Tag Archives: Focus Article

“One-Gram Ceramic 510” Is Not a Cartridge Specification

By Harry Huang
No Comments

Cannabis brands often approve a cartridge sample and then place a production order based solely on the product description. That shortcut leaves the filling partner, packaging team, and vape supplier to resolve important details after the purchase order has been submitted. A “controlled specification packet” must include formulation, critical dimensions, closure process, materials, lot records, and change rules, all decided on before the production clock starts.

Consider a production meeting in which purchasing has an approved sample, but the filler cannot locate the delivered cartridge consistently in its tray. The purchase order offers little insight into why the elements don’t work since the description only says “one-gram ceramic 510.”

Nobody necessarily shipped the wrong item. The company looking for a vape supplier based its purchasing decision on a basic product description rather than specifying defined configurations.

That distinction matters because a vape cartridge is handled by more than its buyer. It has to accept a particular formulation, go through a filling and closing process, fit a fixture, survive packing and distribution, and remain traceable to the approved version. If those interfaces live in separate email threads, the first production lot becomes the point at which the team discovers what it forgot to agree on.

A controlled specification packet gives the team a common target for validation, testing, and jurisdiction-specific legal review.

 

The RFQ should begin with the oil

Catalog labels encourage buyers to start with capacity, coil type, and thread. Operations usually need a different first question: what will go into the cartridge?

“Cannabis oil” does not describe one set of flow characteristics. A formulation may behave differently as temperature changes or after added terpenes and other permitted ingredients alter it. Those differences can affect how readily the reservoir fills, whether oil reaches the intake openings as intended, and how much time the operator has before closing the unit.

The brand does not need to disclose a proprietary recipe in an initial request for quotation. It can provide a bounded process description: the viscosity range measured at a stated temperature, planned fill temperature, target fill amount, and any known material restrictions. For qualification, the parties can agree on a representative fluid or a controlled sample of the intended formulation.

This is where shortcuts are tempting. Sending a representative fluid sample takes time, and some suppliers will offer a quick recommendation based on a broad oil description. That recommendation may be a sensible starting point. It is not a substitute for confirming the final model with the actual formulation and operating conditions.

ASTM International publishes separate classification and guidance documents for cannabis/hemp extract vaporizers.¹ For a buyer, the practical starting point is simply to use consistent terms for the device being evaluated. Suitability for a particular extract still has to be established for the selected model and operating conditions.

“One gram” leaves a volume question unanswered

Brands sell by net weight. Reservoirs are physical volumes. Treating the two as interchangeable creates avoidable arguments at the filling line.

The specification should distinguish the cartridge’s nominal reservoir volume from the target net fill. It should then state the allowed fill tolerance and the agreed maximum fill level or headspace for the selected formulation. These are related values, but they are not the same value.

There is no responsible universal conversion to paste into every specification. Density is part of the formulation, and usable volume depends on the particular cartridge and closing process. The correct numbers come from measurement under defined conditions.

The filling instructions should capture the details that change the result: product temperature at dispense, needle position, dispense approach, and maximum interval between filling and closure. If the center airway collects oil during filling, the first question should not be whether the cartridge is “good” or “bad.” The team should first confirm that it used the same fill conditions under which the hardware was qualified.

 

Approve a drawing, not a photograph

A commercial image helps identify a style. It cannot locate a part in a nest or size a carton insert.

The released drawing should show the dimensions used downstream, including overall height after closure, maximum diameter, base geometry, connection details, and the surfaces used to locate the part in a tray or fixture. The team should mark which dimensions are critical to fit or function. Cosmetic dimensions and fixture interfaces should not receive the same attention merely because both appear on the page.

Buyers sometimes ask for tighter tolerances everywhere because it feels safer. That can add cost without improving the process. The better discussion is specific: Which dimension controls centering under the fill needle? Which surface determines press depth? Which assembled height controls the package? Those are the dimensions that purchasing, the supplier, the filler, and packaging must understand the same way.

The drawing also needs a part number and revision. The approved sample, quotation, purchase order, inspection record, and packaging file should point to that revision. A model name alone cannot do this job. Suppliers may improve tooling or substitute a subcomponent while continuing to sell under the same name.

 

A press-fit mouthpiece is a process step

The words “press fit” do not tell an operator how to close a cartridge.

A workable closure instruction identifies where the fixture contacts the part, how the cartridge is supported, the required final position, and how the operator confirms that closure is acceptable. If force or travel limits are part of the qualified process, those limits belong in the instruction along with the equipment and fixture used to establish them.

Mouthpiece geometry, seal design, materials, and equipment vary, so a closure-force value from another model may not apply. The supplier should provide model-specific starting information, and the processor should establish the operating window during qualification.

This step is also where three schedules collide. The supplier wants to release hardware. The filler wants final nests and closing tooling. Packaging wants the post-closure dimensions. If the brand approves artwork and inserts from an early rendering, a small change at the closure interface can create packaging rework even when the cartridge functions as intended.

 

“Ceramic” identifies one component, not the assembly

Cartridges described as ceramic still contain an assembly of materials. Depending on the model, that may include metal alloys, glass, polymers, seals, adhesives, surface finishes, and a ceramic heating or wicking component. The relevant disclosure maps each material to a component and identifies its relationship to the formulation and aerosol pathway.

The material record serves a practical purpose. In a peer-reviewed study of unused cannabis vape pens, researchers observed metal-containing particles in the liquid and reported variation between devices filled with liquid from the same product lot. The identified particles included metals used in common device alloys.² Section 5.3.5 of Health Canada’s industry guide states that studies suggest coil type and composition, device power setting, device type, and user behavior could contribute to the release of elements. The same section recommends that manufacturers control harmful elements in devices and parts so their transmission to aerosol under normal use is minimized.³

Those findings do not predict the performance of a particular cartridge or create a universal test plan. They are a reason to ask what a certificate actually tested.

When reviewing a report, ask what was actually tested. Was it raw material, empty hardware, liquid after contact, or generated aerosol? Which model and revision? Which formulation, storage interval, operating conditions, sample count, method, and acceptance criteria? Does the report identify a production lot?

That checklist is a procurement recommendation, not a requirement taken from the cited study. Its purpose is to prevent a valid report from being applied to a product it did not evaluate.

 

Decide which evidence belongs to the model and which belongs to the lot

Two folders often get mixed together.

The first supports model qualification. It may contain the released drawing, component-level material declarations, relevant test reports, process information, and records of validation of the brand’s formulation and filling method.

The second travels with production lots. It should identify the part number and revision, lot or batch code, manufacturing date where applicable, quantity, and agreed inspection or conformance records. The exact contents depend on the risk assessment and the parties’ quality agreement.

The distinction keeps document requests honest. Asking a supplier for “all certifications” produces a large attachment folder and very little certainty. Asking for the test report applicable to revision C and the conformance record for lot 2407 makes the traceability question answerable.

Receiving inspection should be equally focused. Verify the few characteristics that would stop production or break traceability: correct revision, lot identity, packaging condition, and the critical dimensions or assembly features selected during qualification. The sampling method and acceptance rule should be agreed before delivery so receiving staff are not forced to improvise when a result falls outside the target.

 

Expect resistance to change control

Change notification is easy to endorse and harder to negotiate. Suppliers may treat sub-supplier identities, detailed bills of material, or proprietary processes as confidential. Buyers may respond by asking for everything, which usually produces boilerplate rather than usable control.

A narrower agreement works better. Define the changes that affect the approved interface or risk assessment: formulation and contact materials, heating components, seals, critical dimensions, assembly method, tooling, manufacturing site, and critical sub-suppliers. Then agree on the notice period and the response. Some changes may require only a document review. Others may require samples or requalification.

This negotiation has to happen before the order. Once inventory is built and a launch date is fixed, both sides have an incentive to treat a change as minor.

If a supplier will not disclose proprietary composition, the brand can still request stable material identifiers, a declaration of no change, or an agreed-upon notification category. The objective is not to acquire the supplier’s trade secrets. It is to know when the qualified configuration is no longer the configuration being shipped.

 

The two-page packet is better than the twelve-page packet nobody uses

Start with the smallest controlled document that can travel across purchasing, quality, filling, and packaging. For many teams, the core can fit on two pages plus attachments.

Page one identifies the product: part number, revision, intended formulation conditions, nominal reservoir volume, target fill, and approved configuration. Page two controls the handoffs: critical drawing references, fill and closure instructions, fixture and packaging interfaces, required lot records, receiving checks, and change-notification rules.

Figure 1 summarizes how those handoffs connect from formulation through packaging while lot evidence and change notification preserve the approved revision.

The drawing, material declaration, and test reports sit behind those pages as controlled attachments. One owner maintains the packet. Each affected function approves the fields it actually uses.

This will add work to the RFQ. It should. The choice is whether the team resolves those questions while it can still change a drawing and schedule a trial, or after thousands of cartridges are waiting beside a filling line.

Q&A: Hirsh Jain on Cannabis Rescheduling, Interstate Commerce and the Next Wave of Market Growth

By Hirsh Jain
No Comments

Cannabis federal reform has finally reached a historic moment. Medical cannabis is moving through the rescheduling process after decades under federal prohibition, marking one of the biggest developments in the industry’s history.

The final outcome could determine how companies expand, whether cannabis can move across state lines, and which markets become the next major opportunities.

Hirsh Jain, CEO of Ananda Strategy, shares his perspective on where rescheduling stands, whether interstate commerce will be allowed, and which states businesses should be watching next.

 

Where does the process stand today?

I think it is helpful to separate the rescheduling process into two parts: the rescheduling of medical marijuana and what is being described as the full rescheduling of marijuana.

Medical marijuana was rescheduled through the Todd Blanche order issued on April 23. The question now is whether that action survives the legal challenges that have been brought against it.

The lawsuits argue, among other things, that the process did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the government should have gone through a formal notice-and-comment process.

The key issue right now is standing. Before the court even considers the arguments on the merits, the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete injury as a result of the rescheduling decision.

The Department of Justice has argued that some of the plaintiffs cannot meet that threshold. For example, one argument against MMJ Biopharmaceuticals is that it does not yet have a product on the market, meaning it has not suffered an economic injury from rescheduling.

If the court agrees that the plaintiffs lack standing, the case could be dismissed. If the court finds standing, the next question is whether to grant a stay, which would pause the rescheduling process while the broader lawsuit proceeds.

 

What about the broader rescheduling hearing?

The hearing to consider the full rescheduling of marijuana concluded on July 15. The parties have until August 17 to submit their final briefs.

I expect that this process will continue for several months.

Some people have suggested we could see a final rule by late summer or early fall, but I think that timeline is unlikely.

After the administrative law judge receives the final briefs, they need to issue a recommendation. There is no statutory deadline requiring that decision to come quickly.

Then the decision moves to the DEA administrator, who has the authority to disagree with the administrative law judge’s recommendation as long as they provide a reasoned explanation.

We have historical precedent for this. In 1988, administrative law judge Francis Young recommended that cannabis be rescheduled, but the DEA ultimately rejected that recommendation.

After the DEA administrator weighs in, the matter moves to the Attorney General for a final rule. Then there is a 30-day window where parties can challenge the decision legally.

So while I am cautiously optimistic, I think we should recognize there are many procedural opportunities for delay.

 

The DEA appeared to take a narrower approach during the hearing by focusing on medical use rather than legalization. Does that improve the chances of rescheduling?

I think that strategy made a lot of sense.

The DEA was very clear that the question before them was not whether cannabis should be legalized or whether cannabis is harmless. The question was whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use.

By narrowing the issue, they created a stronger legal argument.

I am optimistic about the substance of the hearing. My concern is less about the underlying argument and more about the procedural mechanisms that opponents can use to slow the process.

 

Companies like Trulieve have successfully uplisted to major exchanges. What does that signal about investor confidence?

I think it demonstrates that exchanges are evaluating cannabis through a very technical legal lens.

Trulieve and Glass House structured their businesses to emphasize their medical operations and create a pathway toward federal legality.

Other companies, like Curaleaf, have taken a more cautious approach and indicated they want to wait until full rescheduling occurs before pursuing uplisting.

I think the broader takeaway is that if we are in a world six months from now where full rescheduling has occurred, we could see many more operators pursue uplisting.

 

Could rescheduling finally open the door to interstate commerce?

This is one of the biggest questions facing the industry.

Historically, interstate commerce did not exist because cannabis was federally illegal, but I think the more complete explanation is the structure created by the Cole Memorandum.

After Colorado and Washington legalized cannabis in 2012, the federal government essentially allowed states to experiment as long as they avoided certain enforcement priorities. One of those priorities was preventing diversion across state lines.

That created the foundation for state-based markets.

Even after the Cole Memo was rescinded, states continued operating under that framework. Over time, every state built its own isolated system.

Rescheduling could change that conversation by creating a stronger argument for federal legality. That could make courts more receptive to challenges based on the Dormant Commerce Clause.

But this would not happen overnight.

There are three potential pathways:

First, courts could determine that state restrictions on interstate commerce violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Second, individual states could reform their cannabis laws to allow interstate commerce.

Third, states could create interstate compacts in which participating states agree to allow commerce among themselves.

I think interstate commerce will happen gradually. It will likely begin with groups of states that are willing to work together, rather than a nationwide opening all at once.

 

How would interstate commerce change the industry?

It would completely change the strategy of scaling cannabis businesses.

Right now, companies often have to build cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution infrastructure in every state where they operate.

If interstate commerce becomes possible, companies could manufacture products in one location and distribute them across multiple states.

That would dramatically change the industry’s economics and reduce some of the pressure operators face today.

 

Which states do you see driving the next wave of cannabis growth?

The industry has been starved for growth over the past few years.

Between 2016 and 2023, we saw a steady stream of states launching adult-use markets. Over the past three years, that momentum slowed.

The exciting thing is that by 2027, I think we can identify several meaningful growth markets.

The biggest one is Virginia.

Virginia is currently a limited medical market, but adult-use sales are scheduled to begin in 2027. Most analysts believe the state could eventually become a multibillion-dollar market.

What makes Virginia particularly interesting is its geography. It borders states including North Carolina and Tennessee that do not currently have adult-use programs.

Virginia could become a destination market for consumers across the region.

 

What about Minnesota?

Minnesota is another market I think people should watch.

One thing Minnesota has done particularly well is create pathways for hemp operators to transition into the regulated cannabis market.

That is a model other states should consider.

The challenge in Minnesota has been supply. The state licensed retailers, but cultivation capacity and testing infrastructure have not kept pace.

The result is that many stores have limited inventory and high prices.

I think 2027 could be a turning point because more cultivation comes online, testing capacity improves, and retailers have more products to sell.

 

What medical markets are worth watching?

I think Georgia and Texas are two of the most exciting medical markets in the country.

Together, those states represent more than 40 million people.

Georgia is particularly interesting because of the changes it has made to its medical program, including expanding qualifying conditions and allowing additional product formats.

The pharmacy model is also important.

Pharmacies are trusted healthcare providers. Many consumers who may hesitate to enter a dispensary may feel comfortable visiting a pharmacy.

Georgia has the opportunity to demonstrate a different model for cannabis distribution.

 

Final thoughts: What should cannabis businesses be watching over the next year?

I think the biggest thing is understanding that the industry is moving into a new phase.

Rescheduling, interstate commerce, new state markets, and changing distribution models all have the potential to reshape how cannabis companies operate.

But none of these changes happen instantly.

 

The long-awaited moment has arrived. After building markets state by state under federal prohibition, companies are ready for a new chapter in the industry.

 

Study Finds Colder BHO Extraction Produces Cleaner Cannabis Concentrates

No Comments

New research from Abstrax suggests that extraction temperature may be one of the most important process controls for producing cleaner hydrocarbon cannabis extracts. The peer-reviewed study found that colder butane extraction significantly reduced the levels of wax-derived hydrocarbons in the final concentrate while preserving cannabinoids and terpenes. The researchers also identified the long-chain n-alkanes that make up the industry’s “fats and waxes” fraction and found that many of them transfer into the aerosol produced during vaporization.

Published in ACS Omega, the study examined n-butane extracts from two cannabis cultivars produced at temperatures ranging from approximately -46°C to -9°C. Using advanced chromatography and mass spectrometry, the researchers measured how extraction temperature affected the levels of wax-derived hydrocarbons, cannabinoids, and terpenes.

The study found that warmer extraction temperatures pulled significantly more wax-derived hydrocarbons into the extract. Colder temperatures reduced their presence while preserving cannabinoid potency and terpene profiles.

The researchers also vaporized the concentrates to determine whether the hydrocarbons remained in the oil or transferred into the inhaled aerosol. They found that many readily transferred during vaporization, suggesting extraction conditions can directly influence the composition of the aerosol consumers inhale.

In addition, the study observed that concentrates containing higher levels of these compounds tended to be more viscous. While viscosity alone cannot identify wax content, the findings suggest it may serve as a useful indicator during production.

The findings highlight extraction temperature as a manufacturing parameter that could inform future best practices and industry standards. Rather than relying on post-processing techniques such as winterization to remove unwanted compounds, processors may be able to reduce wax carryover during extraction while preserving cannabinoids and terpenes.

How CPG Standardization Can Help Cannabis Edibles Scale

No Comments

Imagine buying a standard over-the-counter pain reliever in Miami, and then buying the same brand in Denver, only to find the second bottle is twice as potent because of the altitude where it was manufactured. In any mainstream industry, this could trigger an immediate federal recall. In the cannabis industry, it is a daily operational hazard.

The cannabis edibles market cannot mature or scale efficiently as long as it operates on a legacy, state-by-state, scratch-cooking model.


At the recent IgniteIt Cannabis Capital Conference in Chicago, industry leaders gathered to address these high-stakes challenges in the panel “Getting Edibles Right: The Push Toward True CPG in Cannabis.” Moderated by Jessica Ferranti (CEO of The Mycelia Group), the discussion featured Sarah McLaughlin, MS, RD (Co-Founder and VP of Product Development at Melt-to-Make®), Jim Sanfilippo (CEO of VIST Labs), Allison Dries (Owner/Co-Founder of Krown, LLC), and Juan David Rojas (Business Development Manager at Alianza).

The overarching takeaway was a wake-up call for the entire space, emphasizing that true market maturity requires the industry to stop treating manufacturing facilities as local kitchens and to start treating them as sophisticated food production plants.

 

The Nightmare of the State-by-State Patchwork

Growing brands aren’t struggling to find customers. Instead, the struggle lies in maintaining product consistency due to conflicting state-by-state regulations.

When a traditional consumer packaged goods (CPG) brand scales nationally, it answers to a single, centralized authority such as the FDA. In cannabis, crossing a state line means building an entirely new localized business entity from scratch to satisfy unique state guidelines.

Instead of managing a clean, centralized product portfolio, operators are forced to manage hundreds of hyper-localized stock-keeping units (SKUs) simply to comply with localized packaging and active-ingredient restrictions.

Ferranti contextualized this steep infrastructure scaling curve by looking at mainstream fast-food history, highlighting how “McDonald’s didn’t nail their same Big Mac in thousands of locations overnight. It took a great deal of time and a great deal of money.”

Modern cannabis operators, however, do not have the luxury of decades or unlimited capital. To survive and scale profitably right now, brands need to eliminate chemical variability and human error from the manufacturing floor.

 

The Food Science Solution: Formulating for Climate Resilience

Achieving a repeatable, safe consumer experience requires absolute standardization at both the raw material and process levels. Relying on independent staff across separate state markets to cook complex formulas from scratch introduces an unacceptable margin of error.

This is where traditional food science biochemistry becomes the ultimate differentiator. True consistency requires a resilient formulation that accounts for varying environmental conditions across regional facilities. As an expert in food commercialization, McLaughlin emphasized that a truly foolproof product must maintain its integrity regardless of where it is manufactured.

“The goal is consistency, and the way we get to consistency is through standardization. So that starts with collecting ingredient specifications, having a robust formula, having a formula that performs well at altitude and also at sea level, at high humidity and low humidity.”

When an edible formulation is overly sensitive to local climate or human variance during the boiling phase, multi-state scaling hits a wall. To eliminate this risk, McLaughlin’s team engineered the Melt-to-Make® Formula Calculator. This tool essentially acts as an automated food scientist for local facility staff, calculating the precise math needed to adjust batch inputs, boiling points, and cannabinoid weights based on regional climate variables.

By using pre-standardized product bases paired with a smart calculator, operators can eliminate the guesswork. This eliminates the environmental variables that alter active-ingredient stability, protects accurate dosing, and directly extends product shelf life without requiring a specialized chemist on-site at every kitchen.

 

Eradicating the ‘Glob’ of Consumer Uncertainty

Ultimately, these technical benchmarks exist to protect the end user. Mainstream consumers expect a predictable, identical experience every single time they interact with a retail brand. A consumer buying a cannabis gummy expects the same onset time, flavor, and texture whether they purchased it in Illinois or California.

McLaughlin highlighted this necessity, sharing a sharp vision for a normalized, mature marketplace that mirrors the traditional grocery aisle. She stated that cannabis packaging and lab results should feature a universal standard similar to a traditional FDA nutrition facts panel that consumers instantly recognize.

“Imagine if cannabis lab results and packaging looked exactly like traditional food, with a standard nutrition facts panel that you instantly know how to read,” McLaughlin stated. “That way, you don’t end up with a glob of melted gummies at the bottom of the container, wondering, ‘How am I supposed to dose these out?’”

By establishing strict uniformity across the board, the industry can eliminate the visual and chemical inconsistencies that degrade consumer confidence.

The path forward for the edibles market requires an industry-wide commitment to professionalized production. By adopting strict manufacturing benchmarks and using smart formulation tools, brands can eliminate the issues with multi-state expansion, protect their margins, and earn long-term consumer trust.

 

 

Cannabis Gummies Move Into the Multivitamin Aisle

No Comments

As cannabis brands look for new ways to reach consumers, some are developing products that look less like recreational edibles and more like daily wellness supplements.

The latest example comes from MariMed Inc.’s Betty’s Eddies™, which has introduced Betty’s Bite-A-Mins, a daily wellness chew that combines cannabinoids with a multivitamin-inspired formula.

The tropical smoothie-flavored chews combine 30mg of CBD, full-spectrum cannabis, Vitamin C, Zinc, and a full daily serving of Vitamin D3 in a gummy format. The launch shows how cannabis brands are experimenting with new ways to position cannabinoids, moving gummies closer to the functional wellness and supplement categories.

Vitamin C and Zinc are often used for immune support, while Vitamin D3 is a common part of daily vitamin routines. Adding CBD and full-spectrum cannabis gives Betty’s Eddies a new twist on the gummy category and introduces a new opportunity for the industry.

“Consumers are increasingly looking for products that fit seamlessly into their daily routines,” said Sara Rosenfield, Brand Director for Betty’s Eddies. “With Betty’s Bite-A-Mins, we listened to that feedback and created a core product that delivers a higher dose of CBD alongside vitamins many people already take every day.”

The product follows what is happening across food and beverage, as consumers look for everyday products enhanced with functional ingredients that offer more than basic nutrition.

Cannabis brands are increasingly exploring combinations of cannabinoids with vitamins, minerals, and other wellness ingredients to create products that fit into categories beyond traditional cannabis.

Rescheduling has encouraged some cannabis brands to think more like a medical market, developing products that focus on health and therapeutic applications.

Betty’s Bite-A-Mins will be available through MariMed’s Thrive Dispensary locations and other licensed cannabis retailers across Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island.

Betty’s Eddies shows how cannabis brands can expand the category by looking beyond traditional edibles and exploring new product formats.

Cannabis Quality Conference Call for Abstracts is Now Open

No Comments

 

 

Do you have practical insights that can help advance cannabis quality, safety, compliance, or laboratory science?

The Cannabis Quality Conference is accepting presentation proposals for its 2026 conference, co-located with the 15th Anniversary Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo, taking place October 21 to 23 in Washington, DC.

Abstract submission Deadline: July 31

Submit your proposal → https://www.eventleaf.com/Attendee/ProposalSubmission/Index?pId=M1CHvkzIB4%2BXut2fn2Itdg%3D%3D

Learn more → https://CQCexpo.com
From The Lab

Why Dietary Supplements Are the First Pathway for Cannabis Medicine

By Pam Chmiel
1 Comment

The cannabis industry has spent years waiting for this moment. As federal rescheduling moves forward, so do the opportunities to develop cannabinoid-based supplements and medicines backed by more rigorous scientific research.

For some companies, this isn’t a new direction. It’s the payoff from years of work happening behind the scenes.

Alleh Lindquist, CEO and co-founder of FloraWorks, has spent the past several years focused on building the scientific and regulatory foundation for CBN. As a leading supplier of hemp-derived cannabinoids, FloraWorks helped introduce CBN to manufacturers and consumers as a sleep ingredient. But that was only the first step. The company’s goal has always been to position CBN as one of the first cannabinoids to reach the market as an FDA-recognized dietary supplement.

After four years of toxicology studies and safety testing, FloraWorks recently published peer-reviewed research supporting CBN’s safety and self-affirmed the ingredient as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). The company plans to submit its GRAS notification to the FDA, a milestone that could help establish a regulatory pathway for future cannabinoid ingredients.

I spoke with Lindquist about what it takes to navigate the FDA process, why scientific validation matters, and how the order of FDA approvals will shape the future of cannabinoid supplements and medicines.

In the next six months, the company expects to file a new dietary ingredient notification with the FDA, a key milestone in its regulatory strategy, even though it is still uncertain how the FDA will respond.

“We don’t know how they’ll respond to it,” Lindquist said. “It’s never been accepted before.”

Attempts to position CBD as a dietary supplement have repeatedly run into what regulators call “drug preclusion,” a rule that prevents an ingredient from being marketed as a supplement if it has already been approved as a drug.

Because Epidiolex was approved first, CBD products have struggled to gain acceptance as dietary supplements, even when companies have pursued GRAS determinations or FDA notifications.

“That’s the issue with CBD,” he said. “Once it became a drug first, it effectively blocked the supplement pathway.”

 

Why the Regulatory Sequence Matters

The first major cannabinoid to reach the pharmaceutical market was CBD through Epidiolex. While that represented a landmark achievement for cannabis medicine, it also complicated CBD’s future as a dietary supplement.

Under FDA rules, once an ingredient has been approved as a prescription drug, it generally cannot also be marketed as a dietary supplement unless it was already sold as a supplement before clinical drug investigations began. This “drug preclusion” provision effectively closed the door on CBD as a new dietary ingredient after Epidiolex was approved, despite growing public interest and research sparked by stories like Charlotte Figi’s response to CBD for severe epilepsy.

And for this reason, FloraWorks began with the dietary supplement pathway rather than drug development.

 

Why Focus on One Cannabinoid Instead of the Entourage Effect?

While much of the cannabis industry has embraced the entourage effect, Lindquist believes the next generation of cannabinoid science will focus less on combining cannabinoids and more on understanding what each one does individually.

His view is that cannabinoids have distinct biological mechanisms and shouldn’t be automatically grouped together. In fact, combining cannabinoids can sometimes diminish the desired effect. He pointed to research showing that 20 mg of isolated CBN improved sleep, but adding CBD reduced that benefit. Rather than enhancing one another, certain cannabinoids may override or interfere with specific biological activities.

FloraWorks chose to study one cannabinoid at a time rather than developing broad-spectrum formulations, focusing on understanding exactly what CBN does before combining it with other cannabinoids, with the goal of positioning CBN alongside melatonin on the shelf.

Beyond its potential role in sleep, Lindquist sees promising research suggesting CBN has unique neuroprotective properties related to oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. Working with researchers at the Salk Institute, the company evaluated dozens of cannabinoid structures and found CBN consistently outperformed other cannabinoids in protecting neurons from a form of cell death associated with neurodegenerative disease.

 

Cannabinoids and Healthcare Cost Savings

Lindquist also discussed cannabinoids in the context of healthcare costs, not just treatment outcomes.

He pointed to emerging federal programs, including CMS-led initiatives, that are exploring access to cannabinoids for older adults to improve health outcomes and reduce system-wide costs.

What happens to healthcare spending if sleep improves, pain is better managed, or certain prescriptions are reduced?

“If we have a sleep aid and we’re able to improve sleep for a cohort of people, how much downstream cost does that save?” Lindquist said.

He pointed to common risks associated with sedating medications like Ambien, including grogginess, falls, and related injury costs.

The next step is building the data to support those questions.

“There just isn’t enough data yet to make direct claims,” he said. “But we know what an insomnia patient costs in Medicare, and we know what a non-insomnia patient costs.”

FloraWorks continues to pursue pharmaceutical pathways, but the immediate priority is establishing CBN as a dietary supplement, where it can exist without prescription barriers.

“Because drug preclusion only goes one way,” he said. “If you go drug first, you can’t go back. But if you start as a dietary supplement, you can move forward into drug development later.”

 

 

Hemp Beverage Operators Are in Fight Mode

By Pam Chmiel
No Comments

“Everybody who came here today, and not giving up and saying that we’re going to continue to fight for this category, thank you, give yourself a round of applause, please,” were the fighting words of Christopher Lackner, President of the Hemp Beverage Alliance (HBA), as he opened the panel discussions for the Hemp Beverage Expo that recently took place in Austin, Texas.

Diana Eberlein, Chair of the Coalition for Adult Beverage Alternatives (CABA), addressed the growing number of legislative proposals under consideration in Congress, noting that the volume of activity only demonstrates both urgency and interest in keeping the category open.

While operators may not see every proposal as a perfect solution, she emphasized that the Coalition’s priority is to continue forging a pathway that allows hemp beverages to operate. Regardless of the outcome of upcoming legislative decisions, she said, the advocacy effort will continue.

As someone spending time in Washington fighting for the sector, she pointed to a continuously growing recognition among lawmakers that hemp beverages are an emerging category that needs a sensible regulatory framework.

 

Hemp Beverages Present a Unified Front

While critics have pointed to a lack of alignment across the broader hemp industry, panelists argued that the hemp beverage category has taken a more unified approach to advocacy.

Eberlein said that while different segments of the hemp industry may have competing priorities, beverage operators have maintained a consistent position focused on establishing a clear regulatory framework. She noted that the category’s continued focus on sensible regulation, rather than pushing for a specific outcome, has helped build credibility with lawmakers.

Jon Taets, Director of Government Relations at the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), added that during conversations on Capitol Hill, he has heard concerns that the broader hemp industry sends mixed messages. However, he said lawmakers have recognized that hemp beverage advocates are approaching the issue with a more organized and consistent position.

The group emphasized that partnerships with established beverage organizations, such as NACS and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), have strengthened the category’s position by connecting hemp beverages to familiar regulatory models, including the alcohol industry’s three-tier distribution system. Panelists said leveraging an established framework could provide a more practical path forward than creating an entirely new system.

 

Regulation Comes With Operational Requirements

While advocates continue to push for a regulatory pathway similar to that for adult beverages, panelists also acknowledged that moving to a regulated framework would require significant preparation and infrastructure.

During the discussion, an audience member in the alcohol distribution space raised questions about implementation timelines, noting that operating within the adult beverage system would entail additional requirements, including federal permits, compliance reviews, label approvals, and state-level requirements.

Panelists acknowledged that if the federal government moved toward this model, agencies such as the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) would need additional resources to support the transition. While the TTB has established systems for alcohol label approvals and compliance oversight, expanding those processes to include hemp beverages would require significant coordination.

 

Building the Data Foundation for Hemp Beverages

As the hemp beverage category continues to mature, industry groups are also working to build the data infrastructure needed to understand market growth and support future decision-making.

During the panel, Anna Edgren, Director of Operations at the Hemp Beverage Alliance (HBA), announced the release of The Future of Drinking, a new industry report produced in collaboration between HBA and Vermont Information Processing (VIP). The partnership leverages VIP’s established beverage industry data systems, which track distributor-to-retailer sales, to provide a clearer picture of hemp beverage performance.

The report analyzed anonymized data from 26 brands covering 2024 and 2025, representing more than 2.3 million case-equivalent volumes. According to the findings, hemp beverage volume increased 133% year over year, while points of distribution grew 129%, accounts sold increased 72%, and product velocity increased 41%.

The data also showed that hemp beverages are following familiar beverage trends, including seasonal sales patterns similar to alcohol categories. Regional differences highlighted the impact of regulation and retail access, with strong growth in the Midwest, Northeast, and South, while restrictions in California contributed to declines in the West.

Edgren noted that as more brands participate, the industry will continue to develop a more complete view of consumer demand, retail performance, and category growth.

 

Building Credibility Through Data

While the HBA report provides a snapshot of category growth, VIP emphasized that the larger goal is creating the data infrastructure needed for hemp beverages to operate as a recognized beverage category.

Chris Sineni, Account Executive at Vermont Information Processing (VIP), explained that the company has served as a data provider for the beverage industry since 1972, helping alcohol brands track performance through the three-tier distribution system. The partnership with HBA applies the same data-collection approach to hemp beverages, creating a category-level view that previously did not exist.

According to Sineni, individual brands have historically been able to see their own sales performance, but distributors, retailers, and investors lacked broader insight into how the overall category was performing, including regional growth, retail expansion, and consumer preferences.

The HBA and VIP partnership was designed to close that gap by collecting distributor-to-retailer depletion data, anonymizing and aggregating the information, and creating an independent view of category performance. The resulting dataset is based on actual transactions moving through the three-tier system rather than projections or survey responses.

Sineni emphasized that credible data will become increasingly important as brands compete for distributor partnerships, retail placement, and regulatory recognition. He compared the current stage of hemp beverages to the early craft beer market, where brands often relied on anecdotal evidence before stronger data systems helped validate category growth.

As more brands contribute data, the industry will gain a clearer picture of sales trends, regional performance, and consumer behavior.

 

Building the Data Foundation for Long-Term Growth

Lester Jones, economist for the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA), emphasized that data has historically been a critical foundation for building credibility within established beverage categories.

Drawing comparisons to the beer industry, Jones noted that organizations such as the Beer Institute, Brewers Association, and distilled spirits groups built long-term industry credibility by consistently collecting and reporting market data. That same approach, he said, is now beginning to take shape within hemp beverages.

Jones pointed out that the hemp beverage market has evolved from a fragmented, regionally diverse category into one where clearer leaders are emerging. However, he also noted that current data captures only part of the overall market, with direct-to-consumer and direct-to-retail sales representing additional activity outside traditional distribution channels.

The data demonstrates the category’s economic impact and growth, providing a clearer picture for regulators, retailers, distributors, and investors.

 

What emerged from the Hemp Beverage Expo was a category in transition — still navigating regulatory uncertainty, but increasingly focused on building the structures needed for its next phase of growth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why California Cannabis Businesses Remain at Risk After the Schedule III Order

By Richard Ormond
No Comments

On April 22, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order placing state-licensed medical marijuana into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The cannabis industry declared it a turning point. In certain respects, it is.

But turning points are not endpoints. And for California cannabis retailers who operate in the most complex, most taxed, and most litigated cannabis market in the country, the April 22 order resolves far less than the headlines suggest.

 

The §280E Problem, Revisited

Section 280E was enacted in 1982 in response to a tax court decision that allowed a convicted drug trafficker to deduct ordinary business expenses. Congress’s response was blunt: no deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances prohibited by federal or state law. Only the cost of goods sold (or “cogs”, which is treated as an adjustment to gross income rather than a deduction) survives.

The practical consequence is financial absurdity. Cannabis businesses are taxed not on net income but on a fictional gross margin that bears little relationship to actual profitability. Effective tax rates routinely exceed 70% of gross revenue and, in loss years, can exceed 100% of cash flow. The tax obligation exists regardless of whether the business is solvent. The statute thus becomes a primary driver of insolvency, causing businesses to appear profitable for tax purposes at the precise moment they are failing.

The Schedule III order addresses this problem — but only partially, and only for one category of operator.

Section 280E applies to businesses trafficking in Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances. For licensed medical cannabis operators in California, the federal tax picture changed materially on April 22 when medical cannabis was moved to Schedule III. Rent, payroll, insurance, utilities, professional fees, and interest are now deductible. Taxable income will, for the first time, bear a rational relationship to actual profitability.

For adult-use retailers — which represent the majority of California’s licensed retail market — nothing has changed. Recreational cannabis remains on Schedule I under the April 22 order. The broader rescheduling rulemaking that would extend Schedule III treatment to all cannabis is now the subject of a new DEA administrative hearing scheduled to begin June 29, 2026. That process will take time. Its outcome is not guaranteed. Until it concludes, the typical California Type 10 licensee is still being taxed as if it were running a criminal enterprise because, under federal law, it still is.

 

The California Tax Stack: Even Without 280E, the Math Is Brutal

Even for a California cannabis retailer that qualifies for Schedule III treatment and sheds its §280E burden, what remains is formidable.

California imposes a 15% cannabis excise tax at the point of sale, collected by the retailer and remitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). That excise tax is not optional and is not deferred. It is due whether or not the business is profitable. It sits on top of state and local sales tax, and on top of municipal cannabis business taxes, which in some California jurisdictions approach ten to fifteen percent of gross receipts on their own.

The cumulative tax burden of state excise, local cannabis tax, and sales tax consumes thirty-five to forty cents of every dollar of retail revenue before a single operating expense is paid. Now add the cost of goods, rent at two to three times conventional commercial rates (because landlords price in the regulatory risk), payroll, security, compliance consultants, insurance, and accountants. What remains, in many cases, is insufficient to service debt, fund reserves, or generate a return on invested capital.

I have sat across the table from operators who did everything right, licensed on time, METRC compliant, CDTFA current, local permits in order, who still could not make the economics work. The math is not a function of poor management. It is a function of a cost structure that the regulatory regime has made structurally unworkable for a significant share of the market.

When a California cannabis retailer falls behind on its CDTFA obligations, the consequences are not merely civil. Under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34015.2, enacted in 2022, officers, managers, and other responsible persons of a cannabis business can be held personally liable for unpaid cannabis excise taxes. The CDTFA does not merely pursue the entity. It pursues the individual. That exposure is one of the most underappreciated risks in California cannabis, and one that rescheduling does not touch at all.

 

The Licensing Regime: A Patchwork Quilt That Does Not Lie Flat

A retail licensee in California must maintain: (1) a valid state license from the Department of Cannabis Control; (2) a local license or permit from its city or county; and (3) often a conditional use permit or variance from the local planning department. These three tracks run on separate timelines, have their own independent and significant costs, answer to different agencies, and typically do not “speak to one another”.

The local licensing bottleneck is the most consequential. Many jurisdictions cap the number of cannabis retail licenses available within their borders. Once those caps are filled, the market is closed, not because an applicant is unqualified, but because the cap has been reached. Getting an existing license transferred in connection with a business sale requires regulatory approval at both the state and local levels, a process that can take months and that introduces material uncertainty into any transaction. Deals collapse not because the buyer and seller cannot agree on economics, but because the regulatory approval timeline makes the financing structure unworkable.

License compliance is existential. A cannabis retailer whose state or local license is suspended or revoked does not merely face a fine. It faces the destruction of its enterprise value overnight. And because adult-use cannabis businesses still cannot access federal bankruptcy protection, the April 22 order did not change that; a distressed California retailer’s options are confined to state-court tools: a receivership under Code of Civil Procedure Section 564, an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or an out-of-court workout.

These are legitimate and sometimes effective mechanisms. The state court receivership inherits all of the regulatory complexity of the underlying cannabis license, including CDTFA priority claims under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6756, which places the state’s tax claim ahead of most other creditors in the distribution waterfall.

Rescheduling does not simplify the licensing regime. It does not reduce the number of layers, accelerate transfer approvals, or change the CDTFA’s priority position. The regulatory architecture of California cannabis retail is unchanged by the April 22 order.

 

The Illegal Market: The Structural Competitor That Tax Relief Cannot Fix

The illegal cannabis market in California is winning on price, and it has been winning on price for years.

The arithmetic is straightforward. A fully compliant California cannabis retailer pays the state excise tax, local cannabis taxes, sales tax, and a full load of regulatory compliance costs: METRC, Livescan, insurance, security, professional fees, that an unlicensed operator does not pay. The licensed retailer must charge a price that sustains all of that. The unlicensed operator pays none of it: no excise tax, no local tax, no CDTFA reporting, no DCC compliance, no background checks. The price differential between licensed and unlicensed products in many California markets is thirty to fifty percent, and that gap is not the product of better growing or lower overhead. It is the direct product of tax and regulatory avoidance.

Rescheduling and the partial elimination of §280E will reduce the licensed retailer’s federal cost burden. But it will not reduce the state excise tax, the local cannabis tax, or the compliance cost burden that drives the price gap. The unlicensed market’s competitive advantage is not primarily a function of federal law. It is a function of California’s own tax and regulatory structure.

State and local enforcement against unlicensed operators is chronically underfunded and inconsistent. In Los Angeles, thousands of unlicensed cannabis retailers operate openly. A business that is raided often reopens under a different name within weeks. Until enforcement becomes a genuine deterrent rather than an occasional inconvenience, the licensed retailer will continue to compete at a structural disadvantage against operators who have simply declined to follow the rules. No federal rescheduling order fixes that.

 

Banking and Civil Asset Forfeiture: Still Unresolved

For adult-use retailers, the banking environment after the April 22 order remains unchanged. Recreational cannabis remains on Schedule I. Bank Secrecy Act obligations — KYC, AML, SAR filing — continue to apply to any financial institution serving cannabis clients. The FDIC insurance, FedWire access, and charter risks that have kept most mainstream financial institutions out of cannabis banking are not eliminated by Schedule III treatment of medical cannabis alone.

The civil asset forfeiture exposure for adult-use operators is similarly unchanged. Federal law authorizes the forfeiture of property used in the manufacture, distribution, or sale of Schedule I controlled substances, and for adult-use licensees, that authorization remains fully intact. Lenders who hold a UCC-1 security interest recorded under California Commercial Code Section 9610 have established creditor priority within the state court system — but that position offers no tangible protection against a federal forfeiture action targeting the same collateral. The “innocent owner” defense under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act exists as a potential avenue of relief, but asserting it requires expensive, slow, and uncertain litigation. And, it places the burden of proof on the “innocent owner” to prove a negative. In practice, most lenders in this position lack the appetite for that fight, and most borrowers lack the resources to fund it.

Hopefully, the banking picture will improve as the broader rescheduling process advances and federal banking regulators issue updated guidance. Yet sadly, that guidance has not arrived.

 

What the April 22 Order Actually Accomplishes

Precision matters here because the market has created significant confusion about the scope of the order.  To be clear, recreational cannabis, unlicensed cannabis, and synthetically derived THC products remain on Schedule I.

The April 22 order places two categories of cannabis into Schedule III: FDA-approved cannabis drug products, principally Epidiolex, the first FDA-approved prescription medication derived from the cannabis plant, indicated for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, Dravet syndrome, and tuberous sclerosis complex in patients one year of age and older, and marijuana products subject to a qualifying state-issued medical marijuana license.

What the order accomplishes for qualifying medical operators is meaningful: it eliminates §280E exposure on a going-forward basis, it opens the door to expanded banking relationships, and it reduces civil asset forfeiture risk. For research institutions, it meaningfully eases the regulatory burden on clinical studies.

What it does not do is equally important. It does not open federal bankruptcy courts to cannabis businesses. It does not resolve the FDA’s prohibition on cannabinoids in food and beverages — a live issue for any California retailer selling edibles, beverages, or infused products. It does not reduce California’s excise tax, local cannabis taxes, or compliance cost burden. It does not address the personal liability exposure under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34015.2. It does not accelerate license transfer approvals. And it does nothing to level the competitive playing field between licensed retailers and the unlicensed market.

 

The Path Forward, Stated Plainly

The §280E reform embedded in rescheduling is the most consequential positive development for cannabis businesses since California legalized adult use in 2016. For the medical cannabis sector, it is transformative. For adult-use operators, it remains a promise to be kept, pending the June 29 hearing and the subsequent rulemaking process.

But rescheduling, even in its most complete form, addresses only the federal dimension of a problem that is substantially a California problem. The state tax stack, the licensing fragmentation, the enforcement gap that sustains the illegal market, and the personal liability exposure for responsible persons under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34015.2. These are California-made conditions, and they require California-made solutions.

For the California cannabis retailer navigating the CDTFA, the local licensing authority, the Department of Cannabis Control, and a price-cutting unlicensed competitor down the street, the finish line remains further away than the headlines suggest.

 

 

Wellness Watch

What Makes a Healthcare-Ready Cannabinoid Ingredient?

By Alleh Lindquist
No Comments

For much of the cannabinoid supply market, the model has been simple: make the molecule, test the batch, sell the material.

If the product meets basic specifications, passes third-party testing, and can be produced at a competitive price, it is considered ready for market. That model has supported much of the consumer cannabinoid industry, where buyers often evaluate supply through potency, purity, availability, pricing, and a certificate of analysis.

Healthcare requires a different standard.

As cannabinoids begin moving into more serious functional, medical, and healthcare-oriented channels, the question becomes larger than whether a cannabinoid can be produced and sold. The question becomes whether that cannabinoid can support a defined clinical or functional application.

That is the shift now beginning to matter: from supplying cannabinoid material to developing cannabinoid ingredients.

 

Material Supply and Ingredient Development Are Different

Baseline supply requirements still matter, but healthcare-oriented applications require more.

A healthcare-ready ingredient has to carry a broader foundation: a defined use case, a supported dose, safety data, reproducible supply, quality oversight, and documentation that downstream product companies, physicians, compliance teams, and healthcare stakeholders can evaluate.

That is the shift from producing the molecule to building the technical, regulatory, clinical, and quality foundation around it.

 

CMS BEI Makes the Shift More Visible

The CMS Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive program is one of the clearest signals that this shift is accelerating.

For the first time, eligible hemp-derived cannabinoid products are being considered inside select Medicare models under physician oversight and program requirements. That does not make every cannabinoid product a healthcare product, but it does show where the market is heading.

Healthcare stakeholders will evaluate cannabinoid products through a different lens than the traditional consumer supply chain. Physicians, ACOs, compliance teams, and risk committees will want to understand the evidence, safety, standardization, and documentation behind the product.

That scrutiny does not begin only at the finished-product level. It begins with the cannabinoid foundation underneath it.

 

The Ingredient Is the Foundation, Not the Entire System

A finished product still matters. Formulation, delivery format, labeling, claims, patient experience, clinician oversight, and outcomes all depend on the final product and the setting where it is used.

But the ingredient can either strengthen or weaken everything built on top of it.

A serious cannabinoid ingredient can be developed around a defined use case, supported claims, recommended dosage, safety data, standardization, and technical documentation. That does not mean the ingredient carries the entire burden of healthcare readiness. It means the ingredient gives downstream products a stronger foundation to build from.

This distinction matters because the medical cannabinoid market will not be built on commodity inputs alone. It will require ingredients that are developed for specific applications and supported by the kind of information healthcare stakeholders are trained to evaluate.

 

What Healthcare-Ready Ingredients Require

A healthcare-ready cannabinoid ingredient starts with characterization. Its identity, purity, impurity profile, residuals, and analytical methods should be clearly defined. A COA is important, but healthcare-oriented reviewers often need to understand the standards and methods behind the result.

The next requirement is reproducibility. If an ingredient is going to support a defined application, the supply behind it has to remain consistent over time. That requires defined specifications, quality oversight, stability understanding, and a supply foundation capable of supporting long-term product standardization.

Safety support is another critical layer. Routine contaminant testing for pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, microbials, and mycotoxins remains important, but healthcare-oriented markets may require more. Depending on the application, reviewers may also look for toxicology, genotoxicity, impurity characterization, stability data, and known or plausible drug-interaction considerations.

A healthcare-ready ingredient should also be tied to a defined clinical or functional use case. That means understanding the intended application, the recommended dose, the available evidence, and the rationale for why the cannabinoid belongs in that application.

Finally, the ingredient needs documentation that makes all of this reviewable: specifications, methods, batch records, stability information, safety summaries, clinical summaries, dose rationale, and regulatory-ready materials. That documentation helps translate the ingredient from a supply item into something downstream product companies, physicians, compliance teams, and healthcare stakeholders can evaluate.

 

The New Supplier Standard

The supplier role is evolving.

In the existing supply market, the question has often been whether cannabinoid material can be produced, tested, priced, and delivered. In the emerging medical cannabinoid market, the question becomes whether the ingredient can support a product that healthcare stakeholders can evaluate, trust, and use responsibly.

That requires a different mindset.

It requires suppliers and ingredient developers to think beyond availability and price. It requires investment in regulatory readiness, clinical credibility, safety support, quality oversight, standardization, and documentation.

CMS BEI may be the most visible signal today, but the broader trend extends beyond one program. As cannabinoids move into more serious functional and medical applications, the market will increasingly distinguish between cannabinoid material and cannabinoid ingredients developed for a defined purpose.

The future of medical cannabinoids will depend on that distinction.

The next phase of the market will require more than molecules that can be made and sold. It will require ingredients that can support the standards of the applications they are meant to serve.