this truly a victory or merely an opening in the fierce resistance to and outright battle against cannabinoids as medicine?

A Real Victory Or Another Stall?

Many in the advocacy community in Europe are profoundly split. On one hand, yes, the British decision, like other sovereign medical cannabis reforms in Europe over the last two years, is a victory. The British government, like many before it, has thrown in the towel on denying basic access to medical cannabis. But what does this mean, especially in a country which may well be facing shortages of basic food products and other kinds of medications in under half a year if things continue to blow up on Brexit and there is no “people’s vote” to save the day?

Cultivated product would, normally, be slated to come from Portugal and Spain where Tilray and Canopy in particular have set up cultivation centers. If things continue to head to a negotiated Brexit, it is inevitable that imported cannabis would fall into the same category of everything else set to come into England by boat or lorry. It is highly unlikely that the NHS would authorize full payment for cannabis flown in from Canada. Especially with British Sugar’s existing cannabis plantations in Norfolk as well as the budding cultivation deals now finally flowering all over the country if not in Ireland.There are many who expect that medical cannabis will actually save public healthcare systems a great deal of money.

Brexit Is The Bigger Worry, So What About Cannabis?

It may also seem to some that access to cannabis is the least of the country’s worries. Actually this is a discussion deeply embedded in the politics and drama in London and Brussels right now. It is also at the heart of Brexit itself. Namely the propaganda associated with European divorce that ran along the lines of “saving the NHS.”

In fact, the legalization of medical use in the UK, just as it is in countries across Europe (Germany being the best and most current ongoing example) will do much to shine a light on how creaky and outdated the medical provision system really is here. Especially when it comes to approving new drugs for large numbers of people quickly. This was, ultimately the goal of public healthcare. See penicillin, not to mention most inoculation drugs or vaccines for childhood diseases (like Polio).

One of the great ironies of cannabis legalization in Europe of course is that it is also often shining a light on how far this concept, not to mention funds for proper delivery, has been allowed to lapse. There are many who expect that medical cannabis will actually save public healthcare systems a great deal of money. That is if it can finally make its way into widespread medical distribution.

And cannabis is a drug like no other. Why? Despite all the pharmacization of the plant that is going on right now as producers are being forced to produce pills and oils for the medical market, cannabinoid treatments will not be pushed so easily into “orphan” status – since whole plant products can treat a range of diseases. This is important in terms of supply and negotiated prices down the road. But in the short term, cannabis is falling into a couple of strange categories created by organized public healthcare, insurance mandates (both public and private), the demands being placed on producers in this space to act more like pharmaceutical companies, limited public spending budgets, and a changing demographic where chronic conditions treated by cannabis are a whole new ballgame. Namely patients are living longer, and not necessarily old.

So while it is all very well and good for British doctors to begin to write prescriptions for cannabis, merely having one does little good for most patients. In fact, this usually means the battle is only half won.

Why?

National Healthcare Is Still Functional In Europe

As foreign as it is to most Americans, most European countries operate more or less the same way when it comes to healthcare. First of all, all of the national systems in operation in Europe today, including the UK, were set up in the aftermath of WWII to recover from devastation most Americans, especially today, never experienced personally.

These healthcare systems were set up to first and foremost be inclusive. In other words, the default is that you are covered. 90% of populations across Europe in fact, including the UK, are covered by their national healthcare systems. “Private” health insurance actually only covers about 10% of the population and in some countries, like Germany, is mandatory once annual income rises above a certain level.

However this system is also based on a very old fashioned notion of not only medical care, but treatment of chronic conditions. Namely, that most people (the mostly well) face low prices for most drugs. Further, the people first in line to get “experimental” or “last use” drugs (as cannabis is currently categorized in Europe no matter its rescheduling in the UK), are patients in hospitals. With the exception of terminal patients, of course, that is no longer the case.

Patients in the UK can expect to face the same kinds of access problems in the UK as in Germany.That is why, for example, so many disabled people began to sue the German government last year. They could not afford treatment until their insurer approved it. Monthly supplies in legal pharmacies are running around $3,000 per month for flower. Or about 8 times the total cash budget such people have to live on (in total) on a monthly basis.

In fact, because of this huge cost, approvals for drugs like cannabis do not actually happen at the front line of the insurance approving process, but are rather kicked back to regional (often state) approvals boards. As a result, approval for the right to take the drug with some or all of the cost covered by insurance, is actually limited to a much smaller pool of people right now – namely the terminally ill in hospital care. In Germany, the only people who are automatically approved for medical cannabis once a doctor writes the prescription, are the terminally ill. For everyone else it is a crapshoot. Between 35-40% of all applications in Germany are being turned down a year and a half into medical legalization. Some patients are being told they will have to wait until next year or even 2020.

And once that prescription is actually approved? Patients in the UK can expect to face the same kinds of access problems in the UK as in Germany. Namely pharmacies do not readily stock the drug in any form.

In the meantime, patients are turning back to the black market. While the online pharmacy discussion is different in the UK than Germany, which might in fact make a huge difference for the right approvals system, most patients in the UK still face a long fight for easy and affordable access covered by public healthcare.

Disclaimer: Marguerite Arnold is now in negotiations for a pilot of her digital prescription and insurance pre-approvals and automization platform called MedPayRx in several European countries including the UK, Germany, and a few others.

November 20, 2018

Danish Cannabis Pilot Program Reaching End Of First Year

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

While it has gotten decidedly less English-speaking press than other countries in Europe on the front edge of cannabis reform, Denmark’s pilot four-year cannabis program is moving along nicely. It is also, without all the fanfare and hullabaloo seen in other EU countries struggling with how to approach cannabis normalization, about to reach the end of its first year.

The four year program was authorized to begin on January 1, 2018.

Major Canadian cannabis companies have been establishing operations in the country since late last year. Spectrum (a division of Canopy Cannabis), jumped the shark early, as it did in Germany. On December 5, 2017, three weeks before the executive order went into effect, Spectrum announced a first of its kind Danish joint venture with a forty thousand square-meter grow facility. Others have followed since then.

Licenses are required for every step of the process. In other words, producers must receive a license to legally cultivate cannabis for medical purposes. Those wishing to distribute must also have such products admitted to the formal list of medicines that can be distributed domestically. Manufacturers are also not allowed to distribute their product to any entity except pharmacies, hospitals and other manufacturers with a license to distribute.

Exports are also tightly controlled. Any medication on the approved pilot list cannot be exported. Further, it is only legal to export to two countries from Denmark – namely Canada and Holland.

A Direct Comparison To Other European Medical Cannabis Programs

Denmark is the first member of the EU to set up a trial program specifically for cannabis, although the Danish “experiment” looks in many ways like what will emerge in Germany. Unlike in Germany, however, the process is getting off to a smooth start.

Germany, which was primed to do the same as of March last year, has struggled since then with establishing a domestic cultivation process. That said, distribution (particularly from outside the country) is already off to a flying start. The difference, however, is that distributors in Germany who have a license to distribute a restricted narcotic product, can distribute cannabis too, without additional licensing. See Aphria’s recent purchase of CC Pharma with distribution to 13,000 pharmacies in Germany. Imports will actually be the name of the game here for some time to come as the cultivation bid is widely accepted as being too small to even meet existing demand. This will be the reality going forward as the government is required to purchase all cannabis bought by tender bid.

The other place to watch right now is Greece. The country has also moved quickly to establish a cultivation program in the last year. The difference between Denmark and Greece however, is that the export game (along with medical tourism) are clearly on the agenda.

Regardless, the success of the Danish “experiment” is one that other European countries could well look to as other countries proceed down the road to cannabis normalization and legalization, even if at first, and for probably the next four to five years, as a medical product.

November 19, 2018

EVIO Labs Florida Expands Operations

By Aaron G. Biros

1 Comment

More than a year ago, we sat down with Chris Martinez, co-founder and chief operating officer of EVIO Labs Florida, when he just started getting the laboratory off the ground. In February of 2018, they became Florida’s first ISO accredited cannabis testing lab.

Fast-forward almost a year and EVIO Labs Florida is continuing their expansion in the state, now with locations in Broward County and Gainesville. “We are always looking at opportunities to better serve our clients and the patients of Florida,” says Martinez. “Opening Gainesville within a year of Davie was a goal we set for our team. We knew there was a need and opening Gainesville helped support the continued growth of FL medical marijuana program.” He says that between the two locations, they can now process upwards of 1,400 samples a day.

According to Martinez, much of that expanded throughput is thanks to their partnership with Shimadzu. “Our relationship with Shimadzu is very unique,” says Martinez. “Shimadzu instrumentation allows us to test in parts per billion for accuracy and sensitivity levels that empower us to see deep into the chemical makeup of these medicines. Operating in this space where speed and turnaround times are key, these instruments provide us with a platform to meet 24/48-hour deadlines.” They can now screen for contaminants such as pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, mycotoxins, aflatoxins and pathogens using instruments such as HPLC, GC-MS/MS, LC-MS/MS and ICP-MS, all provided by Shimadzu.

While Florida doesn’t currently have a final rule on testing thresholds, there are proposed regulations that would require independent lab testing for medical cannabis products. “Our clients are self-regulating at this time and in favor of the current proposed regulation,” says Martinez. “The proposed regulations will give Florida the most comprehensive and stringent testing regulation in the U.S. and arguably the world.”

For Martinez and the rest of the EVIO Labs Florida team, this is about protecting public health. “Our lab’s main focus is always first and foremost patient safety,” says Martinez. “As the market continues to grow, we continue to innovate through business intelligence software and other technologies to streamline the testing process for our customer’s.”

November 18, 2018

New Taxes for California Cannabis Industry

By Jasmine Davaloo

No Comments

Welcome to the evolving world of cannabis legislation and taxation in California. With the recent 2018 midterm election, a green wave of new laws and regulations has washed ashore, and Taxnexus, a cannabis tax compliance service provider for cannabis businesses, has analyzed the results, looking for insights to guide cannabis business owners in 2019.

In summary, the trend of local counties and cities imposing new cannabis taxes on dispensaries, distributors and cultivators continues, but with some important lessons being learned.

A Brief History of California Cannabis Tax Regulations.

The legalization of cannabis in California brought with it cannabis excise tax and cultivation taxes with the hope of bringing in significant amounts of income in cannabis taxes. The state had projected $185M in cannabis tax revenue for the first six months of 2018. Although California has since collected tens of millions of dollars fewer than anticipated, it did bring in over $135M in the first and second quarters from a brand new industry.

Local governments are able to collect these taxes directly from cannabis businesses. With the green light from the state and the need for a new source of revenue, many local governments followed suit and passed laws to impose taxes on cannabis businesses operating in their jurisdictions. The need for additional revenue is even greater for localities that allow cannabis business operations given that the state takes virtually all of the state-imposed cannabis taxes while the local government entities are burdened by the related costs of regulations and enforcement at the local level.

Cannabis business taxes have an extra allure for local jurisdictions. Unlike local sales and use taxes, the state does not require local cannabis business taxes to go through the state before a portion of it gets funneled back to the localities. Local governments are able to collect these taxes directly from cannabis businesses.

Since January 1, 2018, many local jurisdictions have come onboard and placed ballot measures for their voters to decide whether to tax cannabis businesses. According to research conducted by Taxnexus, by the end of the second quarter this year, there were over 500 different local cannabis tax rates in California.The new cannabis tax measures are also continuing the trend of widely ranging local cannabis tax laws.

Midterm Results Continue Overwhelming Support for Cannabis Industry

With over 50 cannabis tax measures placed on the November 6 local ballots, most of which passed with overwhelming support from voters, the number and variation of local cannabis business taxes continue to grow. This demonstrates the continuing trend of local governments welcoming cannabis businesses, the evolving voter attitude toward recreational cannabis, and perhaps most importantly, the localities’ desire to take their cut of the new industry’s tax revenue.

The new cannabis tax measures are also continuing the trend of widely ranging local cannabis tax laws. Given that the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act granted local jurisdictions control over deciding their own cannabis business regulations, there is no statewide uniformity. Here are a few examples of the cannabis business tax measures that were on local ballots on November 6:

San Francisco

While some local jurisdictions were quick to impose cannabis taxes, others have delayed in taxing their local cannabis businesses. San Francisco’s Proposition D, which received a 66% voter approval, won’t go into effect until January 1, 2021. It imposes taxes on cannabis businesses that do business in the city, whether or not they are physically located there. The new cannabis business taxes are as follows:

For cannabis retail businesses, 2.5% of gross receipts up to $1M and 5% of gross receipts over $1M.
For cannabis non-retail businesses, 1% tax of gross receipts up to $1M and 1.5% of gross receipts over $1M.

These taxes do not apply to the first $500,000 of recreational cannabis gross receipts nor revenues from medical cannabis retail sales. The measure allows the Board of Supervisors to adjust the tax rates up to 7%. The cannabis businesses taxes are expected to generate $5M to $12M in cannabis tax revenue, and will go into the City’s general fund.The new tax measures underscore the lack of uniformity in local cannabis business taxes throughout the state.

Emeryville

Emeryville passed a new cannabis business tax measure to increase its current nominal rate. Measure S imposes a cannabis business tax of up to 6% of gross receipts. This is estimated to generate $2M in tax revenue to be used for unrestricted governmental purposes.

Oakland

Oakland is among the few local jurisdictions that placed a measure on its November 6 ballot to lower its existing cannabis business tax rates. Previously, Oakland imposed a 5% tax on medical cannabis and a 10% tax on recreational cannabis, for all cannabis activities throughout the supply chain. These are among some of the highest cannabis tax rates in the state and are squeezing out small operators. Although Oakland has long been seen as the leader in California’s cannabis industry, the high taxes are making it difficult for its cannabis businesses to compete with nearby cities that charge lower taxes. While the city acknowledged the hardship its high taxes imposed, it maintained that it could not lower the rates on its own and required the voter approval. On November 6th, Oakland voters passed Measure V by 78%, which gives the City Council the authority to lower the city’s cannabis tax rates through an ordinance. To give additional relief to the cannabis businesses in the city, this measure also allows them to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts- something they cannot do on their federal tax returns. Furthermore, local cannabis business taxes can now be paid on a quarterly basis instead of one annual payment at the beginning of each year, which was severely burdensome for most businesses.

Lake County

Voters in Lake County approved Measure K by a majority vote to tax cannabis businesses in the unincorporated county effecting January 1, 2021. The county was previously only taxing cultivators at $1 to $3 per square footage depending on the method of cultivation. These rates will be reduced to $1 per square footage for cultivators and nurseries, and other cannabis businesses will be taxes between 2.5% and 4% of their gross receipts.

Mountain View

While there is a maximum of four cannabis businesses permitted to operate in Mountain View, over 80% of voters approved Measure Q to tax them. The measure imposes up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes, with an estimated annual revenue of $1M.Some have even set the effective dates of their cannabis tax laws several years out to allow their local cannabis businesses an opportunity to establish roots and drive out the black market.

Lompoc

Some jurisdictions have passed more creative cannabis business tax regimens than one rate applicable to the entire supply chain. Voters in Lompoc in Santa Barbara County approved Measure D2018 to authorize the city to impose following cannabis business taxes:

Up to $0.06 per $1 (6%) of recreational retail sales proceeds;
Up to $0.01 per $1 (1%) of cultivation and nursery proceeds;
An annual flat fee tax of $15,000 if net income is less than $2M of manufacturing and distribution proceeds;
An annual flat fee tax of $30,000 if net income is $2 Million or more of manufacturing and distribution proceeds;
A total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 (6%) of microbusinesses proceeds, not including medical cannabis transaction proceeds; and
No tax on testing.

Riverbank

There are signs that other localities that waited to jump onboard have learned from these high-taxing jurisdictions and opted for lower rates. There are even those localities that although they do not statutorily permit cannabis businesses to operate in their jurisdictions, they still want a piece of the action when it comes to cannabis taxes. The city of Riverbank in Stanislaus County currently does not allow cannabis businesses to operate without first obtaining a permit from City Hall and entering into a development agreement with the city that negotiates how much of their revenue the city would take. However, the voters just passed Measure B, which authorizes Riverbank’s City Council to impose a business license tax of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses in the event the city allows cannabis businesses to operate within its city limits in the future. This tax has incentives other than the apparent potential of tax revenue. This guarantees the city a cut of the earnings of any illegal cannabis businesses, and serves as a protection in the event the permit and development agreement scheme the city has enacted is later found to be invalid.

The Chaos Continues

The new tax measures underscore the lack of uniformity in local cannabis business taxes throughout the state. Compliance is especially burdensome for delivery companies and multi-location and multi-license cannabis businesses. Cannabis businesses are required to keep up with new and evolving cannabis tax regimens, which, judging by the shortfall in cannabis tax revenues compared to their projections so far, is a difficult feat for these highly-regulated businesses.Of course, there are still some local governments that appear to have missed all the signs and have passed new high taxes.

The overall trend in 2018, persisting through the midterm elections, is that more local jurisdictions are joining the cannabis tax bandwagon, and while the tax rates and structures are still all over the map, there appears to be some movement toward honing the cannabis business rates toward that “sweet spot.”

Cities like Oakland and Berkeley that immediately began to tax cannabis businesses at high rates have lowered or taken steps to lower their tax rates to keep their competitive edge and retain cannabis businesses within their jurisdictions. There are signs that other localities that waited to jump onboard have learned from these high-taxing jurisdictions and opted for lower rates. Some have even set the effective dates of their cannabis tax laws several years out to allow their local cannabis businesses an opportunity to establish roots and drive out the black market.

Of course, there are still some local governments that appear to have missed all the signs and have passed new high taxes. In due time, they, too, will give in to the market pressures and make necessary adjustments if they want to continue to benefit from the legal cannabis industry in their jurisdictions.

Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis tax calculation, sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

November 17, 2018

Washington State Regulators Crack Down On Diversion

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

For the second time in six months, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) took swift and severe action on a cannabis business licensee operating in the black market. The regulatory agency issued an emergency license suspension for Port Angeles’ North Coast Concentrates, which are effective for 180 days, during which time regulators plan on revoking the license altogether.

According to a release emailed last week, the violation was uncovered during a routine traffic stop. “On September 20, 2018 an employee of North Coast Concentrates was pulled over by Lower Elwha Police, during the course of the traffic stop officers found 112 grams of traceable marijuana concentrates, three large jars and a large tote bin of untraced dried marijuana flower,” reads the release. “The products were not manifested in the state traceability system. Subsequent investigation by WSLCB officers revealed that the untraced product had been removed from the licensees grow operation and that the traced concentrates were returned from a marijuana retailer in Tacoma several weeks earlier.”

The release goes on to add that when regulators investigated the matter, they found text messages indicating the license holder’s complicity in the act. When the WSLCB suspended the license, officers seized “556 pounds of marijuana flower product, 24 pounds of marijuana oil and 204 plants from both locations.” Regulators say, “the severity of these violations and the risk of diversion” is the reason for the emergency suspension and product seizures.

According to the end of the release, The WSLCB issued one emergency suspension in 2017, and six in 2018. One of those was roughly six months ago in July when regulators issued an emergency suspension for a Tacoma-based cannabis business for the same reason as the most recent one- diversion.

The enforcement branch of the WSLCB acted on a complaint and inspected Refined Cannabinoids where they found “numerous and substantial violations including full rooms of untagged plants, clones and finished product,” reads a release emailed back in July. “During the course of the inspection officers discovered and seized 2,569 marijuana plants, 1,216 marijuana plant clones, 375.8 lbs. of frozen marijuana flower stored in 11 freezer chests, 3,423 0.5 gram marijuana cigarettes, and 97.5 lbs. of bulk marijuana flower without the requisite traceability identifiers.”

That July release also states that enforcement officers found evidence of diversion to the black market, in addition to the company not tracking their product. “Traceability is a core component of Washington’s system and essential for licensee compliance,” says Justin Nordhorn, WSLCB chief of enforcement. “If our licensees fail to track their product they put their license in jeopardy.”

November 8, 2018

Aurora Cannabis Burnishes Its Medical and Recreational Game

By Marguerite Arnold

1 Comment

It has been a busy couple of weeks for Aurora executives, no matter what else is going on. And all signs indicate that Aurora is not only keeping its pressure on major competitors Tilray and Canopy in particular, but playing a highly sophisticated political and global game right now.

Where the company in other words is not “winning,” Aurora is clearly establishing an effective global footprint that is ensuring that it is at least keeping pace with the speed of market development and even breaking new ground more than once recently.

The Aurora Tour Of The Global Stage In Late October

Forget what is going on in Canada for a moment, if that is possible. Global investors, certainly, in the aftermath of the post legalization glow, certainly seem to be. So are the big LPs like Aurora. They are looking elsewhere, to medical markets and to Europe, for more clarity on where the market will go.

Aurora certainly has been, even if unwittingly, caught in the middle of that conversation, in part because of where and how the company has been positioning itself lately.

Last time around, the company announced it was in the top ten finalists. This time, it is also expected to do well.That said, what Aurora is doing, like everyone else in this space right now, is playing a global game of hopscotch in terms of both raising equity and then where that capital gets spent. Aurora’s recent victories, certainly this year, indicate that it will continue to be a formidable presence in the room.

For now, however, it is clear that retail investors are suddenly cautious and institutional investors are clearly still very leery. So where does that leave Aurora?

Road Trip To Germany

CEO Cam Battley at a conference in Frankfurt

Consider these interesting series of events. Canadian recreational reform “goes live” on October 17. Instead of sticking around Canada, however, CEO Cam Battley spoke at a recent investor road show for the Canadian public cannabis companies over the weekend of October 21-22 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three well placed, but anonymous industry sources confirmed to Cannabis Industry Journal that a meeting between all the major cannabis companies in Frankfurt over the weekend (including not only Aurora, but Wayland Corporation, Canopy, Aphria, Green Organic Dutchman and Hexo) was either planned or attempted with federal Minister of Health, Jens Spahn sometime during this period of time.

Even more interestingly, this conference had clearly been planned to coincide with the original due date of the new German cultivation bid, in which Aurora is also well positioned. Last time around, the company announced it was in the top ten finalists. This time, it is also expected to do well.

Whenever the bid finally is decided, that is.

As of October 23, the day of the IPO in New York and the day after the conference in Frankfurt concluded, news circulated that the bid had been delayed a second time, with rumours of further lawsuits swirling.

IPO In New York

That day, Tuesday October 23, Aurora announced its IPO on the NYSE, not in Frankfurt after announcing this possibility the month before. This is significant, namely because all of the cannabis companies listed here are essentially in what is known, colloquially, auf Deutsch, as being “in the dog house.” Namely, financial regulators are looking closely at listed companies’ profiles on the exchange. If a listed company is too associated with the recreational industry, trades will be barred from clearing by Clearstream, the daughter company of the Deutsche Börse and located in Luxembourg. Earlier in the summer, all of the major LPs were briefly on the restricted list.

The next day after Canadian recreational reform became reality in fact, on October 18, the Deutsche Börse made the latest in a series of comments regarding its intentions about their future decisions on the clearing of cannabis stocks. Namely, that at their discretion, they can prevent the clearing of stock purchases of a cannabis company at any time. In other words, essentially delisting the stock.

Aurora, with its ties to mainstream, “adult use” in North America, is absolutely affected by the same, certainly in the short term. Including of course, all those rumours about Coke’s interest in the company (still unconfirmed by both Aurora and Coke).

Looking Toward Poland

Yet here is where Aurora stays interesting. Just two days after its debut on the NYSE, the company announced that Aurora would be the first external company to be allowed to import medical cannabis to Poland (to a Warsaw hospital and pain clinic). The same day, incidentally, as the Polish government announced that medical cannabis could indeed begin to be imported.

This came after a stunning move earlier in the year when the company bagged the first medical cultivation license in Italy.

Clearly, Aurora is keeping good, if not powerful, company. And that will position it well in the long run. Even if, for now, its IPO on the NYSE got off to a less than powerful start.

Why Does Aurora Stand Out?

Like all the major cannabis companies on the global stage right now, Aurora understands what it takes to get into the room (wherever and whatever that room might be) in politically and regulatorily astute ways, much like Tilray. Both companies are also very similar in how they are continuing to execute market entry and public market strategy. Tilray, it should be remembered, went public over the summer, in North America too, right around the announcement of the final recreational date in Canada.

And while Aurora is clearly playing a still retail-oriented stock market strategy, it has proved over the last 18 months that it is shaping up to be a savvy, political player on the cusp of legislative change in multiple European states so far. They are courting the much bigger game now of institutional investment globally.