Tag Archives: food

Cannabis Beverage Distribution: A Q&A with Jason Vegotsky, CEO of Petalfast

By Aaron Green
No Comments

The cannabis beverage market is expected to reach $2 Billion by 2026 and is growing at a rapid pace. In Canada, the market share of infused beverages grew nearly 850% since 2020, according to a recent Headset report, the trend is expected to follow in the States. Some traditional beverage companies are hesitant to jump in due to the niche branding and supply chain models needed to capture significant market share. Other adult beverage companies such as Vita Coco and Pabst are dipping their toes into the cannabis beverage market to capture early market opportunities.

Sales and marketing agencies like Petalfast, with a core team stemming from the natural foods and beverage industries, have already started cracking the code for cannabis brands by implementing systems straight out of those industry’s playbooks. This includes disrupting the CA market by becoming the first to implement a traditional three-tier distribution model. 

We caught up with Jason Vegotsky, CEO of Petalfast to learn more about the cannabis beverage distribution market. Prior to Petalfast, Jason was Chief Revenue Officer at KushCo Holdings (now Greenlane Holdings), a role he took on after selling his butane supply company to KushCo.

Aaron Green: How did you get involved in the cannabis industry?

Jason Vegotsky, CEO of Petalfast

Jason Vegotsky: I began my career in wine and spirits distribution, but I always knew I wanted to work for myself. My first foray into launching a business, raising capital and brand building was through my beef jerky company, Lawless Jerky, which I built and sold after five years. Drawing on my food and beverage experience, I quickly entered and understood the cannabis market. I launched a company called Summit Innovations that sold butane to producers making oil. I eventually sold Summit to KushCo Holdings, Inc. (now known as Greenlane Holdings, Inc.) and became their President and Chief Revenue Officer. Through that experience, I began to notice gaps in the cannabis distribution model. Petalfast was built to fill that gap, providing clients with exceptional go-to-market strategies, leading to increased revenue and customer loyalty.

Green: How does experience in natural foods and traditional beverages translate to the cannabis industry?

Vegotsky: The route-to-market strategy is similar to that of cannabis, and the industry can benefit from the knowledge and experiences of those who work in natural foods and beverages. The extensive regulatory history and long-standing distribution models of these industries can provide a framework that those in the cannabis industry can capitalize on.

Green: What is the current distribution model for the majority of cannabis beverage companies today?

Vegotsky: Cannabis beverage companies face significant regulatory hurdles regarding distribution. Transportation restrictions, state-by-state differences in THC serving sizes and packaging requirements, retail display and storage limitations, and consumer adoption are just a few examples of what cannabis beverage brands run into when looking to enter, compete or scale in a given market.

At Petalfast, we offer a tiered distribution model, and our clients get phenomenal distribution through our logistics partner, Nabis. Products are circulated to all of California’s dispensaries and delivery services, allowing brands to focus on what matters most: creating the highest quality cannabis products on the market.

Green: What is a three-tier distribution model? Why do you think the cannabis beverage market is ripe for this model?

Vegotsky: The three-tier distribution model is commonly deployed by alcohol and other traditional food and beverage companies as it provides each tier to scale their operations and focus on their specific services. The three tiers include the brand, the wholesaler (sales + distribution), and the retailer in this distribution model. Because cash flow is such a significant challenge in the cannabis industry, adding an extra tier by separating your distribution and sales is advantageous to brands as it decreases overhead and allows brands to have the ability to scale.

Green: What are the opportunities for smaller brands looking to carve out a niche?

Vegotsky: One of the benefits of working in an emerging market is the opportunity to get in on the ground floor, learn as much as possible about the industry and find where gaps exist. Brand building in this space requires a deep understanding of the consumer and the overall culture — something that most brands are still trying to crack. If a smaller brand can effectively target a base within a distinct product category, it can be very effective in scaling within its niche.

Green: With big players from adult beverages dipping their toes in the cannabis beverage space, is consolidation inevitable? 

Vegotsky: At a certain level, yes. Well-established companies will seek out acquisitions of smaller, successful companies, especially ones that are capital constrained, but buyers need to be aware that capital alone will not be enough. The culture of cannabis is very different from alcohol or other adjacent beverage categories, so the success of these big players in adult beverages will be linked to their ability to locate and understand the consumer and implement branding strategies accordingly. Adult beverage companies entering the cannabis market must also realize that the flow of product to retailers is not the same as in alcohol, so they will need to adjust accordingly. The cannabis-infused beverage market is expected to reach $2 billion by 2026, so alcohol companies looking to join this movement should start exploring their options now.

Green: What trends are you following in cannabis beverages? What does the future of cannabis beverages look like?

Vegotsky: Canna-tourism has grown to a $17 billion industry. With the rise in cannabis-infused beverages, we’re seeing an increase in creative consumption offerings, from tastings and food and beverage pairings to dispensary tours and bud-and-breakfasts.

Cannabis beverages are attractive to newcomers as they allow for easier control of the effects. Businesses that provide an experience similar to that of a wine or brewery tour can capitalize on new consumers looking to explore the benefits of cannabis in a controlled environment.

The modern consumer is also more health conscious, and with the increased availability of legal cannabis, many are replacing alcoholic beverages with the plant. There has been a reported decrease in alcohol consumption since the 1980s, and many now believe cannabis is safer than alcohol. This belief is especially prevalent among younger generations, leading to more users incorporating cannabis-infused beverages into their daily lives. How we socialize or unwind at the end of the day will start to look different, and brands will become market leaders by speaking to the varied needs of consumers.

Green: How does the industry get there?

Vegotsky: For one, federal decriminalization and removing cannabis as a Schedule I drug on the controlled substances list would help. Cannabis companies don’t have access to the traditional marketing playbook to promote their brands due to TV advertising and social media restrictions. To build brand awareness, businesses should focus efforts on the retail level. Engaging with consumers in-store allows brands to grab their attention and drive faster sales until other avenues open up. At Petalfast, we decided to invest in field and trade marketing to bring brands to life at the retail level. We do this better than anybody else, and we do it at scale.

Innovating Edibles: A Q&A with Coda Signature Co-Founder Lauren Gockley

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

Coda Signature is a leading cannabis edibles company that has won countless awards for their creations. Founded in 2015 in Trinidad, Colorado, a small town just north of the New Mexico border, the women-led company has since become a fixture of the infused products market. Coda Signature prides itself on its innovative lens, focusing on what consumers want and framing their products around a luxury experience.

Lauren Gockley co-founded the brand in 2015 after a 20-year culinary career that started with professional training in France, working in Michelin-starred restaurants and Parisian pastry shops. They launched their first line of products in March of 2016 and three weeks later, the awards started coming in. Today, the company is a leader in the cannabis industry and constantly raising the bar. Last year they rolled out products with nanoemulsions, offering fast-acting edibles with a shortened onset time. In May of this year, Coda Signature debuted their low dose Fruit Notes, their foray into microdose formulations.

We caught up with Lauren Gockley to see what inspires her, hear the story of how the business came to be and get some insights on what’s next for the cannabis space.

Cannabis Industry Journal: I saw that you have a culinary background. Can you tell me about your background and how you got involved in the cannabis industry? 

Lauren Gockley, Co-Founder and Chief Innovation Officer, Coda Signature

Lauren Gockley: I have been working in the culinary world for almost 20 years. I have been blessed to have a wealth of different experiences from my professional training in France at Valrhona’s L’Ecole Du Grand Chocolat and the Parisian pastry shops of Pierre Hermé, to the fine dining restaurants of Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Thomas Keller. I also spent several years as a raw vegan chocolatier where I gained a totally new understanding of chocolate and flavor creation using unconventional ingredients.

The transition into cannabis was an unexpected turn in my culinary career, especially considering the level of acceptance of cannabis in its early legalization period. I had been living in New York for almost eight years. I was working two jobs and trying to start a chocolate business. One night, my partner (and fellow co-founder), Brien Sauchelli, brought over a cannabis chocolate bar. At the time, I was not terribly familiar with cannabis edibles, but I sure was familiar with chocolate! I tasted the chocolate bar, and thought, “this tastes pretty good, but what if I could do it better?” The idea of elevating the cannabis edibles experience to the same caliber of excellence that we revere food made so much sense.

CIJ: Tell us how you co-founded and started Coda Signature. I’d like to hear the origin story 

Lauren: Well, like so many cannapreneurs, I started in my kitchen with a crockpot, a Ziploc bag of trim and a massive amount of research. Fast-forward a few months to March 2015, and my partner and I are traveling across the country to Trinidad, Colorado—the new home of Coda Signature. Once unpacked, we dedicated almost a full year to product development, raw material sourcing, packaging design, facility construction, and most importantly we defined the mission, vision and core values of Coda Signature. One of our most significant core values is legacy. This was not meant to be an aspirational statement about the impact we hoped to have many years into the future, but rather an opportunity for us in every moment to ask, “What will my legacy be today?” We launched our first products in March of 2016. Three weeks later, we won the High Times Cannabis Cup for Best Edible with our Crescendo truffle collection.

CIJ: Your job title is Chief Innovation Officer – How is your company innovating the cannabis product space? What does your day-to-day look like?

Lauren: When it comes to innovation, we have identified four key areas of focus for Coda Signature products:

1) Flavor. We are leaning into our brand legacy of bold flavors and aromas, quality ingredients and impeccable craftsmanship. This legacy is reinforced by industry data. According to BDSA Trending Consumer Insights, flavor is the No. 1 driver of consumer purchase decisions, and second is brand loyalty.

2) Microdosing. According to BDSA Consumer Research, 73% of adults nationwide are now “bought in” to consuming cannabis. Understanding that much of this population is still getting acquainted with cannabis-infused products, we believe strongly that microdosed products are an essential factor for safe and customized experiences. We are one of the few infused products companies to defy the industry “standard serving size” with our new 1mg THC Fruit Notes.

3) Minor cannabinoids. We define the Coda experience through the integration of minor cannabinoids such as CBN, CBG, CBC and most recently THCV. This is no longer a market solely driven by milligrams of THC per dollar. Products innovating with minor cannabinoids are rapidly taking top-selling positions in both brand share and the market as a whole.

4) Fast-acting. After two years of intense R&D, Coda launched our first “Fast Acting” products in Q3 of 2021. “Fast Acting” decreases not only the onset time from 1-2 hours to 15-20 minutes, but also shortens the overall duration. This technology is a strong example of the incredible innovation redefining the cannabis edibles experience.

To answer your second question: My day-to-day is a blend of hands-on product creation; ongoing research into industry trends and new technologies; working with my colleagues in operations, quality and compliance to ensure our systems and procedures continue to deliver safe and consistent products; brand development and expansion; and of course, eating a lot of chocolate! The past few weeks have been particularly exciting for me as I have been back in the kitchen revitalizing our signature truffles that will be returning this holiday season.

CIJ: Where do you think cannabis will innovate next? What excites you about the future of product innovation in this market?

Lauren: Innovation in the cannabis industry can be particularly challenging due to the ongoing legalization limitations. However, like most life forms in nature, it is through limitations that we adapt, grow stronger and defy expectations. The fact that 73% of adults nationwide are open to the idea of cannabis means that we are just scratching the surface of innovation with this incredibly powerful plant.

Post-pandemic, I think a lot about our social habits. As a chef, there is a level of social intimacy I identify with food that I feel is not fully present in cannabis. I get very excited about the opportunities for more open cannabis consumption and how that will elevate and inspire the Coda product experience.

FDAlogo

CBD Safety in Edibles: What Regulators are Thinking

By Steven Gendel, Ph.D.
No Comments
FDAlogo

Despite the popularity of cannabidiol (CBD) infused edibles among consumers there are storm clouds on the horizon for this market. The potential threat stems from continuing uncertainty about the regulatory status of CBD in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). Recent statements by government agencies in both areas are reminders that regulators could make decisions or take actions that would suddenly end the viability of this market. Any company that sells, or is planning to sell, CBD infused edibles such as bakery items, candy and beverages needs to understand what the regulators are thinking now and what might happen in the future.

in the US, the 2018 Farm Bill created a category of products called hemp that are derived from the Cannabis sativaplant and contain less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This law also explicitly confirmed the authority of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the safety of hemp-derived infused edibles. This means CBD needs to navigate the New Dietary Ingredient pathway for dietary supplements, and either the food additive petition process or the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway for foods before it can be used as an ingredient in a food. All three of these processes require that someone (an individual, a company or a group) acting as a petitioner or notifier must submit safety data to the agency or arrange for a safety evaluation by independent experts.

Just some of the many hemp-derived CBD products on the market today

In the EU, CBD is regulated as a Novel Food in a process that is triggered by a submission to the European Commission. The submission must include safety data that is evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In England and Scotland, CBD products are also novel foods and are evaluated using a process like that in the EU. As in the US, it is the responsibility of an applicant to provide the safety data.

The standard used by the FDA to judge the safety of new food substances in all three pathways is that there should be a “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the conditions of its intended use.” The standard used by EFSA for novel foods is, “the food does not, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, pose a safety risk to human health.”

It is important to realize that both in the US and the EU the safety standard for evaluating new food substances only considers the safety of that substance. The laws or regulations that define agency authority do not allow for consideration of any potential benefits. Approval (or rejection) must be based solely on the safety of the substance. Further, safety is evaluated in the context of the intended use of the substance, the planned level of use and the resulting consumer exposure to that substance.

What do we know about FDA’s and EFSA’s current thinking about CBD safety? 

Unfortunately, both the FDA and EFSA have made it abundantly clear that they believe the available scientific data does not meet the required safety standards. FDA has issued multiple warning letters to companies that sell CBD products and has rejected two NDI notifications for CBD. Although these actions were primarily based on non-safety issues (illegal health claims and the drug exclusion provision in the FD&C Act, respectively), in each case the FDA also raised safety concerns. This was done by saying that the agency is not aware of any data that would support a GRAS determination or that the products raise “concerns about the adequacy of the safety evidence.” This doubt echoes statements from the agency in public meetings and advisories. These doubts were expressed as recently as June 2022 during a meeting of the FDA Science Advisory Board.

Similarly, EFSA has stated that they feel that there are critical gaps in the existing CBD safety data. In April 2022, they published a statement with a detailed analysis of the relevant scientific literature and explicitly identified critical data gaps. EFSA said that these data gaps prevented them from evaluating CBD as a novel food.

What do the regulators see as data gaps?

Although the details of each of the data gaps are technically complex, for both the FDA and EFSA they fall into few broad categories.

FDAlogoThe first is that the agencies feel that they need better information on how CBD behaves in the human body. This is described as understanding the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADMA) of CBD. The agencies also would like to see data on whether repeated use of CBD might cause damage to specific organs that does not occur from single exposures.

The second need is for more data related to the negative effects that have been observed in some previous work. This includes effects on the liver and reproductive system.  In particular, the agencies would like to know whether it is possible to identify a level of exposure that is low enough to not cause any negative effects. This is termed the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). In an ingredient safety assessment, the NOAEL is used to establish a safe intake level, called the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Comparing the ADI to the expected exposure for the intended use allows the regulators to assess overall safety for a substance.  If the expected exposure is below the ADI, the substance is considered safe. Both agencies feel that the existing data do not allow them to identify a NOAEL for CBD.

The third data need relates to the composition of the CBD products used in safety studies. Food safety determinations are based on the total composition of an ingredient that is produced using a fully defined process. Even if the potential ingredient is 95% or 99% pure, a safety evaluation needs to know what is in that other 5% or 1%, and that this is the same from batch to batch. For example, the presence or absence of residual processing chemicals (such as extraction solvents) and the nature and concentration of substances such as other cannabinoids and terpenes will differ between manufacturers and processes. These differences could affect the overall safety profile for each CBD product. Therefore, it is considered important that studies supporting a safety determination for a new substance be carried out with the actual article of commerce.

Unfortunately, many different CBD preparations have been used in past studies, and in most cases these preparations were poorly characterized. This makes it difficult or impossible to combine the safety data obtained using one product with data obtained with a different product. For example, data obtained using CBD isolates from two different sources cannot be combined unless it can be shown that they were made using the same process and have the same overall composition.

What does this mean for the future?

Neither the FDA nor EFSA is likely to take any positive action on CBD until they receive safety data that fill the gaps that they have identified.

Given these data problems, it is likely that there will be little or no movement on regulatory approvals for CBD in edibles (or dietary supplements in the US) for at least several years. In the US, these products will remain in legal limbo, with state regulations playing the leading role in determining what is allowed on the market. Products with health claims will continue to be particularly vulnerable to FDA action.  The situation in the EU will be at least as confusing because, in the absence of action from EFSA, the regulatory and market status of CBD edibles will be determined by each member country independently.

In view of this uncertainty and business confusion, that are three ways that companies making CBD and CBD edibles can respond. First, in the short term, they can develop and implement manufacturing processes that ensure that their products are consistent from batch to batch and that they have the intended dose of CBD per serving or per product unit. This includes working with the analytical community and organizations such as AOAC and ASTM to ensure that there are validated testing methods available for the CBD and for the final edible products.

In the medium term, business risk management plans for companies that make CBD and CBD infused edibles should consider the possibility that new scientific data will push food safety authorities to actively conclude the CBD does not meet the current regulatory safety standards. In that case, the regulators might start to act against all CBD-containing products.

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

Businesses should also be aware that the agencies could make a positive safety determination but that they would use the available data to establish a low maximum allowed dose per serving or set very low limits on the presence of specific contaminants such as other cannabinoids.

In the longer term, the CBD industry as a whole might consider advocating for legislative changes. The best statutory fix is likely to be one that that regulates all cannabis-derived products in a system or agency that is separate from the food safety system. This approach is being used in Canada under the Cannabis Act. It is also similar to the way that alcoholic beverages are regulated in the US. This approach, if appropriately designed, could avoid the need for safety determinations but might also limit market access. While this approach could bring clarity and certainty to the market, it is important to remember that it will take time and effort to create a functionally system under this scenario.

There are many market reports that forecast on-going high rates of growth for the CBD market.  However, the regulatory and scientific developments that are likely to occur of the next couple of years will determine whether those projections can become reality.

Companies making these products need to monitor changes and prepare to respond to either positive or negative events.

These companies should also remember that edible products are mostly made from food ingredients using standard food product processes. It is critical that these products be made under a system that prevents food-borne hazards.

FDA Issues Warning Over Copycat Cannabis Consumables

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
1 Comment

Last week, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) published a consumer warning regarding food products containing THC and the risk of children accidentally eating them. Between January of last year through April 24, 2022, the FDA says they have received more than 100 adverse event reports involving people (both adults and children) accidentally consuming THC-containing products.

FDAlogoAccording to the published advisory, the main concern seems to be copycat products that are packaged and labeled to resemble popular junk foods. The copycat, THC-containing products are mimicking Cap’n Crunch, Cocoa Pebbles, Cocoa Puffs, Froot Loops, Fruity Pebbles, Nerds Ropes, Starbursts, Sour Patch Kids, Trix and others.

Examples of the THC products the FDA included in its warning.

In years past, usually around Halloween, local police, municipalities and state officials would often issue similar warnings over the same issue. Folks in the cannabis industry are usually quick to dismiss those warnings as dramatized and misleading, citing extremely low numbers of actual instances where edibles were given to children during Halloween. However, these warnings might be more warranted now, given the number of copycat products on the market today and the increased number of adverse events the FDA has reported.

Historically, most of the companies producing these copycat products that contain THC, like Sour Patch Kids or Nerds Rope candies, come from the illicit market. Most licensed edibles producers know not to steal branding and packaging from a large food company. Still though, it is worth taking a good, hard look at cannabis edibles packaging and making sure they wouldn’t be mistaken for a food product that doesn’t contain THC.

Cannabis Recalls: Lessons Learned After Three Years of Canadian Legalization

By Steven Burton
1 Comment

Three years ago, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to legalize and regulate cannabis. We’ve covered various aspects of cannabis regulation since, but now with a few years of data readily available, it’s time to step back and assess: what can we learn from three years of cannabis recalls in the world’s largest legal market?

Labelling Errors are the Leading Cause of Canadian Cannabis Recalls

Our analysis of Health Canada’s data revealed a clear leader: most cannabis recalls since legalization in October 2018 have been due to labelling and packaging errors. In fact, over three quarters of total cannabis recalls were issued for this reason, covering more than 140,000 units of recalled product.

The most common source of labelling and packaging recalls in the cannabis industry (more than half) is inaccurate cannabinoid information. Peace Naturals Project’s recall of Spinach Blue Dream dried cannabis pre-rolls this year is a good example. Not only did the packaging incorrectly read that the product contained CBD, but the THC quantity listed was lower than the actual amount of THC in the product. The recall covered over 13,000 units from a single lot sold over 10 weeks.

In another example, a minor error made a huge impact. British Columbia-based We Grow BC Ltd. experienced this firsthand when it misplaced the decimal points in its cannabinoid content. The recalled products displayed the total THC and CBD values as 20.50 mg/g and 0.06 mg/g, respectively, when the products contained 205.0 mg/g and 0.6 mg/g.

Accurate potency details are not just crucial for compliance. For many customers, potency is a deciding factor when selecting a cannabis product, and this is especially important for medicinal users (including children), people who are sensitive to certain cannabinoids and consumers looking for non-psychoactive effects. In this case, at least six consumer complaints were submitted to Peace Naturals Project, the highest number for any cannabis recall in Canada.

Frequent, integrated lab testing, an effective and robust traceability system, smaller lot sizes during production and consistent quality checks could have helped Peace Naturals Project and We Grow BC limit the scope of their recall or avoid them altogether.

Pathogens are the #2 Cause of Cannabis Recalls in Canada

Pathogens are the second most common cause of recalls in Canada, claiming 18% of total cannabis recall incidents. And while that doesn’t sound like much compared to the recalls caused by labelling errors, it affects the highest volume of product recalled with over 360,000 units affected.

Canadian Cannabis Recalls – Total number of affected units and noted causes

A primary cause of allergens and microbiological contamination of cannabis products is yeast, mold and bacteria found on cannabis flower (chemical contaminants like pesticides can also be a major concern). Companies like Atlas Growers, Natural MedCo and Agro-Greens Natural Products have all learned this lesson through costly recalls.

These allergenic contaminants pose an obvious health risk, often leading to reactions such as wheezing, sneezing and itchy eyes. For people using cannabis for medical conditions and may be more susceptible to illness, pathogens can cause more serious health complications. Moreover, this type of cannabis recall not only drives significant cost since microbiological contamination of flower could easily affect several product batches processed in the same facility and/or trigger downstream recalls, but also affect consumer confidence for established cannabis brands.

Preventive control plan requirements for cannabis manufacturers mandate that holders of a license for processing that produce edible cannabis or cannabis extracts in Canada must identify and analyze the biological, chemical and physical hazards that present a risk of contamination to the cannabis or anything that would be used as an ingredient in the production of the edible cannabis or cannabis extract. Biological hazards can come from a number of sources, including:

  • Incoming ingredients, including raw materials
  • Cross-contamination in the processing or storage environment
  • Employees
  • Cannabis extract, edible cannabis and ingredient contact surfaces
  • Air
  • Water
  • Insects and rodents

To mitigate risks, addressing root causes with preventative measures and controls is essential. For instance, high humidity levels and honeydew secreted by insects are common causes of mold on cannabis flowers. Measures such as leaving a reasonable distance between plants, using climate-controlled areas to dry flowers, applying antifungal agents and conducting regular tests are necessary to combat such incidents.

control the room environment
Preventative measures and controls can save a business from extremely costly recalls.

Of course, placing all the necessary controls into action is not as simple as it may sound. Multiple facilities and a wide range of products in production mean more complexity for cannabis producers and processors. Any gaps in processing flower, extracts or edibles can result in an uncontrolled safety hazard that may lead to a costly cannabis recall.

These challenges are not just limited to cannabis growers. The food industry has been effectively mitigating the risk of biological hazards for decades with the help of food ERP solutions.

Avoid Recalls Altogether with Advanced ERP Technology

An effective preventative control plan with regular quality checks, internal audits and standardized testing is important to minimize the threats evident from Canada’s recall data. If these measures ever fail, real-time traceability systems play a pivotal role in the event of a cannabis recall by enabling manufacturers to trace back incidents to the exact point of contamination and identify affected products with surgical precision.

Instead of starting from zero, savvy cannabis industry leaders turn to the proven solutions from the food industry and take advantage of data-driven, automated systems that deliver the reliability and safety that the growing industry needs. From automated label generation to integrated lab testing to quality checks to precision traceability and advanced reporting, production and quality control systems are keys to success for the years ahead.

Cannabis Safety & Quality: An Interview with the Founder of CSQ

By Aaron Green
No Comments

The supply chain for consumer cannabis products is complex, involving cultivation, extraction, manufacturing and packaging. While global best practices exist for Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), the certifications are not tailored to the cannabis industry.

CSQ has developed tailored standards for the cannabis industry to assist cannabis companies in improving their quality. As a division of ASI, a woman-owned business that’s provided safety solutions to the food industry since the 1940s, the CSQ standards were built in 2020 to meet ISO requirements, GFSI requirements and regulatory cannabis requirements from seed-to-sale. CSQ is the first cannabis certification program to meet the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements with plans to be benchmarked in 2022.

We interviewed Tyler Williams, CTO and founder of CSQ. Tyler founded CSQ after working at ASI – a family-owned food safety company in St. Louis.

Aaron Green: Nice to meet you, Tyler. How did you get involved in the cannabis industry?

Tyler Williams: It’s kind of a long story, but it’s a good story. My mom worked for ASI for 15+ years. That company has been around since the 1940s and is one of the oldest food safety companies in the world. The owners were ready to sell about five or six years ago, and my mom ended up using a small business loan to purchase the company. That’s how I got started in a food safety and dietary supplement space.

About three to four years ago, we started getting inquiries from cannabis companies asking about GMP audits and certification and different things. We started doing certifications to our GMP food processing standard or dietary supplements depending on what they wanted but realized that there were a lot of things that weren’t applicable to cannabis companies or there were extra things needed for cannabis companies. That’s how I started working with cannabis companies to start developing the CSQ certification program and it has just kind of grown over the years.

Tyler Williams, CTO and founder of CSQ

We currently have four standards at the CSQ level. CSQ plans on being benchmarked to GFSI which stands for Global Food Safety Initiative. We plan on going through that process to get the benchmark next year. There are four standards underneath CSQ: one for growing and cultivation; one for extraction; one for food and beverage edibles; and then cannabis dietary supplements. We’re looking to add standards for cosmetics, cannabis contact packaging materials, retail and consumption lounges.

Last year, when we were doing our pilot audits, we realized that the CSQ standard was great for medium to big sizedMSOs because they’re already doing these best practices. It’s easier for them to, you know, implement a few things, and then get certified, whereas for the smaller guys who might be coming from the illicit market, it’s a lot harder – it’s a lot bigger jump from them to go from zero to 100. Last month, we released our unaccredited cGMP, cGMP+, cGAP and cGAP+ standards. The difference between the regular and the plus is that the plus has HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) and then it also includes a recall module where the site must do a mock recall while the auditor is on-site.

CSQ doesn’t perform the audits. We license the use of our standard to accredited certification bodies and then they must get accredited to be able to certify companies under the CSQ name.

Green: Can you tell me a bit about the genesis of CSQ and the structure of the organization?

Williams: We’re a for-profit company. We thought about going the non-profit route but it’s a lot more intricate and a lot more people involved when you go that route. Our parent company is ASI, and we are under the ASI global standards division which is responsible for developing standards. So, CSQ is one of those standards under that brand and that’s kind of the foundation of it. We have two licensed certification bodies right now. ASI has a certification body, and they are one of our licensed CBs and then WQS, who’s based out of North Carolina and has a big presence in South America which is great because we’re starting to get inquiries from companies in South America as well.

Green: How do you go about building industry awareness and acceptance of the standard?

Williams: Building awareness really started with going out to the medium- to large-sized companies and saying, “Will you open your doors and let us come and basically do all these audits for free at your facility just so we can kind of get a baseline across the industry?” So, that started the conversation with industry. The MSOs in the medium- to large-sized companies, are more ready to go through the certification process because they know that federal legalization is around the corner. They know these things are going to have to be in place already so they’re just doing it as preparation. There isn’t much demand for retailers right now like there is in the food and or dietary supplement space. So that’s where the demand is really coming from – wanting to self-regulate in preparation for federal legalization.

Most of our outreach is education-based. We speak at a lot of conferences. We host a lot of webinars and free events and things like that, just to get the word out about CSQ. A lot of people know what GMPs are, or know that they should be following GMPs, but they don’t necessarily know how to get from point A to point B. Our job is to educate them that it’s not as hard as they think it is and it’s not as expensive as they think it is. The cost of an audit is relatively inexpensive. What I always tell people is the sooner you start preparing, the cheaper the whole process is. What happens a lot of times is a facility will not build out their facility to GMP specifications, and then they want to get GMP certified so they must move the hand washing station from the back of their facility to the front where the employee entrance is or things like that. The sooner these companies start thinking about it, the better and that’s basically what we’re trying to do is just educate the industry about that kind of preparation.

Green: cGMP and cGAP are perhaps more broadly accepted outside of the cannabis industry. Do cGMP and cGAP fall under the CSQ certification?

Williams: There are four ingredients that make up the CSQ standard. There are industry best practices, which are specific to just the cannabis industry. There are good manufacturing practices, or good agricultural practices, that are just accepted globally. Then we look at the Codex Alimentarius, which is the global food code. Every country mustwrite their federal rules on food based off this standard. We use the Codex when we’re talking about edibles and things like that. And then the last aspect of CSQ is the GFSI benchmarking requirements. So that’s kind of the basis of our program, making sure that the auditors have certain amount of audit hours, and we have training and processes in place for that. That’s where the GFSI benchmarks are coming out. So, all those four things kind of really create the CSQ standard.

Green: There are clear internal benefits to a company for holding to a quality standard. What are the downstream benefits to the companies that have CSQ? How do the end-users know about it?

Williams: I come from the food industry and if you go to the grocery store, you just assume that everything’s safe.Consumers don’t even think about the certifications that those companies must get to even be able to sell their product in retail stores. They don’t necessarily put those certifications on the packaging material, because as a consumer “SQF” means nothing to most consumers, right? It would only mean something if you’re in the industry.We’re trying to be different with CSQ and get more consumers aware of it. One of the things that we have is a database of certified facilities. Consumers will be able to say, “Okay, maybe I’m interested in this new brand. Are they certified to this program or not?” and be able to see that. We’re also trying to get companies to put the CSQ logo once they’re certified on their marketing materials.

Now, one thing that we cannot do yet is put the logo on the finished product packaging, because we don’t have a testing addendum, but we’re working on that. There’s not a lot of demand for it right now and it’s more expensive audit costs, where you’re talking about lab tests, and things like that. So, it’s something that we’re working on, but we haven’t fully developed yet.

Green: Next question is around d-8 THC and federal regulations. What’s your position on d-8 and how are you thinking about d-8 trends in the future?

Williams: d-8 THC itself as a product, I think it’s fine. I think if it’s made safely, we know all the components I think it’s fine from that aspect. The problem that we have right now is it’s not regulated. That’s where I think we need to have these states that have legalized THC or hemp to then implement rules and regulations and bring d-8 THC into those rules and regulations. And so maybe then it’s only those licensed facilities that are inspected by the state that are producing those products and not just some guy out of his garage. I think a lot of people right now are just wanting to ban it completely and I don’t think that’s the best approach. There’s nothing wrong with the product itself, it’s just how it’s being produced right now in the gray area where no one’s regulated.

Green: What in your personal life or in cannabis are you most interested in learning about?

Williams: I love what I do. I’m always looking at and reading regulations and then trying to learn something new. I’ve been going through organic certification training right now. At some point, CSQ will probably go down the route of having some sort of organic certification. So that’s been kind of what I’ve been working on and learning right now. But I’m a sponge and I like to absorb new information about the industry.

Green: Thanks Tyler, that concludes the interview!

Williams: Thanks, Aaron!

FDAlogo

FDA Issues Warning Letters on Marketing and Sale of OTC CBD Products

By Seth Mailhot, Steve Levine, Emily Lyons, Leah Kaiser, Marshall Custer
No Comments
FDAlogo

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters this month to two companies concerning the marketing and sale of over-the-counter (OTC) drug products containing cannabidiol (CBD) as an inactive ingredient. The letters allege violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act related to current good manufacturing practice requirements and marketing of new drugs without FDA approval.

At issue: labeling, NDAs and active ingredients

The companies subject to the warning letters market OTC drug products that contain CBD as an inactive ingredient. In the warning letters, the FDA states that it has not approved any OTC drugs containing CBD. According to the FDA, an approved new drug application (NDA) is required to legally market nonprescription or OTC drug products containing CBD, regardless of whether the CBD is an active or inactive ingredient. The FDA notes that CBD has known pharmacological effects and demonstrated risks, and that CBD has not been shown to be safe and suitable for use, even as an inactive ingredient. As a result, the FDA states that CBD cannot be marketed in OTC drug products.

Further, the warning letters noted the marketing of several CBD products that highlighted the benefits of CBD for a range of conditions in such a manner that, according to the FDA, “misleadingly suggests that [their] . . . products are approved or endorsed by FDA in some way when this is not true.” The FDA also took issue with the way products were labeled, which included callouts on the front label regarding the CBD content of the product (a requirement under most state laws that permit CBD as an ingredient). Similarly, the FDA also noted that some of the products advertised CBD as an active ingredient in a topical pain reliever product. According to the FDA, no company may legally market such a product, since there are no OTC monographs or NDAs that allow the use of CBD in an OTC drug.

What this means for you

These warning letters highlight the FDA’s vigilance regarding OTC CBD products. Regardless of whether the CBD is labeled as an active or inactive ingredient, the FDA has taken the position that nonprescription CBD drugs are in violation of the FD&C Act. Companies marketing CBD products should be careful to ensure their marketing practices, as well as their product formulations, do not present a heightened risk of FDA enforcement.

Cannabis & Chemicals: Why Glove Sourcing is Vital

By Steve Ardagh
No Comments

Freya Farm, a pesticide-free cannabis producer and processor located in Conway, Wash., was recently forced to issue a recall after the chemical o-Phenylphenol, listed under CA Prop 65, was found on its products. Testing traced the antimicrobial compound, known to cause cancer, back to the FDA-compliant food grade gloves used by Freya during packaging.

The reason this could happen with FDA-compliant, food grade gloves needs urgent attention. The production and manufacturing of food contact gloves is largely unsupervised, with limited and infrequent checks on gloves imported into the US. After initial approvals, non-sterile, FDA-compliant food grade gloves are not subject to ongoing controls. This may lead to lower grade and cheap raw materials being used in sub-standard production facilities and processes.

Why “Food Safe” Gloves Aren’t Always Safe

The quality and safety of disposable gloves are limited to Letters of Compliance and Guarantee on the general make and model of the glove, not necessarily the glove you are holding in your hand. There are few controls on the consistency of raw materials, manufacturing processes and factory compliance for both food contact and medical examination grade gloves. Therefore, the opportunity exists for deliberate or accidental contamination within the process of which the Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI) may not be aware.

Read more about this in Disposable Gloves: The Unregulated Cannabis Threat, previously published in the Cannabis Industry Journal.

The Cost of Recalls

In the words of Freya Farm, “Nothing ruins your day like testing your product, confident it will be clean, only to find it contaminated with some crazy, toxic chemical.” In tracing the issue, the gloves were the last thing Freya Farm tested, as they never suspected something sold as food safe could be the culprit.

A recall of this type can be expensive, as fines range up to $200,000. Since this incident, Freya Farm has implemented a responsible sourcing policy for gloves using supplier Eagle Protect to protect its products, people and brand reputation.

Glove inspection includes five factors of quality controls

Eagle Protect, a global supplier of PPE to the food and medical sectors, is currently implementing a unique proprietary third-party glove analysis to ensure a range of their gloves are regularly checked for harmful contaminants, toxins and pathogens. This Fingerprint Glove Analysis mitigates the risk of intentional or accidental physical, chemical or microbiological glove contamination by inspecting five factors: the use of safe ingredients, cross-contamination potential, cleanliness, structural integrity and dermal compatibility.

Harmful toxins and contaminants in gloves have been identified in many peer reviewed scientific studies. This is now a real issue for companies producing consumer products, especially in industries such as organics and cannabis whose products must be handled by gloves and test clean.

Three key areas that can be tested for in a glove analysis to ensure safe product handling include:

  • Dermal compatibility tests for toxins and chemicals will flag any toxic chemical, such as o-Phenylphenol
  • GCMS testing for consistent quality and safety of glove raw materials
  • Cleanliness tests for pathogens inside and outside the surfaces of gloves – particularly pathogens also required in cannabis testing, such as E. coli and Salmonella, mold and fungus and pesticides.

For cannabis producers responsible glove sourcing is vital, especially as the COVID-related demand for single-use gloves exceeds supply, with poor quality, counterfeit and even reused gloves flooding the market. For producers with a product that rests very much on its quality, it’s important to focus on quality and not just cost when procuring gloves.

GMPs & Cannabis Manufacturing

By Kathleen May
No Comments

Editor’s Note: While CIJ typically omits the word “marijuana” where possible due to antiquated nomenclature and prejudicial connotations, we understand the legal distinction between cannabis containing THC and hemp requires the use of the word when referencing federal government policies and legislative language.


Despite the rapid evolution of the cannabis industry, the assurance of safe manufacturing practices remains unclear.Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have imposed significant hurdles for cannabis operators to remain on the “right side of the law.” Therefore, manufacturers of both hemp and marijuana products have been left to figure things out on their own, or choose to ignore existing guidance because the lack of federal oversight allows them to do so. Inconsistent regulation on manufacturing, packaging, labeling and testing of cannabis products offers the potential for unsubstantiated, non-scientific and often times blatantly false claims on product safety and efficacy.

Science vs. Law

Hemp and marijuana are both species of the Cannabis family, Cannabaceae. Genetically they are identical but are arbitrarily defined by the presence of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). While science does not differentiate between hemp and marijuana, the law does.

The hemp industry declared a small victory with the passing of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). Under this bill universities and state agriculture departments were allowed to grow hemp under state law. Additionally, “industrial hemp” was officially defined by establishing the legal limit of THC at 0.3% on a dry weight basis. The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), under the guidance of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), took things a few steps further by authorizing the cultivation of hemp and removed hemp and hemp seeds from the CSA. The bill however provides no language that mandates the safe manufacture of hemp-derived consumer goods. The 2018 version also preserved the FDA’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). To the surprise of most, listing cannabidiol (CBD), even hemp-derived, as an ingredient on consumer product labels remains illegal under the bill. Furthermore, CBD product manufacturers are not protected under the current regulations. Since 2015 the FDA has issued warning letters to firms marketing CBD products as dietary supplements and/or foods, and in December 2018, FDA declared it illegal to introduce food containing CBD (or THC) into interstate commerce, regardless if it is derived from hemp. To date, the only FDA approved CBD product is GW Pharmaceutical’s Epidiolex.

Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. Thirty-six (36) states have approved comprehensive, publicly available medical marijuana programs, and now 14 states have approved adult use programs, with New Jersey passing legislation on February 22, 2021. However, the industry has seen minimal movement toward mandating GMP requirements in the marijuana market. Only a handful of medical programs require manufacturers to follow GMP. Furthermore, the requirements are inconsistent between states and the language in the regulations on how to approach GMP implementation is vague and disjointed. This fragmented guidance supports the complexity and difficulty of enforcing a coherent, standardized and reliable approach to safe manufacturing practices.

What is GMP and Why Should You Care?

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are a system for ensuring that products are consistently manufactured and controlled according to quality standards and regulatory guidelines. The implementation of a GMP compliant program ensures consumer health and safety, allows manufacturers to understand the intended use of their products, allows manufacturers to defend product specifications as being appropriate, considers the risks to vulnerable populations and minimizes overall business risk. In a nutshell, GMP equals product safety and quality, and defines the responsibilities of the manufacturer to ensure consumers are protected from the distribution of unsafe and ineffective products. Currently, the GMP “landscape” in the cannabis space is complicated. The various “flavors” (food, dietary supplements, cosmetics and drugs/devices) of GMP leave many confused and frustrated when making the decision to implement GMP. Confusion is a result of unclear regulatory requirements as well as operators not fully understanding how to classify or designate the end use of their product(s). Implementing an effective GMP program requires proper planning (both short and long term), financial commitment and qualified resources.

Where Should You Start?

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve and mature in the cannabis space, your business model must consider GMP implementation if you wish to remain successful and sustainable.

Intended Use

Before you can implement GMP you must first understand what GMP regulations apply to the intended use of your product(s). Are you manufacturing food, beverages or dietary supplements? Get acquainted with the FDA Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) on GMP. 

Conduct a Gap Assessment

A gap assessment allows you to determine your deficiencies in relation to GMP compliance. The assessment should include, but is not limited to facility design, equipment design, supply chain, risk management and employee training.

Develop an Action Plan

Once the gap assessment is complete a comprehensive action plan will be developed to map out the steps required to achieve GMP compliance. The action plan should follow the SMART Goal principles:

  • Specific (simple, well-defined)
  • Measurable (meaningful)
  • Attainable (achievable, agreed upon)
  • Relevant (resource-based, reasonable and realistic)
  • Timely (time-based, defined due dates)

The plan will include prioritized deliverables, due dates and allocated resources in order to strategically plan and execute and complete the required tasks.

Schedule a Mock GMP Inspection

A mock inspection verifies that the action plan was adequately executed. Hire an experienced resource familiar with related GMPs and QMS to conduct the inspection. A successful mock inspection is a perfect litmus test if the end goal is to achieve GMP certification.

Cannabis manufacturers that ignore the obvious progression toward an FDA-like industry will not survive the long game. Those that embrace the momentum and properly plan to mitigate product and business risk – those who demonstrate integrity and are truly in this space to ensure safe, effective and quality products to consumers will come out on top, gain credibility and secure brand recognition.


References:

  • 21 CFR Part 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements.
  • 21 CFR Part 117, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food and the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).
  • 21 CFR Part 210, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing, Packing, or Holding of Drugs; General.
  • 21 CFR Part 211, Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals.
  • 21 CFR Part 700, Subchapter G-Cosmetics.
  • 21 CFR Part 820, Subchapter H-Medical Devices; Quality System Regulation
  • Congressional Research Service, FDA Regulation of Cannabidiol (CBD) Products, June 12, 2019.
  • United States Food and Drug Administration-Warning Letters, Current Content as of 02/19/2021.

Links:

Facility Considerations for Cultivation & Manufacturing: A Case Study

By David Vaillencourt
1 Comment

The cannabis industry is growing and evolving at an unprecedented pace and regulators, consumers and businesses continually struggle to keep up.

Cannabis businesses: How do you maintain an edge on the market, avoid costly mistakes?

Case Study: Costly Facility Build Out Oversights

David Vaillencourt will be joining a panel discussion, Integrated Lifecycle of Designing a Cultivation Operation, on December 22 during the Cannabis Quality Virtual Conference. Click here to register. A vertically integrated multi-state operator wants to produce edibles. The state requires adherence to food safety practices (side note – even if the state did not, adherence to food safety practices should be considered as a major facility and operational requirement). They are already successfully producing flower, tinctures and other oil derivatives. Their architect and MEP firm works with them to design a commercial kitchen for the production of safe edibles. The layout is confirmed, the equipment is specified – everything from storage racks, an oven and exhaust hoods, to food-grade tables. The concrete is poured and walls are constructed. The local health authority comes in to inspect the construction progress, who happens to have a background in industrial food-grade facilities (think General Mills). They remind the company that they must have three-compartment sinks with hot running water for effective cleaning and sanitation, known as clean-out-of-place (COP). The result? Partial demolition of the floor to run pipeline, and a retrofit to make room for the larger sinks, including redoing electrical work and a contentious team debate about the size of the existing equipment that was designed to fit ‘just right.’

Unfortunately, this is just one more common story our team recently witnessed. In this article, I outline a few recommendations and a process (Quality by Design) that could have reduced this and many other issues. For some, following the process may just be the difference between being profitable or going out of business in 2021.

The benefits of Quality by Design are tangible and measurable:

  1. Reduce mistakes that lead to costly re-work
  2. Mitigate inefficient operational flow
  3. Reduce the risk of cross-contamination and product mix-ups. It happens all the time without carefully laid out processes.
  4. Eliminate bottlenecks in your production process
  5. Mitigate the risk of a major recall.

The solution is in the process

Regardless of whether you fall in the category of a food producer, manufacturer of infused products (MIP), food producers, re-packager or even a cultivator, consider the following and ask these questions as a team.

People

Food processing and sanitation
By standardizing and documenting safety procedures, manufacturers mitigate the risk of cannabis-specific concerns

For every process, who is performing it? This may be a single individual or the role of specific people as defined in a job description.

Does the individual(s) performing the process have sufficient education and training? Do you have a diverse team that can provide different perspectives? World class operations are not developed in a vacuum, but rather with a team. Encourage healthy discourse and dialogue.

Process

Is the process defined? Perhaps in a standard operating procedure (SOP) or work instruction (WI). This is not the general guidance an equipment vendor provided you with, this is your process.

How well do you know your process? Does your SOP or WI specify (with numbers) how long to run the piece of equipment, the specification of the raw materials used (or not used) during the process, and what defines a successful output?

Do you have a system in place for when things deviate from the process? Processes are not foolproof. Do not get hung up on deviations from the process, but don’t turn a blind eye to them. Record and monitor them. In time, they will show you clear opportunities for improvement, preventing major catastrophes.

Materials

What are the raw materials being used? Where are they coming from (who is your supplier and how did you qualify them)?

Start with the raw materials that create your product or touch your product at all stages of the process. We have seen many cases where cannabis oils fail for heavy metals, specifically lead. Extractors are quick to blame the cultivator and their nutrients, as cannabis is a very effective phytoremediator (it uptakes heavy metals and toxins from soil substrate). The more likely culprit – your glassware! Storing cannabis oil, both work in process or final product in glass jars, while preferred over plastic, requires due diligence on the provider of your glassware. If they change the factory in which it is produced, will you be notified? Stipulate this in your contract. Don’t find yourself in the next cannabis lead recall that gets the attention of the FDA.

Savings is gained through simple control of your raw materials. Variability in your raw material going into the extractor is inevitable, but the more you can do to standardize the quality of your inputs, the less work re-formulating needs to be done downstream. Eliminate the constant need to troubleshoot why yields are lower than expected, or worst case, having to rerun or throw an entire batch out because it was “hot” (either too much THC in the hemp/CBD space or pesticides/heavy metals). These all add up to significant downstream bottlenecks – underutilized equipment, inefficient staff (increase in labor cost) all because of a lack of upstream controls. Use your current process as a starting point, but implement a quality system to drive improvement in operational efficiency and watch your top line grow while your bottom-line decreases.

Consistency in quality standards requires meticulous SOPs

Have you tested and confirmed the quality of your raw material? This isn’t just does it have THC and is it cannabis, but is it a certain particle size, moisture level, etc.? Again, define the quality of your raw materials (specifications) and test for it.

Rememberranges are your friend. It is much better to say 9-13% moisture than “about 10%”. For your most diligent extractor, 11% will be unacceptable, but for a guy that just wants to get the job done, 13% just may do!

Test your final product AFTER the process. Again, how does it stack up against your specifications? You may need to have multiple specifications based on different types of raw material. Perhaps one strain with a certain range of cannabinoids and terpenes can be expected for production.

Review the data and trend it. Are you getting lower yields than normal? This may be due to an issue with the equipment, maybe a blockage has formed somewhere, a valve is loose, and simple preventive maintenance will get you back up and running. Or, it could be that the raw biomass quality has changed. Either way, having that data available for review and analysis will allow you to identify the root cause and prevent a surprise failure of your equipment. Murphy’s law applies to the cannabis industry too.

  1. You are able to predict and prevent most failures before they occur
  2. You increase the longevity of your equipment
  3. You are able to predict with a level of confidence – imagine estimating how much product you will product next month and hitting that target – every time!
  4. Business risks are significantly mitigated – a process that spews out metal, concentrates heavy metals or does not kill microbes that were in the raw material is an expensive mistake.
  5. Your employees don’t feel like they are running around with their hair on fire all the time. It’s expensive to train new employees. Reduce your turnover with a less stressed-out team.

Takeaways

Maintaining a competitive edge in the cannabis industry is not easy, but it can be made easier with the right team, tools and data. Our recommendations boil down to a few simple steps:

  1. Make sure you have a chemical or mechanical engineer to understand, optimize and standardize your process (you should have one of these on staff permanently!)
  2. Implement a testing program for all raw materials
    1. Test your raw materials – cannabis flower, solvents, additives, etc. before using. Work with your team to understand what you should and should not test for, and the frequency for doing so. Some materials/vendors are likely more consistent or reliable than others. Test the less reliable ones more frequently (or even every time!)
  3. Test your final product after you extract it – Just because your local regulatory body does not require a certain test, it does not mean you should not look for it. Anything that you specified wanting the product to achieve needs to be tested at an established frequency (and this does not necessarily need to be every batch).
  4. Repeat, and record all of your extraction parameters.
  5. Review, approve and set a system in place for monitoring any changes.

Congratulations, you have just gone through the process of validating your operation. You may now begin to realize the benefits of validating your operation, from your personnel to your equipment and processes.