CSQ’s accredited certification program, along with its Certification Body, ASI are both now approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) for Safe Harbor Hemp manufacturers for cGMP certification, per Colorado’s revised statutes that took effect July 1st.
According to Colorado’s regulators, a Safe Harbor Hemp product is a hemp-derived compound or cannabinoid, whether a finished product or in the process of being produced, that is permitted to be manufactured, produced, packaged, processed, or prepared in Colorado for export, but not permitted to be sold or distributed in Colorado.
Cannabis Safety & Quality (CSQ) is an ANAB-accredited certification program for the manufacture of cannabinoid products, and its cGMP certification is an optimal solution for licensed Safe Harbor Hemp manufacturers who are now required to get audited by an accredited third-party Certification Body no later than July 1st, 2025.
The first step Safe Harbor Hemp manufacturers must take to acquire a CSQ cGMP certification is to schedule an audit through ASI, an accredited Certification Body for all approved programs listed by the CDPHE.
Additionally, CSQ is stepping in to help Colorado’s marijuana operators navigate the updated reduced testing allowance requirements that took effect July 1st. The revised statutes allow operators to reduce their testing requirements if they implement a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system in conformance with ASTM Standard D8250-19 and pass an internal audit assessing compliance with the rule’s requirements.
Since the new rule does not clarify how a licensed operator submits evidence of their self-assessment or proof of implementing a HACCP system, CSQ is developing resources to help operators exceed expectations with a Reduced Testing Allowance (RTA) Toolkit.
“Companies that truly implement these processes needed to qualify for reduced testing will at the end of the day, produce safer and higher quality products. However, they are currently left in the dark in terms of where to start, or what the State constitutes as acceptable evidence, so we are arming operators with tools to prove they’ve done everything right,” said Darwin Millard, Technical Director of CSQ.
The RTA Toolkit being developed in collaboration with Rootwurks, CSQ’s official training partner and creator of the most affordable accredited HACCP course on the market today, will include:
HACCP Preparation;
Lead Auditor Training;
RTA Compliance Guide, outlining everything a licensed operator should know before attempting to achieve an RTA; and
RTA Compliance Document Packaging, including all necessary documentation to be submitted to the CO Marijuana Enforcement Division.
“The new processes outlined in Colorado’s revised statutes—in particular, HACCP preparation—will undoubtedly help companies create safer cannabis products and more compliant workplaces. Rootwurks developed a HACCP certification course to help companies increase safety despite budgetary and manpower shortcomings that often complicate safety training,” said Chase Eastman, CEO of Rootwurks.
CSQ and Rootwurks anticipate a Q3 launch date with more details and free resources coming soon.
In the realm of consumer safety, minimum standards form a critical safety net that allows businesses and regulators alike with necessary guidelines. From our food and medicines, railroad tracks to bicycle helmets, crayons to cribs, standards are everywhere. Knowing where the lanes are and how to move inside of them provides the structure needed to guide manufacturers forward. And the cannabis and hemp industry is no exception. Why would it be?
In this series of articles, we will explore specific ASTM International standards that have already been developed and published by its Committee on Cannabis (commonly referred to by its Committee designation number – D37). With a frustrating lack of federal clarity, states are increasingly adopting these standards directly into their rules — and for good reason! These standards have gone through an extensive and rigorous process of achieving consensus, adhering to the principles set out by the World Trade Organization to reduce technical barriers to trade. These principles cover openness, balance, and transparency, and are one of many reasons why ASTM standards are confidently adopted into regulations by the US Federal Government. It is no wonder state regulators are increasingly leaning into those standards with confidence when creating rules and regulations for operators in the cannabis industry.
There are numerous benefits to standards adoption, including taking the guesswork out of the “how,” and streamlining operations, particularly when companies wish to scale up and expand. To provide color and context to the fuzzy world of standards, we will include insights from ASTM committee members who were involved in the hands-on process of standards development, including Kim Stuck of Allay Consulting, Dr. David Nathan of D4DPR (Doctors For Drug Policy Reform), and Dr. John DeVries.
“ASTM has been around for over a century, and it is common practice for governments to adopt the standards that have been written by their committees. It takes so much time and effort to put together standards to create safe and consistent products that it just makes sense for governments to adopt already written standards from a trusted source such as ASTM rather than spending the time and money writing a set of their own that will most likely mirror the ASTM standards. The cannabis standards that we have been developing since 2017 have also been written by experts in the industry so that no corner of the industry will be left unregulated,” said Kim Stuck of Allay Consulting, a strategic partner of The GMP Collective, and a participating member of the ASTM D37 Cannabis Committee.
“The process that ASTM uses has been proven to create the most well-rounded and consistent standards, and I am proud to be a part of the process,” Stuck continued. “ASTM International plays a pivotal role in the cannabis industry by providing comprehensive, science-based standards that guide the production, testing, and distribution of cannabis products. The development and implementation of these standards ensure consistent quality, safety, and efficacy across the industry, fostering trust among consumers, regulators, and industry stakeholders.”
HACCP Systems
The same program that was developed by the US Army, NASA, and Pillsbury to keep astronauts from getting sick in outer space is arguably one of the best standards for any cannabis operator to implement in their own operation. The Subcommittee on Quality Management Systems (D37.02) realized and did just that, developing the HACCP System standard, which provides general guidance for implementation in order to prevent, control, or minimize hazards (biological, chemical, or physical) to an acceptable level. The standard can be accessed by anyone with an active ASTM membership, or purchased individually for just $63. As of publication, this standard has been adopted in 3 states, including Oklahoma where it is recommended, New Mexico where it is required for medical applications, and Colorado, which is required as of July 2024 for growers who want a microbial-reduced testing allowance.
“Regarding the specific HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) standard I was involved in developing, its application in the cannabis industry establishes a proactive approach to identifying, evaluating, and controlling potential hazards throughout the production and distribution process. This standardization is vital for ensuring product safety, quality assurance, and compliance with regulatory requirements.
“HACCP helps the industry minimize risks and prevent contamination, leading to safer products for consumers. By implementing these standards, businesses can provide greater transparency and build consumer confidence in their products. This, in turn, supports the industry’s growth and fosters a safer marketplace while also mitigating risk and preventing costly recalls and fines.
“Regulators and lawmakers rely on such standards because they offer a structured and consistent framework for assessing safety and quality in the industry. Having robust, science-based standards like HACCP helps establish clear benchmarks for producers to meet, ensuring consumer safety and facilitating effective regulation and enforcement. By adhering to these standards, the cannabis industry can gain legitimacy and support from both regulators and consumers,” added Stuck.
Universal Symbol
The most symbolic standard published by the D37 Cannabis Committee is just that: a valuable consumer-facing symbol recommended for use on the packaging of any consumer product that may contain a level of intoxicating cannabinoids. The symbol can be stamped onto edibles like gummies and chocolate, and/or included on packaging. The standard solves an issue that came out of the patchwork regulatory systems from state to state, where each state, upon rolling out rules and regulations, essentially made it up as they went along, developing their own symbols due to not being able to point to a universal standard. This symbol now exists, paving the way for a streamlined process as new states legalize cannabis for medical or adult use.
Dr. David Nathan, Founder and Past President of D4DPR, was a key leader in the development of this standard which is already in adoption across multiple states. “The International Intoxicating Cannabinoid Product Symbol (IICPS) is a harmonized, universal cannabis product symbol that was developed and approved as consensus standard ASTM D8441 by ASTM International through a unanimous vote of over 200 professionals and experts from the public and private sectors. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) mandates federal use of consensus standards, so the IICPS is poised to become the national cannabis product symbol when cannabis is legalized at the federal level,” Dr. Nathan said. The standard can be accessed through ASTM membership or purchased for a fee of $55.
Since its introduction in 2022, the IICPS has already been incorporated into the universal symbol of four U.S. states: Montana, South Dakota, New Jersey, and Vermont, and has been proposed in recent rulemaking in the State of Arkansas. Several other states are currently considering its adoption,” Dr. Nathan explained.
Above: International Intoxicating Cannabinoid Product Symbol (IICPS)
In 2023, 22 organizations representing public health, social justice, patient, consumer, and industry advocacy groups signed an open letter to regulators in the United States and around the world supporting universal adoption of the IICPS. If all states where cannabis is legal were to adopt this new standard moving forward, the result would be a significant time and cost savings in the long-run for companies who wish to expand across state lines. The symbol is clear, recognizable, and adheres to international interpretations based on color, shape, and other symbology factors. These factors were evaluated by a robust consumer research study to verify the effectiveness and intent of the symbol which was discussed in a webinar available on demand here.
To understand the impacts of many of the current symbols used in different states, written testimony submitted to the New York Office of Cannabis Management titled “A Symbolic Failure of Cannabis Regulation,” provides a colorful example. In it, Dr. Nathan states the following:
“The OCM symbol requires four-color printing, which is expensive. In a regulatory space intended to right the wrongs of the failed War on Drugs, the OCM symbol creates a barrier to entrepreneurs from historically oppressed communities who lack the capital to invest in costly packaging.
“The OCM symbol also violates numerous consensus standards, which are technical specifications issued by standards organizations like NIST, ASTM, and ISO. They are developed in an open environment to ensure public safety and promote best practices through collaboration by expert volunteers in the public and private sectors. Standards organizations have flourished since the 19th century, and their standards apply to everything from airplanes to zippers.”
Water Activity Controls
Dr. Jonathan DeVries, who provides food science services in regulatory and litigation matters, was the technical contact involved in developing the first two ASTM cannabis standards — developed to control water activity in cannabis flower that directly impacts both safety and quality of the product.
Dr. DeVries explained: “The first two methods adopted by ASTM committee D37 on Cannabis were ASTM D8196 Standard Practice for Determination of Water Activity (aw) in Cannabis Flower and ASTM D8197 Standard Specification for Maintaining Acceptable Water Activity (aw) Range (0.55 to 0.65) for Dry Cannabis Flower Intended for Human/Animal Use. During the early life stages of ASTM D37, cannabis growers, processors, and users stressed the importance of controlling the water activity of cannabis flower for safety and quality. All involved were generally aware that if the water activity was too high, microorganism growth, particularly mold, would damage the flowers rendering them unsafe (to say nothing of unpalatable). Similarly, cannabis flower that had a water activity that was too low (i.e the cannabis was too dry) could lead to dissatisfaction by the ultimate consumer because of handling losses due to fragility, loss of terpenes due to volatiles losses due to high burn temperatures during smoking, and unduly harsh characteristics of the smoke.” Both of those standards can be accessed through ASTM membership or purchased for a fee.
“Controlling the water activity to this range also is very logical during analysis, regulation, and commerce. Cannabis, properly dried and cured, then controlled to water activity 0.55 to 0.65 will exhibit very little variation in weight due to moisture change (controlling to a water activity range is typically more effective than controlling moisture directly) or loss or key volatiles that are part of the cannabis experience.
“As the technical contact for ASTM D8196 and D8197, I was always impressed with the ASTM processes, and of course, I was also impressed by the eagerness and willingness of those involved in providing safe, high-quality cannabis to be engaged in the process and share their extensive knowledge and experience to produce the optimum standard to meet the need.”
A Collaborative Effort
With more than 50 standards produced and published by the D37 Committee on Cannabis at ASTM, and another 50 more currently in development, there’s great opportunity to take the guesswork out of everything from Quality Management Systems, to Devices & Appliances, to Personnel Training, Assessment & Credentialing, and everything in between.
Stay tuned for the evolution of this article series, where we will explore more of these standards in order to understand their impact on ensuring consumer safety and streamlining what has been a chaotic patchwork of imperfect regulations and practices across the industry. By embracing standardized protocols and best practices, stakeholders can enhance transparency, build trust with consumers, and foster a more robust and sustainable cannabis market. Through collaboration and adherence to these evolving standards, we can pave the way towards a safer and more accountable cannabis and cannabinoid industry for all.
Risk Characterization: A key component to develop HACCP Plans
Radojka Barycki, SCS Global Services
One of the key steps in the development of a HACCP Plan is Hazard Analysis. Hazard analysis requires the risk characterization. Risk characterization has two main components: 1) hazard identification; and 2) hazard characterization. I have evaluated several HACCP Plans through my professional career and have found that risk characterization is a step that is not done properly frequently. This presentation addresses the components of risk characterization and presents a practical example to complete this important area in the development of a HACCP Plan.
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and Cannabis
Tara Couch, EAS Consulting Group
As States begin to legalize and regulate the Cannabis industry, important considerations must be addressed. One of these is the development and implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and a quality system that meets the new state regulations. While not all state regulations are the same, some are similar to the food industry and others more like dietary supplement and pharmaceutical GMPs, the expectation across the board is that facilities throughout the supply chain will have these systems and be closely monitored. Learn the basic tenants of any GMP and quality system and how implementing a GMP system is your facility will not only ensure compliance but also streamline your business.
On June 19, Charles Deibel, president and CEO of Deibel Bioscience, announced two important changes to his cannabis testing laboratory: First, they changed their name from Deibel Laboratories to Deibel Bioscience. Secondly, they achieved ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation.
Deibel Labs is an internationally recognized corporation of 15 testing labs in North America that’s been around for about 50 years, serving the food, beverage and personal care industries. Starting in 2018, Deibel has ventured into the cannabis and hemp markets, and recently rebranded these labs as “Deibel Bioscience.” Currently, Deibel Bioscience operates in California and Illinois, with plans underway to open labs in Florida and Pennsylvania.
Charles Deibel, President & CEO of Deibel Bioscience
Deibel’s brand is very well known in the food testing industry and has recently become a prominent voice and industry advocate in the cannabis testing community. Charles Deibel’s father, Dr. Robert Deibel, was a pioneer of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. Charles Deibel has a long career in the laboratory testing space and even worked with the Department of Justice to help shape the legal case against Peanut Corporation of America and testified as an expert witness during the trial.
With respect to their accreditation, Deibel Bioscience of California (Santa Cruz) achieved it through the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). The lab’s scope currently holds seven chemical and microbiological test methods as well as their sampling method, with plans to expand their scope to include four more chemical testing methods in the next month.
“At our level of testing services, any lab should be able to offer accurate testing, at a fair price and a reasonable turn-around time,” says Deibel. “These three qualities are no longer defining features; rather it is our high level of service and exceptional Technical Services acumen that set us apart.”
According to Deibel, their company is drawing on decades of experience in other testing industries to provide a high caliber of technical expertise. “We are a family owned and operated corporation and are not constrained by quarterly investor demands. Our size offers economics of scale that is reflected in our service and pricing.”
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is a systematic approach that evaluates hazards that may potentially be present in food products that can harm the consumer. The process used to manufacture the product is evaluated from raw material procurement, receiving and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product1. The documented process is what is known as HACCP plan. Although HACCP was designed to evaluate hazards in foods, it can be used to assess or evaluate hazards that may potentially be present in cannabis consumable products (edibles and vaping) that can cause harm to the consumer.
HACCP plan development requires a systematic approach that covers 5 preliminary steps and 7 principles. A systematic approach means that each step must be followed as outlined. Skipping a step will result in a HACCP plan that most likely will be ineffective to control potential hazards in the product.
The 5 preliminary steps are:
Establish a HACCP team
Describe the product
Establish the intended use of the product
Develop a flow diagram
Verify the flow diagram
The 7 Principles are:
Conduct a hazard analysis
Identify the critical control points (CCPs)
Establish critical limits (CL)
Establish monitoring procedures
Establish corrective actions
Establish verification procedures
Establish records and record keeping procedures1,2
It is important to mention that HACCP plans are supported by programs and procedures that establish the minimum operational and sanitary conditions to manufacture safe products. These programs and procedures are known as pre-requisite programs (PRP) or preventative controls1,2.
Figure 1. Flow Diagram
A multidisciplinary team must be established in order to ensure that all inputs of the product manufacturing process are considered during the hazards analysis discussions. The description of the product and its intended use provides detail information on ingredients, primary packaging material, methods of distribution, chemical characteristics, labeling and if any consumer might be vulnerable to the consumption of the product. A verified flow diagram is an accurate representation of the different steps followed during the product manufacturing process and will be used to conduct a hazard analysis. An inaccurate flow diagram will set the stage for an inadequate HACCP plan. Therefore, it is important that the HACCP team members verify the flow diagram. Figure 1 is a flow diagram for a fictional infused apple juice manufacturing plan that I will be using as an example.
The hazard analysis is the backbone of the HACCP plan. There are two elements that must be considered when conducting the hazard analysis:
Identification of the hazard associated with the ingredient(s) and/or the product manufacturing steps. These hazards have been categorized as: Biological, chemical (including radiological) and physical. Biological, chemical and physical hazards should be considered for each ingredient, primary packaging and process step. Also, it is important that the team is specific as to what hazard they are referring to. I often find that biological hazards are identified as “pathogens” for example. The team has to be specific on which pathogen is of concern. For example, if you are processing apple juice, the pathogens of concern are pathogenic coli and Salmonella sp. However, if you are processing carrot juice, you need to add Clostridium botulinum as a biological hazard also. If the choice of method to eliminate the hazards is pasteurization for example, the processing temperature-time combinations will differ greatly when manufacturing the apple juice vs. the carrot juice as C. botulinum is an organism that can sporulate and, therefore, is harder to kill.
Characterization of the hazard. This implies determining the significance of the potential hazard based on the severity of the consequence if it is consumed and the likelihood of occurrence in the ingredient or process step. Only steps in the process that has significant hazards should be considered further.
Table 1. Ingredient Hazard Analysis
In my professional experience, the hazard analysis is one of the most difficult steps to achieve because it requires the expertise of the multidisciplinary team and a lot of discussion to get to the conclusion of which hazard is significant. I find that a lot of teams get overwhelmed during this process because they consider that everything in the process may represent a hazard. So, when I am working with clients or providing training, I remind everyone that, in the bigger scheme of things, we can get stricken by a lighting in the middle of a thunderstorm. However, what will increase our chances would be whether we are close or not to a body of water for example. If I am swimming in the middle of a lake, I increase my chances to get stricken by the lighting. In comparison, if I am just sitting in my living room drinking a cup of coffee during the thunderstorm, the likelihood of being stricken by a lighting is a lot less. The same rationale should be applied when conducting the hazard analysis for manufactured products. You may have a hazard that will cause illness or death (high on the severity chart) but you also may have a program that mitigates the likelihood of introducing or having the hazard. The program will reduce the significance of the hazard to a level that may not need a critical control point to minimize or eliminate it.
Table 2. Process Hazard Analysis (1)
Clear as mud, right? So, how would this look like on the infused apple juice example? Table 1 shows the hazard analysis for the ingredients. Tables 2 and 3 show the hazard analysis for the part of the process. In addition, I have identified the CCPs: Patulin testing and pasteurization. There is a tool called the CCP decision tree that is often used to determine the CCPs in the process.
Once we have the CCPs, we need to establish the critical limits to ensure that the hazard is controlled. These limits must be validated. In the case of Patulin, the FDA has done several studies and has established 50 ppm as the maximum limit. In the case of pasteurization, a validation study can be conducted in the juice by a 3rd party laboratory. These studies typically are called thermal death studies (TDS) and provide the temperature and time combination to achieve the reduction of the pathogen(s) of concern to an acceptable level that they do not cause harm. In juice, the regulatory requirement is a 5-log reduction. So, let’s say that the TDS conducted in the infused apple juice determined that 165°F for 5 seconds is the critical limit for pasteurization. Note that the 5 seconds will be provided by the flow of the product through the holding tube of the pasteurizer. This is measured based on flow in gallons per minute.
Table 3. Process Hazard Analysis (2)
Monitoring is essential to ensure that the critical limits are met. A monitoring plan that outlines what, how, when and who is responsible for the monitoring is required.
Ideally, the system should not fail. However, in a manufacturing environment, failures can happen. Therefore, it is important to pre-establish steps that will be taken to ensure that the product is not out of the control of the facility in the event of a deviation from the HACCP plan. These steps are called corrective actions and must be verified once they are completed. Corrective actions procedures must address the control of the product, investigation of the event, corrective actions taken so the deviation doesn’t reoccur and product disposition.
Table 4. HACCP Plan Summary
Verification activities ensure that the HACCP plan is being followed as written. Typically, verification is done by reviewing the records associated with the plan. These records include but are not limited to monitoring records, calibration records, corrective action records, and preventive maintenance records for equipment associated with the CCPs. Record review must be done within 7 working days of the record being produced.
Finally, establishing records and record keeping procedures is the last step on developing HACCP plans. Records must be kept in a dry and secure location.
Table 4 show the summary of the HACCP plan for the infused apple juice example.
For more information on how to develop a HACCP plan for your facility, read the resources below:
If you missed the Cannabis Industry Journal’s 3rd Annual Infused Products Virtual Conference last week, one of the speakers, Ellice Ogle, founder and CEO of Tandem Food presented on Food Safety Culture in the Cannabis Industry. An overview of the information in the presentation can be found here, Concentrate On a Food Safety Culture In Your Workplace. Below are answers to some of the post-presentation questions we received, but were unable to answer during the Q&A session. To get your additional questions answered or for a complimentary consultation for your company, specially provided to readers of Cannabis Industry Journal, contact Ellice Ogle at Ellice@tndmfood.com.
Question: What are some recommended digital programs for internal auditing?
Ellice Ogle, founder and CEO of Tandem Food
Ellice Ogle: Before looking at the tools for conducting an internal audit, understand the goal of the internal audit. One key aspect of internal auditing is knowing which standard(s) to audit against. For example, regulatory audits for cGMP certification are different than optional third-party certifications such as any GFSI scheme (SQF, BRC, PrimusGFS, etc). While the standards ultimately have the same goal of food safety with varying focuses, it is important to have an experienced food safety specialist conduct the audit as realistically as possible. The experienced specialist will then be able to recommend an appropriate tool for internal auditing moving forward, whether it is software such as FoodLogiQ, SafetyChain, Safefood 360°, among many others, or simply providing a template of the audit checklist. Overall, the risk of foodborne illnesses can be minimal, but it takes persistence and commitment to achieve a successful food safety culture. Metrics can assist in assessing the commitment to food safety and, as a result of these efforts, you will minimize the risk of compromising the health and safety of your guests, employees, foods and business. If you want a specific example, I’d like to direct you to a case study in partnership with Heylo LLC in Washington state, posted on the Tandem Food website.
Q: What are examples of ways to share environmental monitoring results to enhance a good edible safety culture?
Ellice: In the Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods: Guidance for Industry Draft Guidance (2017), the FDA states that “a well-designed environmental monitoring program promotes knowledge and awareness of the environmental conditions that could result in product contamination and is a more effective program than product testing alone.” In other words, environmental monitoring programs and results can identify environmental conditions within a facility that could cause potential contamination. Publishing these findings, for example in the form of a case study or sharing the details of the practice, can enhance the food safety culture in the specific niche industry. For example, to borrow from the meat industry, Tyson Foods, Inc developed and shared environmental monitoring programs that are used by their peers, promoting a unified food safety culture, rather than competitive, guarded secrecy.
Q: Are the food safety requirements the same for retail and manufacturing?
Ellice: The food safety requirements are not exactly the same for retailers and manufacturers. The difference is inherent that retailers are working with finished product while manufacturers are working with raw ingredients and the manufacturing process to develop the finished product. Let’s take a closer look at cannabis regulation in Washington state. Chapter 314-55-104(12) states “Processors creating marijuana extracts must develop standard operating procedures (SOPs), good manufacturing practices (GMPs), and a training plan prior to producing extracts for the marketplace.” Compare this to the requirements for retailers, 314-55-105(11) which states “A marijuana producer, processor or retailer licensed by the WSLCB must conduct the production, processing, storage, and sale of marijuana-infused products using sanitary practices.” While SOPs and GMPs are not explicitly mentioned for retailers as they are for manufacturers, sanitary practices could be documented as Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs). Proper storage practices can also be an overlapping food safety concern with respect to temperature control or pest management systems. Overall, food safety should remain a top priority in maintaining the integrity of the products throughout the supply chain.
Q: To your knowledge, has there been a food safety outbreak associated with a cannabis-based product?
Ellice: One possible cannabis-related death investigated in 2017 uncovered deadly pathogens in medical cannabis. However, to my knowledge, I have not seen a food safety outbreak associated with a cannabis-based product. There might be any number of reasons that this is so, for example, possibly because a food safety outbreak associated with a cannabis-based product might not have had a large impact to make headlines. Although, with the cannabis industry already misunderstood and a stigma so prevalent to even promote fake news, it is better to prevent an outbreak from ever occurring. One thing to note is that ultimately cannabis is just another ingredient in existing products, of course with special properties. So, the common food safety offenders are present: listeria, Salmonella, E. Coli, among others. On the plant, cannabis food product manufacturers must minimize the risk of mycotoxins produced by molds, pest contamination, and pesticide contamination. For products that contain cannabis infusions or extractions as an ingredient, there is the possibility of the growth of Botulism toxin. Many of these pathogens can be minimized by appropriate heat treatment or maintenance of refrigeration, testing, and by practicing preventive measures. Arguably, the largest potential for pathogenic contamination is due to improper employee handling. To refer to what we discussed earlier, employee training is key, as well as proper enforcement. Having a strong food safety culture ensures that people have the knowledge of food safety risks and the knowledge of preventing outbreaks.
Q: Do any of the panelists know of any efforts to develop a food safety-oriented standard for the cannabis industry?
Ellice: Yes, Tandem Food LLC is positioned to consult on cGMP certification for manufacturing facilities in the cannabis industry. First, a gap assessment can be conducted to obtain useful actionable data for you, rather than be an intimidating experience. Working from the identified baseline, Tandem Food will work with you to create and implement all related documentation and programs, providing training as necessary. Overall, with the right commitment, cGMP certification can take 6-12 months.
With much of the world shutting down and many of us forced to take refuge behind our own doors, we have some time to reflect on what actions led to this. There has been, in my opinion, a clear disconnect between our actions and health outcomes. We need to bridge this gap; We now have a moment to build that bridge. We can start by reassessing our endpoint measurement of health and disease and focusing on what leading measures will impact our lagging results. Think of it as HACCP-lite or home office HACCP. Small changes in the way we think and behave can lead to significant change.
Lagging measures – Lagging measures make great headlines and typically measure an outcome. These are easily quantifiable and therefore receive a good deal of the focus.
Leading measures – Leading measures are inputs that happen during the process and in advance of an outcome. Leading measures are often difficult to quantify.
This week, Nathan started a “Germ Jar” activity with his kids to track washing.
We are currently focused on the lagging measures for a communicable disease, COVID-19. Illness and death numbers stemming from the pandemic continue to rise, as is expected with more available testing. It is easy for us to dwell on these numbers as they climb and dominate the news. A study in Australia last decade indicated that just over 1% of those experiencing flu like symptoms sought treatment and eventually got tested. I’m not going to use the tip of the iceberg cliché, but there it is. Focusing on the rapidly rising rates of COVID may be easy to do, but it won’t help our future selves.
What we should be doing during this time, however, is looking at our own leading behaviors and how changing them can help prevent this situation from reoccurring.
Here are some inputs we can rethink:
Hand washing – The average American uses the restroom 6-7 times per day. This week I started a “Germ Jar” activity with my kids (spring break week!) to track washing. If we wash our hands every time we use the restroom and every time we eat, that’s roughly 10X per day. Our leading indicator of household health, then, is 10 hand washes per day. This principle can, and should be applied to workplaces, including schools, airports and hospitals. What if we had mandatory handwashing prior to airport security and boarding? My estimation is that data would indicate a sharp decline in illness and transmission rates.
Disinfecting/Sanitizing – Similar to hand washing, cleaning surfaces serves as a vital indicator of future health. Examples, such as this District in Freeport, Il, indicate that increasing frequency of disinfecting can lead to a dramatic decrease in numbers sick. In my new office setting, we have set a goal via the Germ Jar of 3 times per day wiping down high touch surfaces. As we reenter close-proximity society, we need to have a better understanding of what high touch surfaces are, both for those who are tasked to clean them, as well as those that are doing the touching. Reduction of touches coupled with above washing behaviors post-touch can help prevent disease transmission.
Nathan’s daughter adding to the Germ Jar
Monitoring – Lastly, we need to do a better job at monitoring ourselves and our environments. In my new office, we have enacted a temperature check every morning and night. If we practiced symptom reporting (coughing, sneezing, chills) and monitored temperature in other settings, such as offices and schools, could we start to see pockets of infection and trends? Taking it a step farther, while we invest a tremendous amount of time and money into protecting our food supply from foodborne illness, we rarely discuss preventive monitoring for other diseases, such as influenza and now COVID-19. Technologies are rapidly coming available that will allow us to perform quick diagnostics of both individuals and environments. If we were to monitor the air and surfaces of a school nurse’s office, would we find data that could prevent transmission of disease? Can we transfer HACCP-lite to additional (all) settings?
Over the next weeks and months, we are going to be inundated by the spike in COVID illnesses and deaths. During this time, it is on each of us to realize how our past behaviors led to the state we are in. When we return, viruses will not be absent from the world, our hospitals, schools, offices or our bodies. We can, starting now, begin to measure and change our leading behaviors and begin to shape a healthier future.
I think that we need to start changing the terminology around the hazards associated with cannabis from food safety hazards to product safety hazards. These hazards have not only been associated with harmful effects for those that ingest cannabis infused products, but also for those that consume the cannabis products in other ways such as inhalation (vaping or smoking). So, when we refer to these hazards as food safety hazards, the immediate thought is edibles, which misleads cultivators, manufacturers and consumers to have a false sense of security around the safety of products that are consumed in other ways.
By standardizing and documenting safety procedures, manufacturers mitigate the risk of cannabis-specific concerns
There are several product safety hazards that have been associated with cannabis. These hazards can become a public health problem if not controlled as they could harm the consumer, regardless of the method of consumption.
Let’s take a look at the different types of hazards associated cannabis:
Biological Hazards refer to those microorganisms that can cause illness to the consumer of a product that contain them. They are not visible to the naked eye and are very dangerous when their metabolic by-products (toxins) are ingested or their spores are inhaled. The symptoms for illnesses caused by these microorganisms will vary. Consumers may experience gastrointestinal discomfort (vomiting, diarrhea), headaches, fever and other symptoms. The ingestion of these pathogens, allergens or their by-products may lead to death, if the illness is not treated on time or if the consumer of the product is immunocompromised. In addition, the inhalation of mold spores when smoking cannabis products, can lead to lung disease and death. Some of the biological hazards associated with cannabis are: Salmonella sp., E. coli, Clostridium botulinum, Aspergillus sp. and Penicillium sp.
Chemical Hazards refer to those chemicals that can be present in the plant or finished product due to human applications (pesticides), operational processes (extraction solvents and cleaning chemicals), soil properties (heavy metals), environmental contamination (radiological chemicals) or as a result of occurring naturally (mycotoxins and allergens). Consuming high concentrations of cleaning chemicals in a product can lead to a wide range of symptoms from mild rash, burning sensation in the oral-respiratory system, gastrointestinal discomfort or death. In addition, long term exposure to chemicals such as pesticides, heavy metals, radiological contaminants and mycotoxins may lead to the development of cancers.
Physical Hazards refer to those foreign materials that may be present in the plant or finished product. Foreign materials such as rocks, plastics or metals can cause harm to the consumer by chipping teeth or laceration of the mouth membranes (lips, inner cheeks, tong, esophagus, etc.) In the worst-case scenario, physical hazards may lead to choking, which can cause death due to asphyxiation.
These hazards can be prevented, eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level when foundational programs (Good Agricultural/Cultivation Practices, Good Manufacturing Practices, Allergen Management Program, Pest Control, etc.) are combined with a Food [Product] Safety Plan. These lead to a Food [Product] Safety Management System that is designed to keep consumers safe, regardless of the method of consumption.
The diverse cannabis industry has experienced tremendous growth, especially in the popular edibles market whether consumed recreationally or medicinally. Since these cannabis-infused food and beverage products come in a variety of forms, including candies, baked goods, energy drinks, chips, chocolates and teas, food safety questions and concerns for companies manufacturing these products can seem daunting. ERP software solutions designed for the cannabis industry play an imperative and necessary role in addressing key food safety issues for edibles producers, helping to fill in the gaps where new and established businesses struggle. By mitigating the potential for damaging effects of a food safety event, companies can prevent, or greatly lessen the impact, to both their reputation and public perception, as well as limit the financial liability and legal penalties.
What is safety?
On a fundamental level, safety is the state of being protected from undergoing or causing hurt, injury or loss. As a manufacturer of cannabis edibles, it is critical that products are consistent, labeled appropriately and safe for consumers. Forward-thinking companies are employing ERP solutions to help ensure their products are not harmful to their current and future customers.
A lack of safety in the cannabis edibles market stems from the unregulated nature of the industry on a federal level, despite consumers’ expectations otherwise. Similar to products in the food and beverage industry, safety issues with inaccurate labeling, food-borne pathogens and disease outbreaks are all concerns within the manufacturing environment. Particularly to cannabis businesses, extraction methods, bacteria and mold growth, pest and pesticide contamination, chemical exposure, improper employee handling and the unintentional consumption or overconsumption of edibles are all potential safety concerns. In states where edible products are legal, local municipalities and state governments each have their own unique regulations – requiring manufacturers to comply to different guidelines. With the absence of federal regulations, many cannabis companies have adopted a more conservative approach to food safety. Following U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) best practices allows manufacturers to address key current food safety issues and prepare for future regulation.
Utilize Best Practices and ERP
Introducing current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP’s) traditionally implemented in the food and beverage industry help to form a foundation for cannabis edibles safety in 9 key areas:
Personnel – As an often-overlooked aspect of cannabis edibles manufacturing, adequate training on procedures to ensure disease control and proper cleanliness is required to maintain a company culture of safety. Advocating for quality standards with proper safety procedures should be a priority for every employee.
Manufacturing Environment – Effective management of the manufacturing environment ensures that facilities are controlled to prevent the contamination of finished goods – restricting extraneous materials such as glass, metal, rubber, etc. from the production floor. Warehouse and office lighting should be adequately maintained so that employees are able to inspect equipment, by-products and finished goods and conduct their jobs effectively.
Sanitary Operations – Physical facilities and all equipment must be maintained in clean and sanitary conditions and kept in good repair to prevent food and beverages from becoming contaminated. Cleaning processes should protect ingredients, work in progress, finished goods and workspaces from potential contamination.
Sanitary Facilities and Controls – Effective control of water, plumbing, sewage disposal and drainage are essential. Staff must have access to adequate handwashing and restroom facilities and employee changing rooms. Restrooms and break rooms should be clean and stocked at all times, while garbage is handled properly and disposed of in a timely manner.
Equipment and Utensils – Properly cleaning and maintaining vats, conveyor belts, shrink wrap machines, blenders, etc. to avoid contamination and allergen cross-contact ensures safe procedures are being followed. A robust sanitation program with defined cleaning schedules should be followed for the sanitizing of utensils and equipment.
Processes and Controls – The manufacturing of edible products should be done in accordance with best practices established in the food and beverage industry, taking account of sanitation, quality control and protection from allergens and contamination. Ongoing testing is conducted to identify sanitation failures and contamination occurrences and ensure items are discarded properly.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) can reduce the risks of contamination
Warehousing and Distribution – Establishing proper storage and transportation processes protects the products from contamination, allergen cross-contact and container deterioration – ensuring proper handling procedures throughout the growing, manufacturing and distribution steps.
Defect Action Levels – Quality control is used to minimize defects by requiring an action response when a problem is discovered. An established response plan demonstrates the proper procedures to follow when defects occur during production.
Holding and Distribution of By-products for use as Animal Food (if applicable) – This applies to food and beverage facilities that either donate or sell a by-product for use as animal food. By-products used for animal consumption that are managed properly remain free from contamination. Accurate labeling should identify by-product by the common or usual name and denote not for human consumption when distributed.
Cannabis-specific ERP solutions efficiently provide the structure, integration and processes to follow cGMP’s to address food safety concerns in all phases of growing, manufacturing and distribution. By automating the documentation of audit trails, edibles companies are equipped with the same tools that food and beverage manufacturers have utilized for decades. Validated procedures and best practices incorporate safety initiatives from cannabis cultivation to the sale of edible products and beyond, offering greater efficiency than manual methods. Since cGMP’s provide a foundation for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning, edibles manufacturers are able to take advantage of incorporating control points into the ERP solution to prevent and control hazards before they affect food safety. Having a HACCP Plan, along with proper implementation and adherence to cGMP’s, helps to minimize food safety hazards for edibles manufacturers in the cannabis industry.
Quality and safety in the cannabis edibles market is an area that cannot be ignored, as the consequences for failing to handle hazards are potentially devastating. Savvy cannabis companies are employing best practices of food and beverage manufacturers, including the 9 addressed above, in tandem with an ERP software solution, to effectively navigating this highly competitive market. Paving the way with their commitment to quality and in delivering safe and consistent products to the market demonstrates to customers and investors alike their preparedness for growth.
As the cannabis market matures and the value chain becomes modernized, it’s important to address product safety in a comprehensive way. In other areas of manufacturing, Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) has been the standard for reducing hazards both for employees and for the products themselves. A Critical Control Point (CCP) is any spot from conception to consumption where a loss of control can potentially result in risk (Unnevehr, 1996). In the food realm, HACCP has been used to drive quality enhancements since the 1980s (Cichy, 1982).
In a nutshell, HACCP seeks to help identify where a problem may enter a product or environment and how that problem may be addressed before it escalates. In cannabis, these hazards include many of the same problems that food products have: specifically molds, yeasts, and pathogenic bacteria (Listeria, E. coli, etc.). While the current industry standard is to test products at the end stage for these contaminants, this late-stage pass/fail regimen leads to huge lots of destroyed product and a risk for consumer distrust (Yamashiro, 2019). HACCP, therefore, should be applied at every stage of the production process.
Pathogen Environmental Monitoring (PEM) is a tool that can be used to identify CCPs in a cannabis cultivation or processing facility. The main goal of a PEM program is to find a contaminant before it reaches a surface that touches the product or the product itself. PEM is conducted using a pre-moistened swab or a sponge to collect a sample from the cannabis environment. The swab can then be sent to a lab for microbial testing. Keys to an effective PEM are:
1. Start with a broad stroke – When the FDA comes to a facility suspected of producing pathogen-laced food products, they conduct what is known as a Swab-a-thon. A Swab-a-thon is a top to bottom collection of samples, usually totaling 100 or more. Similarly, preemptively swabbing should be the first step in any PEM—swab everything to see what exists as a baseline.
2. Map your scene – identify on a map of your facility the following:
Flow of air and people (where do air and people enter and where do they go?
Identifying the above zones will help deepen your understanding of where contaminants may come into contact with cannabis and how they may migrate from a Non-CCS to a CCS.
3. Plan and execute:
Based on the results of mapping, and Swab-a-thon, identify where and when you will be collecting samples on a consistent and repeatable basis. Emphasis should be placed on areas that are deemed a risk based on 1) and 2). Samples should be collected at random in all zones to ensure comprehensive screening.
4. Remediate and modify:
If you get a positive result during PEM, don’t panic—pathogens are ubiquitous.
Remediate any trouble spots with deep cleaning, remediation devices or other protocols.
Re-test areas that were positive for pathogens to ensure remediation is successful.
Revisit and modify the plan at least once a year and each time a new piece of equipment is added or production flow is otherwise changed.
The steps above are a good starting point for a grower or processor to begin a PEM. Remember that this is not a one-size-fits-all approach to safety; each facility has its own unique set of hazards and control points.
Comprehensive guides for PEM can be found at the links below, many of the concepts can be applied to cannabis production.
Cichy, R. (1982). HACCP as a quality assurance tool in a commissary food-service system. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 1(2), 103-106.
Unnevehr, L., & Jensen, H. (1996). HACCP as a Regulatory Innovation to Improve Food Safety in the Meat Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(3), 764-769.
Yamashiro, C, & Baca, Y. (2019). Prevent high-value cannabis crop loss with innovative environmental monitoring tool.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
