One goal all growers seem to agree on is the need to increase density in their houses. How that gets done, well, there are a variety of ways and here’s one way a grower chose to do it:
With 45,000 square feet of greenhouse space, Nathan Fumia, a cannabis grower and consultant for a commercial operation in California, wasn’t pleased with what he was seeing. “If I put my hand inside the canopy and I can see sunlight on it, I’m losing money,” was how he described the situation. Unfortunately, the operators and staff of the greenhouse disagreed. They thought increasing density would rob the leaves of needed light.
He chose to test his theory by increasing the number of plants on one of his benches from 140 to 150 plants. To ensure the validity of the research, Nathan grew the same strain on Bench 1 as Bench 2, and to make sure all the metrics were equal, he even processed the crops separately. After weighing, Bench 2 (his research bench) showed an 8% higher yield than Bench 1.
“The post-harvest data from the weight, yield confirmed my decision to maximize density by increasing the total number of plants per bench,” says Fumia. “Whenever I saw red on the canopy heat map from LUNA, I knew there was room for improvement and I knew that I wasn’t making the money that I should have from those areas.”
His next challenge was where to place the extra ten plants? Did it make a difference or could he just shove 150 plants in a space that was originally planned for 140? Again, his greenhouse system was able to pinpoint the best sub-sections on the benches and Nathan was able to see exactly which plants were growing the fastest. That also gave him the ability to understand why certain quadrants of the bench were doing better than others.
“We were able to determine which quadrant on which bench was already at 100% density, and determine which quadrant wasn’t. Without that data, it would have been pure guesswork.”
He dialed down even further to find out which cultivars grew the best on a particular bench in the greenhouse. “Some cannabis cultivars need more light, some need less, some need warmer climates, and some need cooler climates,” Fumia noted. “Additionally, in order to increase the density of flowering points/buds, we began focusing on better pruning techniques in the vegetative phase, directly increasing branches for flowering.”
With optimization even more important now than it was 12-18 months ago, Nathan summed up the impact on his bottom line. “With a crop cycle averaging just over six a year, at that time we were averaging $600-$800 a pound depending on the strain. Some were even more. Ten extra plants per bench per cycle was a nice bounce for us.”
Obviously, this isn’t the only way to increase density. What’s your suggestion? Share your ideas with the rest of us by posting your comments below.
Ladyjane Branding and Wolfe Research & Consulting are leading an ambitious study to explore and document the experiences of women working in the cannabis market. Women in Cannabis: A Living History officially kicks off on December 10th at the National Women of Cannabis Conference.
Jennifer Whetzel, founder of Ladyjane Branding, says this is an opportunity for women to tell their stories about their experience working in the cannabis industry. Women can participate in the study by going to womenincannabis.study and sign up to take the survey. You can also sign up to be a sponsor or partner of the study at that website. Sponsors will get access to content like press releases and the opportunity to incorporate the study’s findings in their messaging. We invite our readers to participate, sponsor, partner, share and encourage friends to take the survey.
With beta testing starting the week of November 18th, we caught up with Jennifer Whetzel to talk about why she decided to start this project, what they expect to learn from it and what the future may hold for professional women in the cannabis industry.
Cannabis Industry Journal: Can you tell us a bit about your background and how you came into the cannabis industry?
Jennifer Whetzel: My entrance into the cannabis industry was certainly a culmination of my personal experience and professional journey.
After moving to Maine, I became a medical user to ease symptoms of an immune and an auto-immune disorder. When I sought out treatment for PTSD, I found that a combination of cannabis, therapy, meditation and brain retraining was the most helpful and healthy solution.
This course of treatment for PTSD was life-changing as it allowed me to resolve symptoms from all of my medical issues, and I wanted to find a way to give back to the community that supported me. I had been working in marketing for over 25 years and realized I had quite the diverse professional background. My experience included retail merchandising and operations, public relations on a military base, research design and strategy for ad agencies, new product development and launch for animal health companies, and experiential marketing strategy and design. I’ve been lucky enough to work with small companies and Fortune 500’s which has led to finding solutions in unexpected places.
When pairing my knowledge and skills with the cannabis community, I realized I could make an impact by advising new entrepreneurs who needed help making their brands stand out. That’s how Ladyjane Branding was born.
CIJ: Can you give us an overview of the Women in Cannabis Study?
Jennifer: The Women in Cannabis study aims to understand how women are faring in the cannabis industry and whether we are doing enough to support women, their careers and their professional goals. It’s well documented that women in corporate America do not have the same opportunities for career advancement as men, holding fewer executive or board positions, having fewer opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship and career progression.
The study is comprehensive, with more than 80 quantitative questions along with qualitative telephone and video interviews of female-identifying professionals working in the cannabis industry – whether they are involved with cannabis, CBD or hemp. Through monthly infographics, video summaries, quarterly in-depth themed reports and a comprehensive year-end report, we will be telling the stories of women’s professional experiences in cannabis with the goal of transforming the industry into one where women can succeed and thrive.
Painting a picture of the women in cannabis, and understanding them as a group, we look at demographics to explore their diversity and reveal whether personality differences may affect their experiences, as well as experience with stigmas regarding cannabis use and working in the industry.
To understand professional trajectories and roadblocks on a path to success, we dive into work history, reasons for entering the cannabis space and the barriers they have faced on their journey. We explore opportunities for mentorship, support and leadership, the types of harassment, discrimination and disrespect they’ve experienced and how that may have impeded their careers.
We’d like to understand how (or whether) women find balance in their personal and professional lives, what sacrifices they’ve had to make for a career in cannabis, as well as best practices for women to foster success.
CIJ: Why did you decide to take on this endeavor and lead the work on this study?
Jennifer: While there are numerous studies looking at how women fare in corporate America, we found that there’s a lack of a recent and comprehensive deep dive into this topic specifically for cannabis. As an emerging industry, we have a unique opportunity to make valuable recommendations to potentially increase inclusivity for women in this early stage of industry culture before it becomes too entrenched. Our goal is to ensure we have the hard numbers to document a baseline now, then follow-up over time to understand how the industry changes.
By surveying and speaking to women in the industry, and understanding where strengths and weaknesses in the industry lie, we can make recommendations to improve the lived experience for women working in this industry.
The only way to make improvements to a system is to understand it.
CIJ: How do you think we can create a more inclusive industry?
Jennifer: I think it begins with an understanding of where we are starting – we don’t know what we don’t know. Being in the cannabis industry, we often hear the argument that anecdotes are not data. Just like we need the scientific data to prove efficacy for medicine, we need the data that shows the hard numbers about diversity and inclusion, the stigma and shame of cannabis use or working in this industry, about sexual harassment, disrespect and bullying.
This study is about generating information and creating knowledge on this issue so we can determine the education, policies, procedures and actionable recommendations that can help make the industry a welcoming space for everyone.
One of the best ways to create a more inclusive industry is through education.
CIJ: What hurdles do women face in the cannabis industry? How is that different from other, more established industries?
Jennifer: As we review research results from more established industries, it seems clear that women face similar hurdles in cannabis. Various studies have shown that working women are faced with unequal pay, fewer opportunities for mentorship or sponsorship, as well as discrimination and disrespect. The issues for female entrepreneurs are even greater as women are significantly less likely to receive venture capital funding, which certainly speaks to experience in the cannabis industry.
Because there’s little data specifically focused on the cannabis industry, we are just guessing. This study will provide us those answers.
CIJ: Looking ahead, how do you think women will fare in the evolution of the cannabis market?
Jennifer: I’d like to think that if we are all purposeful and intentional about creating an equitable, inclusive, and representational industry, that women will fare significantly better than they have in other industries typically dominated by men. If that can happen, everyone will feel welcome and respected, and it will no longer be surprising news when a woman is promoted to CEO or becomes a successful founder.
Across the country and across the world, governments that legalize cannabis implement increasingly rigorous requirements for laboratory testing. Helping to protect patients and consumers from contaminants, these requirements involve a slew of lab tests, including quantifying the levels of microbial contaminants, pathogens, mold and heavy metals.
Cannabis and hemp have a unique ability to accumulate elements found in soil, which is why these plants can be used as effective tools for bioremediation. Because cannabis plants have the ability to absorb potentially toxic and dangerous elements found in the soil they grow in, lab testing regulations often include the requirement for heavy metals testing, such as Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Arsenic and others.
In addition to legal cannabis markets across the country, the USDA announced the establishment of the U.S. Domestic Hemp Production Program, following the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, essentially legalizing hemp. This announcement comes with information for hemp testing labs, including testing and sampling guidelines. While the information available on the USDA’s website only touches on testing for THC, required to be no greater than 0.3% dry weight concentration, more testing guidelines in the future are sure to include a discussion of heavy metals testing.
In an application note produced by Agilent Technologies, Inc., the Agilent 7800 ICP-MS was used to analyze 25 elements in a variety of cannabis and hemp-derived products. The study was conducted using that Agilent 7800 ICP-MS, which includes Agilent’s proprietary High Matrix Introduction (HMI) system. The analysis was automated by using the Agilent SPS 4 autosampler.
The instrument operating conditions can be found in Table 1. In this study, the HMI dilution factor was 4x and the analytes were all acquired in the Helium collision mode. Using this methodology, the Helium collision mode consistently reduces or completely eliminates all common polyatomic interferences using kinetic energy discrimination (KED).
As a comparison, Arsenic and Selenium were also acquired via the MassHunter Software using half-mass correction, which corrects for overlaps due to doubly charged rare earth elements. This software also collects semiquantitative or screening data across the entire mass region, called Quick Scan, showing data for elements that may not be present in the original calibration standards.
SRMs and Samples
Standard reference materials (SRMs) analyzed from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) were used to verify the sample prep digestion process. Those included NIST 1547 Peach Leaves, NIST 1573a Tomato Leaves and NIST 1575 Pine Needles. NIST 1640a Natural Water was also used to verify the calibration.
Samples used in the study include cannabis flower, cannabis tablets, a cannabidiol (CBD) tincture, chewable candies and hemp-derived cream.
Calibration standards were prepared using a mix of 1% HNO3 and 0.5% HCl. Sodium, Magnesium, Potassium, Calcium and Iron were calibrated from 0.5 to 10 ppm. Mercury was calibrated from 0.05 to 2 ppb. All the other elements were calibrated from 0.5 to 100 ppb.
After weighing the samples (roughly 0.15 g of cannabis plant and between 0.3 to 0.5 g of cannabis product) into quartz vessels, 4 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HCl were added and the samples were microwave digested using the program found in Table 2.
HCI was included to ensure the stability of Mercury and Silver in solution. They diluted the digested samples in the same acid mix as the standards. SRMs were prepared using the same method to verify sample digestion and to confirm the recovery of analytes.
Four samples were prepared in triplicate and fortified with the Agilent Environmental Mix Spike solution prior to the analysis. All samples, spikes and SRMs were diluted 5x before testing to reduce the acid concentration.
The calibration curves for Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and Mercury can be found in Figure 1 and a summary of the calibration data is in Table 3. For quality control, the SRM NIST 1645a Natural Water was used for the initial calibration verification standard. Recoveries found in Table 4 are for all the certified elements present in SRM NIST 1640a. The mean recoveries and concentration range can also be found in Table 4. All the continuing calibration solution recoveries were within 10% of the expected value.
Internal Standard Stability
Figure 2 highlights the ISTD signal stability for the sequence of 58 samples analyzed over roughly four hours. The recoveries for all samples were well within 20 % of the value in the initial calibration standard.
In Table 5, you’ll find that three SRMs were tested to verify the digestion process. The mean results for most elements agreed with the certified concentrations, however the results for Arsenic in NIST 1547 and Selenium in both NIST 1547 and 1573a did not show good agreement due to interreferences formed from the presence of doubly-charged ions
Some plant materials can contain high levels of rare earth elements, which have low second ionization potentials, so they tend to form doubly-charged ions. As the quadrupole Mass Spec separates ions based on their mass-to-charge ratio, the doubly-charged ions appear at half of their true mass. Because of that, a handful of those doubly-charged ions caused overlaps leading to bias in the results for Arsenic and Selenium in samples that have high levels of rare earth elements. Using half mass correction, the ICP-MS corrects for these interferences, which can be automatically set up in the MassHunter software. The shaded cells in Table 5 highlight the half mass corrected results for Arsenic and Selenium, demonstrating recoveries in agreement with the certified concentrations.
In Table 6, you’ll find the quantitative results for cannabis tablets and the CBD tincture. Although the concentrations of Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and Cobalt are well below current regulations’ maximum levels, they do show up relatively high in the cannabis tablets sample. Both Lead and Cadmium also had notably higher levels in the CBD tincture as well.
A spike recovery test was utilized to check the accuracy of the method for sample analysis. The spike results are in Table 6.
Using the 7800 ICP-MS instrument and the High Matrix Introduction system, labs can routinely analyze samples that contain high and very variable matrix levels. Using the automated HMI system, labs can reduce the need to manually handle samples, which can reduce the potential for contamination during sample prep. The MassHunter Quick Scan function shows a complete analysis of the heavy metals in the sample, including data reported for elements not included in the calibration standards.
The half mass correction for Arsenic and Selenium allows a lab to accurately determine the correct concentrations. The study showed the validity of the microwave sample prep method with good recovery results for the SRMs. Using the Agilent 7800 ICP-MS in a cannabis or hemp testing lab can be an effective and efficient way to test cannabis products for heavy metals. This test can be used in various stages of the supply chain as a tool for quality controls in the cannabis and hemp markets.
Disclaimer: Agilent products and solutions are intended to be used for cannabis quality control and safety testing in laboratories where such use is permitted under state/country law.
There is certainly, in retrospect, much to be proud about in Canada – home of one of the most disruptive international cannabis industries in the world. And certainly an early mover.
That starts with having the national mojo to begin this journey in the first place, not to mention pivot and even admit faults along the way. For all the complaints and whinges, however on the ground, most Canadians are proud that they tackled the canna question at a federal level.
As the industry now does a bit of an annual review and revisit, what are some of the largest accomplishments, takeaways (and let’s be honest, major f*ckups) so far? And where is this all headed as the industry at least tries to gear up for another year, if not quite Cannabis 2.0?
The Big Bravos
Launching in the first place. Yes Full Monty Recreational was scary, and delayed a few months last year. And even though there have been many problems (retail outlets, online sales, privacy, supply chain issues in every direction, ex im, foreign markets and etc.), it is up and running.
In comparison, the Brits have been haranguing over Brexit for the last three years and are still not really there.
Further, it is also apparent that the agencies in charge of the new industry are themselves giving a bit of a shake after CannaTitanic (CannTrust). That was embarrassing for them too, although of course, while a bit of a negative compliment, the recall system seems to work.
Even if it needs a few jump starts via whistleblowing.
That in and of itself is a fact that is still in the room, although perhaps the pancaking of the stock price of most of the public industry of late was also another much needed wakeup call.
The Devil In The Details
Domestic Requirements. Health Canada is getting hip to the fact that the industry needs a bit more of a heavy hand. See the book thrown at CannTrust. No matter what, Canadians are demanding to know where their cannabis comes from, and further are also demanding that it be at least free of pesticides that can harm them.
Licensing. Many cannapreneuers are complaining, still, about the delays in licensing, particularly for retail outlets in the provinces who are taking the cannabull by the horns. That said, there are still lots of enterprises who are perfectly happy to dodge the requirements all together and sell to the black or gray market. No licensing fees, and no taxes is a wonderful dream, but that is not exactly how regulated democratic capitalism works – at least at this level.
Supply Chain Logistics and Related Technologies. Canadians are struggling to implement a regulated industry in a country where patient home grow is constitutionally protected, and in an environment where who can sell what, and to whom including online, is still evolving. Predictably, no matter how groovy the solution works at home, (or the U.S.), no it will not fly in Europe. See GDPR regs, for starters.
Seed Culture (Aka Strain Protection). No matter how much the lawyers in the colonies are gearing up to sue each other over Huey’s Half Baked, in Europe, there are tomato and pepper farmers who are laughing, literally, all the way to the bank on this one. While hip to be a “strain defender,” the reality in a medical market looking for cheap cannabinoids is rather different. Effective, clean product, which can be reproduced reliably and cheaply, is the name of the game. Girl Scout Cookies, and such ilks will be a long time in coming as anything but highly expensive, niche products you can find in a Dutch Coffee Shop.
Domestic Requirements Vs International Export. Canadian standards, so far, have been widely divergent in an environment where exports to Europe in particular are part of the story for the biggest companies. That said, GMP, and in particular EU GMP, has become at least a buzzword if not a standard to live up to.
Privacy. California might be considering its own form of GDPR (European privacy legislation) but so far, the industry has largely failed to protect consumers (from themselves). Ideas about owning huge data troves on cannabis users for someone else’s profit are still very much in the room. After all, data is the new oil, whether people know their data is being harvested or not. And just like big oil has done for most of its existence, those in the driver’s seat so far show little compunction about harvesting personal information, to become in the words of the now departed CEO of Canopy Growth Bruce Linton, “the Google of Cannabis.” Won’t happen. Starting with the fact that in not just Europe but now even California, people, far beyond pot users are tired of a world where privacy is a second class right.
While the issue first hit in Canada on the recreational side, the reality is that companies know who their clients and patients are in a way that is not only disturbing but increasingly being challenged.
Cannabis growers and distributors are “green” when it comes to cyber security. Unaware of the real risks, cannabis businesses consistently fall short of instituting some of the most basic cybersecurity protections, leaving them increasingly vulnerable to a cyber-attack.
Cannabis businesses are especially attractive to hackers because of the vast amount of personally identifiable and protected health information they’re required to collect as well as the crop trade secrets they store. With businesses growing by leaps and bounds, and more and more Americans and Canadians purchasing cannabis, cybercriminals are likely to increase their attacks on the North American market in the coming year. Arm your cannabis business with the following best practices for growers and distributors.
Distributor Risk = A Customer’s PII
Cyber risk is the greatest for cannabis distributors, required to collect personal identifiable information (PII), including driver’s licenses, credit cards, medical history and insurance information from patients. State regulatory oversight further compounds the distributor’s risk of cyber-attack. If you’re a cannabis distributor, you’ll want to make sure to:
Know where you retain buyer information, and understand how it can potentially be breached. Are you scanning driver’s licenses into a database, or retaining paper files? Are you keeping them in a secure area off site, or on a protected network? Make sure a member of your management team is maintaining compliance with HIPAA and state statutes and requirements for cannabis distribution.
Institute strong employee oversight rules. Every employee does not have to have access to every sale, or your entire database of proprietary customer information. Delegate jobs behind the sales desk. Give each employee the access they need to do their job – and that’s it.
Distributors have to protect grower’s R&D information too. Most cannabis distributors have access to their grower’s proprietary R&D information so they can help customers understand which products are best for different medical symptoms/needs. Make sure your employees don’t reveal too much to put your suppliers in potential risk of cyberattack.
Grower Risk = Crop Trade Secrets
For cannabis growers, the risk is specific to crop trade secrets, research and development (R&D). If you’re a cannabis grower, you’ll want to:
Secure your R&D process. If you’ve created a cannabis formula that reduces anxiety or pain or boosts energy, these “recipes” are your competitive advantage – your intellectual property. Consider the way you store information behind the R&D of your cannabis crops. Do you store it on electronic file, or a computer desktop? What type of credentials do people need to access it? Other industries will use a third party cloud service to store their R&D information, but with cannabis businesses that’s typically not the case. Instead, many growers maintain their own servers because they feel this risk is so great, and because their business is growing so fast, there are not yet on the cloud.
Limit the number of people with access to your “secret sauce.” When workers are harvesting crop, or you’re renting land from farmers and planting on it, make sure to keep proprietary information in the hands of just the few who need it – and no one else. This is especially important when sharing details with third party vendors.
Cyber coverage is now ripe for picking
Although cannabis businesses are hard to insure – for just about every type of risk – cyber insurance options for cannabis companies have recently expanded, and come down in price. If you’ve looked for cyber coverage in the past and were previously unable to secure it, now is the time to revisit the market.
Know that cyber policy underwriters will do additional due diligence, going beyond the typical policy application, and ask about the types of proprietary information you collect from customers, as well as how you store and access it at a later date. Have this knowledge at your fingertips, and be ready to talk to underwriters about it when you’re bidding for a new policy – and at renewal time.
I had dinner last night with a friend who is a senior executive at one of the largest automobile companies in the world. When I explained the industry-accepted rate of 25-30% shrinkage in horticulture he said, “Are you kidding me? Can you imagine the story in the Wall Street Journal if I gave a press conference and said that we were quite content to throw away three out of every ten cars we manufactured?”
Yet, for all growers, operators and investors who complain about shrinkage, it’s an accepted part of the business. What if it wasn’t; what if you could shrink your shrinkage by 60% and get it down to 10% or less? How much more profitable would your business be and how much easier would your life be?
Let’s take the floriculture industry as our first example. You propagate chrysanthemums in February, they get repotted at the end of April and by the end of June, you might start to see some buds. In a very short time span your job changes from being a grower who manages 10,000 square feet of chrysanthemums to being an order taker. Over a period of eight weeks, you have to unload as many of those mums as possible. The sales team at Macy’s has more time to move their holiday merchandise than you do.
If you’re like most operations, your inventory tracking system consists of Excel spreadsheets and notebooks that tell you what happened in previous years so you can accurately predict what will happen this year. The notebooks give you a pretty accurate idea of where in the greenhouses your six cultivars are, how many you planted and which of the five stages they are in. You already have 30 different sets of data to manage before you add on how many you sell of each cultivar and what stage they were in.
The future of the industry is making data-driven decisions that free up a grower to focus on solving problems, not looking for problems.Then your first order comes in and out the window goes any firm control of where the mums are, what stage they’re in and how many of each cultivar you have left. A couple of hours after your first order, a second comes in and by the time you get back in touch, check your inventory, call back the buyer and she’s able to connect with you, those 2837 stage 3 orange mums are moving into stage 4. Only she doesn’t want stage 4 mums she only wants stage 3 so now you frantically call around to see who wants stage 4 orange mums very soon to be stage 5 mums.
And, the answer is often no one. What if you didn’t have your inventory count exact and now you have 242 yellow mums that you just found in a different location in your greenhouse and had you known they were there, you could have sold them along with 2463 other mums that you just located in various parts of your greenhouse.
It doesn’t have to be like that. We had a client in a similar situation, and they are on track to reduce their shrinkage to just a shade over 10%. The future of the industry is making data-driven decisions that free up a grower to focus on solving problems, not looking for problems.
And don’t think that shrinkage is an issue only in the purview of floriculture. It’s an even bigger problem for cannabis because of the high value of each crop. The numbers don’t sound as bad because unlike floriculture, you don’t have to throw out cannabis that’s not Grade A. You can always sell it for extract. But extract prices are significantly less per pound than flower in the bag.
Here’s how one grower explained it. “Because of the high value of the crop, and the only other crop I’ve worked with that high is truffles, you’re playing a much higher stakes game with shrinkage. Even if you try and salvage a bad crop by using all of the parts of the cannabis plant. Listen, the difference between Grade A and Grade C could be $1,000 for A while a pound of B/C is less than $400. If you produce a standard 180 to 200 pounds in your grow rooms, you’ve really screwed up. No operator is going to keep you if you just cost them $120,000.”
There have been many significant developments this summer in Europe that will shape the debate about reform and the legal cannabis market that trails it, for at least the next year. Here is Cannabis Industry Journal’sroundup of our biggest events and trends over the summer so far.
Medical Sales Across Europe Are Slow
In Germany, it is easy to maintain a fairly ballpark understanding of patient count. Find the number of prescriptions issued in the trade press and divide by four. Everywhere else, however, the true realization of what is going on across Europe is slowly starting to hit everyone outside producers wanting to know what is going on.Establishing territorial footprint has been what the race in Europe has been all about since mid 2016 for the Canadian LPs so far.
This is going to start to hit stock prices soon beyond the wobbles already evident in the market thanks to this summer’s breaking industry scandals (CannTrust, lawsuits in every direction) to lack of financial performance for investors (Bruce Linton’s firing from Canopy). It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that just because a public Canadian company issues a press release about a (cultivation, import, export or processing) “event” does not mean anything other than a slew of social media telling everyone about it. The frustration with “forward looking” statements has hit European investors big time, from the retail to the institutional kind.
Despite a lot of press releases in other words, which clearly show market penetration, there is not much else going on from the sales perspective when it comes to growing those first numbers. Establishing territorial footprint has been what the race in Europe has been all about since mid 2016 for the Canadian LPs so far.
However, from an industry, if not investor and of course, patient perspective, patient numbers are what really count. And unlike Canada, where patients remain the biggest existential threat to the industry, the same industry may not sign them up or ship to them directly in Europe. For several reasons.
Germany is still the only country in Europe with a significant patient count, and while growing, slowly, is still a group where 2/3 of patients obtain dronabinol. It should shock nobody that the most accurate patient count right now in the UK is hovering somewhere under 20. For the whole country, 9 months after the law changed. While the peculiarities of Brexit are also in the room, this is so far, compared to U.S. state markets, Canada, Israel and Germany before it, pathetic.
The Industry Says It Supports Patients…But Does It?
There are several levels to this debate which start with the still appallingly high level of price gouging in the room. 2019 and certainly this summer is a time when the Canadian companies are clearly learning that European governments negotiate for drugs in bulk. Even (and especially in the near future) this one. See the difference between the EU and the US.
The level of industry promotion vs patient access recently reached a new nadir this summer when it emerged that despite a great deal of interest, more people showed up (by far) to the week-long cannabis industry conference (European Cannabis Week in London in June) than there are legitimate patients in the UK right now.
That is about to change, but so far, industry support for trials has not materialized. When the various trials now being planned do get going, look for new battles over a couple of issues, starting with patient access to and control of their medical data.
Novel Food: The Regulation That Keeps On Giving
The issues involved in this discussion are complex, certainly by North American standards. This of course starts with the fact that there is no such regulation on the continent. But also rapidly bleeds into puncturing the amount of hot air entrepreneurialism there is in the room.
The CBD market in Europe that everyone got so excited about in investor releases, in other words, is basically dead for the time being. Yes, there are a few smart niche players weaving around the regs, but it is a full-time job.
Here is the reality: Since Christmas last year when Austria put the kabosh on all products containing the cannabinoid CBD, several major countries have weighed in on the issue. It is not going away. And it is here to stay, even after recreational.
Political Advocacy Is Stirring In Europe
Whether it is the vagaries of Brexit, the discussion across the continent about how the EU will work together, right wing populist screeds about “too much regulation” or national elections, cannabis is in the room from now until the end of at least 2021 as one of the hottest global political issues under the sun. That includes of course, a discussion about global climate change, sourcing, pricing and resource use so far unaddressed but rapidly looming.
Further, patients are still having a voice – whether it is making sure that their children obtain imported CBD, or that they can obtain their own THC prescriptions without going bankrupt or having to solicit in the black market.
Cultivation Bids Looming?
One of the surest signs yet that the German authorities at any rate, are in no mood to solve the cultivation issues still on the ground and the bid itself, is that the government just renegotiated, for the second time since last fall, the amount of medical cannabis to come over the Dutch-German border. Who is going to go next? With the Italian hybrid now done and dusted, Poland is likely to be next. And when that happens, expect a raft of similar initiatives across Europe. But probably not until then.
And in the meantime? Distributors are looking for product. The demand is clearly there. But across Europe this summer there is a clear sense that the hype machine that has been the industry’s mouthpiece is at minimum overenthusiastic about the bottom-line details behind it all.
Is your cannabis business an attractive target for cyber criminals? With the influx of investment to this market and new businesses opening frequently throughout the United States, the legal cannabis industry is a prime target for cyber criminals.
Never share personal information (login and passwords, social security numbers, payment card information, etc.) over email.Cannabis industry hackers pick their targets by vulnerability, exploiting consumer or patient data to darknet black markets and forums. The impact can be devastating to both the business and their consumers. With new laws on protecting consumer and patient data on the horizon, businesses that do not adequately protect that data, could face stiff fines, in addition to losing the trust of their customers.
So, how do these attacks present themselves? Recent studies implicate employees as the “weakest link” in the cybersecurity chain due to a lack of cybersecurity best practices and training. Implementing safeguards and providing employee training is imperative to the cybersecurity health of your business.
Now, let’s identify the top 5 cybersecurity threats to the cannabis industry and some valuable tips for protecting against these criminal hacks:
Phishing: Phishing is a form of cyber-attack, typically disguised as an official email from a trustworthy entity, attempting to dupe the recipient into revealing confidential information or downloading malware. Don’t take the bait! 91 percent of cyber-attacks start as phishing scams, with most of these lures being cast through fraudulent emails.
Tips: Do not download attachments from unknown senders!
Never share personal information (login and passwords, social security numbers, payment card information, etc.) over email.
Password Management: Password complexity is key to protecting against cyber breaches. When it comes to data hacking, 81 percent of breaches are caused by stolen or weak passwords. With a password often being the only barrier between you and a data breach, creating a complex password will dramatically decrease those password-sniffers from obtaining your sensitive information.
Tips: Create passwords that are at least 12 characters in length – include letters, numbers and symbols (*$%^!), and never use a default password. This will fend off brute-force attacks.
Change passwords every six months to a year, keeping them complicated and protected. For IT Managers, make using a password manager mandatory for all employees. (Pro-tip: LastPass is free).Be cautious with network selection as hackers set up free Wi-Fi networks that appear to be associated with an institution.
Public Wi-Fi: Being able to connect in public spaces, while a modern marvel of convenience, leaves us wide open to cyber-attacks. Whether you are in an airport or café, always err on the side of caution.
Tips: Be cautious with network selection as hackers set up free Wi-Fi networks that appear to be associated with an institution.
Browse in a “private” or “incognito” window to avoid saving information. If you have a VPN, use it. If not, then do not handle any sensitive data.
With these platforms providing greater access to mobile apps, comes greater responsibility on the part of the end user.
Tips: Password protect devices that will be used for work (and, any device in general).
Only download applications from a trusted, authorized app store. Do not use untrusted play apps.
Mobile device protection is recommended for any device being used on a business network.
Whether it is an app from an unauthorized website or a lost/stolen device that was not password protected, cyber criminals do not need much to compromise critical data.Avoid logging into a SaaS application on a public computer or public Wi-Fi network.
SaaS Selectively: Keep Sensitive Data Safe: SaaS (Software As A Service) are cloud-based software solutions and chances are you are using one of these SaaS solutions for work purposes. IT is typically responsible for implementing security controls for SaaS applications, but ultimate responsibility falls on IT and the end user jointly. Here is what you can do to help keep these solutions safe:
Tips: Avoid logging into a SaaS application on a public computer or public Wi-Fi network.
Never share your SaaS login credentials with unauthorized persons over digital format or in person. Lastly, if you need to step away, always lock your screen during an active session.
While these tips will help keep your consumer/patient data from falling into the wrong hands, always have a plan B- backup plan! Your plan B must incorporate saving important data to a backup drive daily. Most likely, there is already a backup protocol in place for your mission-critical work data; however, for sanity’s sake, back up your BYOD devices as well.
I was wrong. And that’s a good thing! Based on all available data, I assumed that evaporating ethanol from a cannabis oil/ethanol solution would result in terpene loss. As it turns out, it doesn’t. There are so many beliefs and assumptions about cannabis: Cannabis cures cancer!1 Smoking cannabis causes cancer!2 Sativas help you sleep; Indicas make you creative!3,4 CBD is not psychoactive!5 But are these ‘facts’ backed by science? Have they been experimentally tested and validated?
I postulated a theory, designed experiments to validate it and evaluated the results. Simply putting “cannabis backed by science” on your label does not solve the problem. Science is not a marketing term. It’s not even a fixed term. The practice of science is multifaceted and sometimes confusing. It evolved from the traditional model of Inductivism, where observations are used in an iterative process to refine a law/theory that can generalize such observations.6 Closely related is Empiricism, which posits that knowledge can only come from observation. Rationalism, on the other hand, believes that certain truths can be directly grasped by one’s intellect.7 In the last century, the definition of science was changed from the method by which we study something, such as Inductivism or Rationalism, and refocused on the way we explain phenomena. It states that a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.8 All that means is that not the way we study something is what makes it scientific, but the way we explain it.
I wonder how can we use empirical observations and rational deliberations to solve the questions surrounding cannabis? And more importantly, how can we form scientific theories that are falsifiable? Cannabis, the plant, the drug, has long been withheld from society by its legal status. As a result, much of what we know, in fact, the entire industry has thrived in the shadows away from rigorous research. It’s time for this to change. I am particularly concerned by the lack of fundamental research in the field. I am not even talking about large questions, like the potential medical benefit of the plant and its constituents. Those are for later. I’m talking about fundamental, mundane questions like how many lumens per square centimetre does the plant need for optimal THC production? What are the kinetics of cannabis extraction in different solvents? What are the thermodynamics of decarboxylation? Where do major cannabinoids differ or align in terms of water solubility and viscosity?
The lack of knowledge and data in the cannabis field puts us in the precarious position of potentially chasing the wrong goals, not to mention wasting enormous amounts of time and money. Here’s a recent example drawn from personal experience:Certainly, I cannot be the only one who has made an incorrect assumption based on anecdotes and incomplete data?
Some of the most common steps in cannabis oil production involve ethanol solutions. Ethanol is commonly removed from extraction material under reduced pressure and elevated heat in a rotary evaporator. I expected that this process would endanger the terpenes in the oil – a key component of product quality. My theory was that volatile terpenes9 would be lost in the rotary evaporator during ethanol10 removal. The close values of vapor pressure for terpenes and ethanol make this a reasonably assumed possibility.11 In the summer of 2018, I finally got the chance to test it. I designed experiments at different temperatures and pressures, neat and in solution, to quantify the terpene lost in ethanol evaporation. I also considered real life conditions and limitations of cannabis oil manufacturers. After all the experiments were done, the results unequivocally showed that terpenes do not evaporate in a rotary evaporator when ethanol is removed from cannabis extracts.12 As it turns out, I was wrong.
We, as an industry, need to start putting money and effort into fundamental cannabis research programs. But, at least I ran the experiments! I postulated a theory, designed experiments to validate it and evaluated the results. At this point, and only this point, can I conclude anything about my hypothesis, even if that is that my working theory needs to be revised. Certainly, I cannot be the only one who has made an incorrect assumption based on anecdotes and incomplete data?
There is a particular danger when using incomplete data to form conclusions. There are many striking examples in the medical literature and even the casual observer might know them. The case of hormone replacement therapy for menopause and the associated risks of cardiovascular diseases showed how observational studies and well-designed clinical trials can lead to contradicting results.13 In the thirties of the last century, lobotomy became a cure-all technique for mental health issues.14 Dr. Moniz even won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for it.15 And it must come as no surprise when WIRED states “that one generation’s Nobel Prize-winning cure is another generation’s worst nightmare.”16 And with today’s knowledge is impossible to consider mercury as a treatment for syphilis, but that is exactly what it was used as for many centuries.17 All those examples, but the last one in particular should “be a good example of the weight of tradition or habit in the medical practice, […] of the necessity and the difficulties to evaluate the treatments without error.”18 There is the danger that we as cannabis professionals fall into the same trap and believe the old stories and become dogmatic about cannabis’ potential.
We, as an industry, need to start putting money and effort into fundamental cannabis research programs. That might be by sponsoring academic research,19 building in-house research divisions,20 or even building research networks.21 I fully believe in the need for fundamental cannabis research, even the non-sexy aspects.22 Therefore, I set up just that: an independent research laboratory, focused on fundamental cannabis research where we can test our assumptions and validate our theories. Although, I alone cannot do it all. I likely will be wrong somewhere (again). So, please join me in this effort. Let’s make sure cannabis science progresses.
No, it does not. There are preliminary in-situ studies that point at anti-cancer effects, but its more complicated. The therapeutic effects of Cannabis and cannabinoids: An update from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report, Abrams, Donald I., European Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume 49, 7 – 11
No, it does not. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24625.
No, it does not. The chemical profile of the plant dictates the biological effects on humans, not the shape of the leaf. Justin T. Fischedick, Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, Volume: 2 Issue 1: March 1, 2017
Indica and Sativa are outdated terms. Piomelli D, Russo EB. The Cannabis sativa versus Cannabis indica debate: An Interview with Ethan Russo, MD. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res 2016; 1: 44–46.
No, it is. CBD’s supposed “calming effects” is indeed a psychoactive effect. However, it is not intoxicating like THC. Russo E.B., Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects.Br. J. Pharmacol. 2011; 163: 1344-1364
As attributed to Francis Bacon.
See the work by philosopher Baruch Spinoza.
As theorized by Karl Popper.
Monoterpenes have a vapor pressure in the low to mid hundreds of Pascals at room temperature.
Vapor pressure of 5.95 kPa at 20˚C.
Furthermore, there is always the possibility of azeotropes in complex mixtures. Azeotropes are mixtures of two or more liquids that have different boiling points individually, but in mixture boil together.
Terpene Retention via Rotary Evaporator Application Note, Heidolph North America
Last month, Sequoia Analytical Labs admitted that they falsified hundreds of pesticide tests for batches of cannabis products. The Sacramento-based laboratory faked data on 22 different pesticide tests for more than 700 batches over a period of four months.
According to a notice posted on Sequoia’s website, the skewed results were originally found due to a “faulty instrument” but “it was further discovered” that the lab director knew about it and was fraudulently posting the results in order to hand out certificates of analysis. The lab director in question has since been fired and Sequoia voluntarily relinquished their state license.
Joe Devlin, Sacramento’s chief of cannabis enforcement, told KCRA3 News “We’re going to be taking a look at suspending or possibly revoking their permit.” He followed that up with saying that California needs more testing labs. “The shortage of labs has really created a bottleneck in the supply chain across the state,” says Devlin. There are only 43 licensed laboratories in the state of California as of this time, and just three of those are in Sacramento.
The Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), the regulatory authority overseeing the cannabis testing market in California, has not commented on this story, but they did reach out to distributors who had sent batches to Sequoia for testing. “Any cannabis goods from these batches, returned by consumers to the retailer, must be destroyed,” reads the BCC letter. “Any cannabis goods returned from a retailer’s inventory or remaining in your inventory may be destroyed, or may be re-sampled and re-tested after obtaining approval from the Bureau. Any cannabis goods from these batches may not be released to a retailer without re-sampling and re-testing.”
Sequoia Analytical Labs posted two notices on their homepage, one was a letter to their clients informing them of the fraud and the other is that BCC letter to distributors doing the same. “Management and ownership were horrified to learn about this severe breach of a very important safety regulation,” reads the notice. “We have voluntarily surrendered our license to do COA testing to the BCC while we make the required corrections. We are already hard at work making the needed changes to the instrument and revamping procedures so that we may get our license reinstated January 1.”
As of today, the lab’s license has not been reinstated.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.