Tag Archives: hemp

Leaders in Cannabis Formulations: Part 4

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Natural cannabinoid distillates and isolates are hydrophobic oils and solids, meaning that they do not mix well with water and are poorly absorbed in the human body after consumption. Cannabinoid oils can be formulated into emulsions to form a fine suspension in water to improve bioavailability, stability and flavor. Vertosa is a cannabis infused ingredients company specializing in emulsion technologies. Their technology can be found in a range of CBD and THC containing beverages found on shelves today.

We spoke with Austin Stevenson, chief innovation officer at Vertosa, to learn more about emulsification technology and some of the challenges in testing cannabis infused beverages. Stevenson joined Vertosa in 2019 after spending time as a cannabis advisor at CanopyBoulder as an entrepreneur in residence. Prior to Vertosa, Stevenson ran the hemp and CBD analytical testing laboratory business unit for Eurofins.

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

Austin Stevenson: I got involved in the cannabis industry nearly seven years ago, when I was an advisor to an accelerator in agriculture technology in Africa. I went to the MIT Innovation Laboratory, and I saw a whole bunch of farmers cultivating green leafy vegetables in the middle of the Kalahari Desert, which piqued my curiosity. I learned that it was all done via hydroponic indoor cultivation and freight containers. I got back to the US and put my detective hat on, and learned that it was really the cannabis industry that was driving innovation in terms of indoor and sustainable agriculture. At that point, I took it as an opportunity to dive in and started, again, as an advisor at an accelerator in Colorado. From there, I’ve been on the amazing cannabis journey.

Green: And how did you get involved with Vertosa?

Austin Stevenson, Chief Innovation Officer at Vertosa

Stevenson: I became an advisor at CanopyBoulder to a few software companies and got on the founding team there as well as at a few cultivation companies and other license types across the supply chain. Immediately before Vertosa, I ran the business unit for hemp and CBD testing at Eurofins, one of the world’s largest analytical chemistry laboratories, specializing in Ag Pharma. My clients were your traditional retailers: CVS, Kroger. Our team analyzed thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of SKUs of infused products.

At one point I had to tell one of my clients at Eurofins, that all of their beverage SKUs were failing potency tests. Their supplements, OTC products, some of the confections, cosmetics, were all passing, but the beverages were failing potency testing. Cannabinoid ingredients were floating to the top, sinking to the bottom, even leaching into the can liners. It just wasn’t working, so we had to tell them that those beverages could not go to market. On this same day, I happened to run into my longtime friend and business partner in the industry (now Vertosa CEO) Ben Larson at a conference in Oakland, who was running the Gateway Incubator at the time, but had met our other partner and founder, Dr. Harold Han. Ben told me, “I have this PhD chemist, a surface chemist from BioRad. He’s been experimenting with techniques, taking cannabis oils and turning them into fast acting emulsions for beverages. I’d like for you to check it out because I’m considering building a business around this.” I said, “Alright, show me the technology. Let me take it back to the lab, analyze it, verify it, and then try it. See if it works.” Lo and behold, it did. I fell in love with the product. I saw the problem firsthand at my lab and now I saw a solution, so I knew that the next part of my cannabis journey would be to join Ben and Harold in building a business together focused on being the number one technology solving the problem of stability and potency for the infused beverage market.

Green: What is the core technology of Vertosa?

Stevenson: Our focus at Vertosa is being the best delivery mechanism for cannabinoids. That means that we have a portfolio of different technologies that we’re using to take cannabis oils and turn them into fast-acting liquid emulsions, as well as powder-based APIs. When we began, we were using nano-emulsification. We are using nanotechnology in the food space, with a few different methods for creating those nano-emulsions, to infuse a diverse range of different products – everything from seltzer waters to dealcoholized wines and teas.

Green: So, it’s a portfolio of products with the basic idea of encapsulating the oil into smaller components. Can you highlight some of the challenges when you were first developing the product with testing? My assumption is that it was relatively new for testing labs. How did you support method development with them so that you are accurately reporting cannabinoid content?

Stevenson: The biggest problem that we faced at Vertosa is that there’s no one size that fits all. The chemistry of an infused seltzer water is different than the chemistry of a dealcoholized wine. The reason is because, quite literally, the ingredients are different. They’re different products. When we’re making the emulsions for these beverages, all the ingredients have to be compatible – the ingredients in the emulsion as well as the ingredients in the beverage. We’ve had to design a portfolio of different emulsions for different beverage types to ensure compatibility in any scenario, otherwise there could be instability, causing separation between the emulsion and the ingredients.

Additionally, we’ve seen challenges in the packaging type as well as the manufacturing techniques, specifically sterilization, thermal processing, chemical treatment, or the lack thereof. These three core variables (ingredients, packaging, and manufacturing technique) are where all the challenges in potency testing arise. For example, you have an infused beverage that is going to be packaged in an aluminum can. There is a polarity between cannabinoids and the can aligners that ultimately could create leaching, or an absorption type of effect.

At Eurofins, we would see beverages that were supposed to contain CBD in the can but were testing at 0 milligrams, despite manufacturers confirming that they had added the CBD. All the CBD had been absorbed into the can liner. Our teams of method development chemists and management had learned to acid rinse the can liner so that we would be able to capture the cannabinoids and identify them. That was a step that we had to learn through trial and error, and we were able to bring this over and build upon this at Vertosa.

Here at Vertosa, the biggest challenge in the lab currently is that there aren’t consistent methods for analyzing beverages. Every lab has different standards, and the instrumentation hasn’t always been calibrated. To ensure that these low dose beverages are measured properly, you have an accurate LOQ to identify the cannabinoid content. Part of the challenge is that the analytical chemistry community has only started to collaborate here recently, literally in the last few months as the AOAC made a call to action for methods for beverage.

At Vertosa, we’ve had to work together with the labs and ask if they have a method for developing beverages. It’s a three-step approach: we send a lab the oil, the emulsion, and the finished product, and ensure that the accurate cannabinoid profile is being diluted across the entire chain to make sure that each step the instrumentation has been calibrated the correct way. We want to make sure that they calibrate it into the HPLC and that the correct cannabinoid profile is always consistent in the finished product. It’s a lot of intimate hand-holding with the labs.

Green: So, you took it upon yourself to go out and get the methods validated, anticipating the need for finished goods testing with your customers and partners?

Stevenson: That’s right. From the beginning, we understood that the problems we are setting out to solve are consistent potency testing and accurate dosing. We wanted to be able to say confidently that when you work with us, you’re going to pass potency tests every time. And if you don’t, we’re going to uncover the reasons why.

For us, we have been able to provide that consistent and reliable ingredient. And yes, there’s been stumbles along the way, but those stumbles are the learnings that make us better. In the beginning, we had just one formula but the chemistries of different beverages vary too much for that to work. We also know that packaging type and manufacturing processes play a role. So, we now have a portfolio of different emulsions, such as conventional, natural, and organic, that can work with any given varibale and that have verifiable potency.

We anchor ourselves to the promise that our clients will pass potency, because that’s the biggest problem most brands have.We know the ingredients inside and out – knowing how heat plays a role, how polyphenols play a role, how oxygen plays a role, and helping the labs and our brand partners succeed while minimizing all the risk and pain that they go through with failed potency. You’d be surprised how many people are using the wrong product in formulation. A new client will come to us frustrated after adding CBD isolate powder to their beverage and seeing it fail potency tests. That’s where we’re able to come in and correct the course.

Green: Someone comes in with a magic wand. What do they solve for you?

“Efficacy research is the most interesting aspect of industry research to me.”Stevenson: If I had a magic wand, I would use it to accelerate efficacy research to validate and verify specific cannabinoids/terpene formulas for targeted effects. In other words, I’d love to have a peer-reviewed, scientifically validated cannabis formula for any desired effect, like anxiety or pain relief, aid in sleep, or increased energy, for example. At Vertosa, we’re currently investing in third party academic research to empower our clients with validated information; however, it takes a lot of time, money, and effort conducting research and clinical trials. It’s a long but essential and beneficial process!

Green: What trends are you following in the industry?

Stevenson: In the world of edibles and ingestibles, I’m extremely interested in exploring onset times and bioavailability technologies, as well as trends in ingredients. More of our clients are interested in rapid onset times so that consumers feel the effects within minutes of consumption, removing some of the stereotypical hesitation around edibles and wondering when “it’ll hit.” It’s also fascinating to explore and integrate minor cannabinoids as well as active and functional ingredients and how they interact together in an ingestible.

I’m also extremely interested in keeping up with changing regulatory policy around consumption lounges and access in recently recreational states. Open consumption lounges are a fantastic solution to further normalizing cannabis usage and decentralizing alcohol in our culture, as consumer behavior is increasingly reflecting a move away from alcohol towards more health-conscious choices.

Green: What are you most interested in learning about?

Stevenson: Efficacy research is the most interesting aspect of industry research to me. Most of us cannabis professionals are passionate about the plant, and anecdotally know how cannabis can be used to improve quality of life. However, the scientific and academic community needs to see hard evidence. As we build the industry in a post-prohibition era, there is more access to research grants to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabis. The National Institute of Health (NIH) has identified four (4) key areas of cannabis research eligible for grant funding: (1) cannabinoid research (2) cannabidiol research (3) endocannabinoid system, ECS research, and (4) therapeutic effects of cannabinoids. It’s the latter two, ECS and therapeutic effects, that really spark my curiosity. At VERTOSA, we’re spending a lot of time and resources with our Scientific Advisory board to help accelerate this research, and I’m personally excited about the forthcoming discoveries we make, which will help our entire industry grow and thrive!

From CBD to THCV: Clinical Trials & ECS Brands

By Aaron Green
No Comments

The cannabinoid industry has faced an uphill battle from the beginning due to a lack of reliable scientific awareness about cannabinoids, fueled by decades of the hemp plant’s status as an illegal Schedule 1 drug. Today, scientists finally are free to explore the hemp plant’s 115+ cannabinoids and their relationships with the body’s endocannabinoid system. One cannabinoid, THCV, is currently undergoing scrupulous research.

ECS Brands is an established provider of whole-plant extracts. In the first-ever clinical trial for an organic THCV-rich extract, ECS received support from the National Institutes of Health and guidance from the Mayo Clinic to assess its potential for weight loss, anxiety treatment and other therapies using Nitro-V Hemp Extract, an ECS Brands product containing high concentrations of THCV, CBDV and other cannabinoids. Early outcomes of the 90-day, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled human study were recently released. 100 out of 100 people lost weight, making no changes to exercise while taking the product for 90 days.

We interviewed Arthur Jaffee, Founder & CEO of ECS Brands. Prior to founding ECS, Arthur was co-founder of Elixinol, a company manufacturing and distributing industrial hemp-based products. Arthur took Elixinol public on the Australian stock exchange in 2018.

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

Arthur Jaffee, Founder & CEO of ECS Brands

Arthur Jaffee: I originally was planning on starting a fitness equipment company. I got introduced to my partner at Elixinol, Gabriel, who my old physical therapist at University of Colorado said I had to meet. By the end of our lunch meeting, we shook hands in agreement to partner up on the fitness equipment concept. The timing happened where he got this opportunity to distribute CBD just following our handshake partnership. I didn’t know what it was at the time. He asked me if I wanted to join and get involved. I did my research into the benefits and discovered CBD’s anti-inflammatory and neuro-protective benefits, which for me was relevant given my football experience. I quickly realized what the vast potential CBD could offer with inflammation, neuroprotection and so many of the health and safety concerns arising from contact sports at the time. So, ultimately the opportunity presented itself through a friend of a friend in Australia who had a supply chain in Europe. This was right when CBD first appeared in the media in 2014. It was almost like it just fell into my lap.

I’ve been fortunate to really see that transition, and the evolution of the industry. Back then was probably the most valuable time because growth was so slow. Nobody knew what CBD was back in 2014. The primary demographic was cancer patients and epilepsy patients which presented a significant challenge to develop sales and marketing materials and communicate compliantly. Our first hire was a Medical Doctor to communicate in a more compliant fashion. I had to learn everything there was about the science and the medical research that existed at that time. For me, that was very valuable.

The valuable learning experiences from the early days of the industry is what laid the foundation today with ECS brands where we are focused on education promoting awareness of the endocannabinoid system to take it a step beyond just CBD because in order to understand what constitutes a quality product, or why CBD can have all these various benefits for people, you must first understand how the body is naturally configured to receive and respond to these amazing phytochemicals such as CBD. CBD is just one of hundreds of phytonutrients that the human body is designed to use. The endocannabinoid system is so significant in the grand scheme of things, because once you start accepting that the system is your overarching regulatory system in the body, we can start to look at the endless therapeutic potential.

Green: Being an early player in the CBD space, how would you say you’ve evolved over time to where you’re at today?

Jaffee: Innovation. That’s what really drove me to start ECS brands. Back in 2014, I originally co-founded Elixinol. After we took Elixinol public on the Australian exchange in the very beginning of 2018, there was a shift in direction away from innovation. Nearly all emphasis was placed on just doing what we’re doing better – meaning improving margins. In such a new and young industry and being a pioneer, you don’t get many opportunities to discover and create something for the first time. So, the past three years with ECS brands is with a heavy focus on innovation and technology.

Green: How do you think about innovation for the endocannabinoid system?

Jaffee: One of the early discoveries for me that was most inspiring, was research that evaluated endocannabinoid receptor sites, basically little keyholes for cannabinoids to perfectly fit in – that are made for cannabinoids. When evaluating the number of receptor sites in different individuals experiencing stress and illness it showed there was a higher concentration of receptor sites in those that were sick and experiencing systemic stress. To me, that was that was powerful because if that doesn’t communicate the body’s need for cannabinoid nourishment to heal and restore back to homeostasis as a natural and involuntary response really motivated me to play a part in getting quality cannabinoid products out to the masses and specifically those in most critical need. Our first interaction with cannabinoids is in mother’s breast milk, the cannabinoids that our bodies naturally produce. After breastfeeding, our diets are completely stripped of virtually all cannabinoids, leaving the endocannabinoid system starving, and likely leading to many of the most common and chronic health deficiencies that causes detriment to so many. Rather than cannabinoids, we then get introduced to pharmaceuticals. The writing is on the wall – this must get accepted and integrated into our society.

The Nitro-V Hemp Extract, an ECS Brands product

When it comes to innovation surrounding the public system it requires research and requires scientific evidence. It requires functional products because you can have all these great benefits, but if you don’t have efficient and effective ways of delivering these chemicals to the body, it can almost be meaningless. It’s a delicate balance between consumer appeal, functionality and efficiency when it comes to the delivery into the body. We’re focusing on delivery systems, making things more bioavailable and integrating other natural botanicals that react and influence the system in similar ways as there are more than just cannabis-derived cannabinoids that can create positive impact and ultimately alter the way that the endocannabinoid system can regulate.

Green: An important aspect of innovation is clinical validation. How do you think about clinical trials and designing clinical trials for products?

Jaffee: Clinical trials are instrumental and required to validate claims because otherwise, it’s just speculation. Directional application without the clinical evidence to support in the appropriate way is setting yourself up for failure. Designing a clinical trial is just as important as performing the trial. If it’s not set up right, it can be a waste of time and money. Trials really need to be held to the gold standard of double-blind placebo controlled and thoughtfully organized.

We did organize a clinical trial at the beginning of this year, and it was incredible. We learned so much about a unique extract of ours that’s naturally rich in THCV and CBDV. We intentionally set it up to be a very broad and encompassing study. I personally wanted to see the different mechanisms and how the endocannabinoid system responded and worked together with other systems in the body. We evaluated a broad range of measurements, with complete safety tox study – blood panels to test every organ – measuring kidney enzymes, liver enzymes, ALT, AST, ALP, bilirubin, albumin, creatinine as well as cholesterol – with HDL, LDL and triglycerides, GFR and Complete Blood Count. We also measured blood sugar hemoglobin A1C and five major inflammatory markers of IL-1, IL-6, C-Reactive protein, Homocysteine and TNF. In addition to performing a full safety run-up of the product, we also measured weight, BMI, girth, questionnaires for anxiety, appetite, pain, mood and finally – we bought brand new Fitbit Versa 3’s for all 125 study participants which gave us objective measurements for REM sleep, deep sleep, awake time, systolic/diastolic BP, SpO2 blood oxygen levels and daily caloric output values – which was really cool because it provided tangible objective evidence that participants weren’t going out and secretly exercising. So, we had 100 people taking the product and then 25 on placebo.

Green: Was this a safety trial?

Jaffee: Yes. The primary endpoint study was safety. That’s how we enrolled participants – as a general product safety study for a natural product. I decided to include a lot of additional efficacy measurements, including weight loss, measuring body mass index as well as heart rate for all the blood markers that we looked at. In addition to that we purchased brand new Fitbit Versa 3’s for the entire study group, which was great because they gave us objective measurements for three different sleep readings, deep sleep, REM sleep and rest asleep as well as lower output and blood oxygen levels.

We saw everything kind of working together. We saw deep sleep improve 300% within two weeks. We saw blood sugars come down significantly from those that are considered high, pre-diabetic ranges of hemoglobin A1C. You saw inflammatory markers reduce to normal levels, with 92% efficacy, which basically just means that those who were experiencing inflammation by means of these major inflammatory markers, after 90 days, 92% of subjects were reduced to nominal ranges. So, it was really fascinating to see how, with all the different measurements. that we can correlate different objective measurements. Then, we did subjective measurements too. We had standardized questionnaires for anxiety and pain, as well as an internally developed appetite and cravings questionnaire.

Green: Based on the results of that safety study, are there particular disease states you want to target going forward?

Jaffee: Moving forward, we are interested to look at each blood sugar and Hb A1C. I think one of the most exciting and popular successes of the study was the fact that we had 100 out of 100 participants lose weight without diet and exercise. Because we incorporated the Fitbit, we were able to obtain objective evidence that participants weren’t going and secretly working out. The Fitbit provided a caloric output value. It is basically an algorithm taking the number of steps taken, stairs climbed, heart rate, movement, etc. to populate a caloric expenditure value, which remained completely stable in our study population. Subjects were specifically instructed NOT to change any lifestyle behavior – specifically diet, exercise, and sleep, and that if any changes were to occur naturally that was acceptable. What this ultimately told us is that diets changed, and metabolisms increased, and we were able to support that notion with the appetite and cravings questionnaire that we had participants fill out where cravings did reduce and desire for sugary foods reduced 63%. These were questions that we internally developed for the appetite and cravings questionnaire, which were based on feedback that we received prior to the study.

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

Jaffee: It’s changed a little bit over the years. My biggest passion I would say is performance. I think the hemp plant has so much to offer when it comes to superior nutrition and healing. Once I learned about the benefits and the potential of hemp with its food applications and specific protein composition – the powerful oxygenating properties of Hemp Seed Oil, the brain health properties it encompasses, and of course the cannabinoid potential… It got me very motivated to commit myself to this plant. It wasn’t long before learning all the incredible industrial applications and solution the plant also offers – such as plastics, textiles, biofuel, building materials – and as an environmental science major – learning about these amazing applications got me that much more excited, but knowing and trusting that CBD would be the first stepping stone in an industry that needs to evolve into all the amazing sustainable applications because it’s all it’s all very real. It will get there, but it won’t be easy.

Green: Thanks Arthur, that concludes the interview.

Jaffee: Thanks Aaron

Registering Trademarks in the Cannabis Space

By Mike R. Turner, Joseph Sherling
No Comments

As the legality and availability of hemp and non-hemp cannabis products continues to grow, having strong, recognizable brands will become increasingly important in order to stand out from the competition. Unfortunately, strong brands invite knock-offs and can require aggressive policing. Registering your trademarks makes policing much easier, but registration of marks used to sell hemp and non-hemp cannabis products requires strategy and forethought.

Why Register?

Trademark rights flow from use, so a registration is not required for enforcement. However, “common law” rights based on use alone must be proven in each instance, and you must show that your use of the mark has been sufficient such that consumers recognize and associate it with your goods or services. This can be difficult, expensive and time consuming. Also, common law rights are territorially limited. Even if you can prove such rights in Oregon (for example), you may have no right to prevent use of your mark in other states. State trademark registrations are similarly limited, but are presently all that is available for marks used exclusively to sell non-hemp cannabis products.

By contrast, a federal trademark registration provides the registrant a nationwide, exclusive and presumed right to use the mark in association with the designated goods and services. In addition, counterfeit use of a federally registered trademark can lead to statutory damages. That is, you don’t have to prove an amount of harm—a court may simply award damages based on statute. Yet another benefit is the ability to file based on an “intent to use.” You can thereby reserve a mark nationwide for up to three years before you must show use. Federal registration is available for marks used to sell hemp products, but with some strict limitations as discussed below.

Use in Commerce Requirement

Federal registrations are issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) once an application is approved and use in commerce is demonstrated. To satisfy the “use in commerce” requirement, an applicant must show that a mark is being used in association with the sale of goods or services that are legal to trade under federal law. Sale of products not legal under federal law simply does not count to establish trademark use for purposes of federal registration. This is where the vast majority of federal trademark applications for use with cannabis products get rejected. A search of the federal registry shows that, of over 8000 trademark applications for products containing cannabis extracts, only about 1,300 have resulted in registrations. But these 1,300 illustrate that there is a path to success.

Allowable Goods

The Office traditionally rejected all applications for use with products containing any cannabis extracts under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known as the Farm Bill, created an exception to the CSA for hemp, defined therein as cannabis extracts containing < 0.3% THC by dry weight. Based on this, the Office began allowing applications provided they designate only goods having 0.3% THC content or less. But even that limitation isn’t sufficient for some types of goods.

FDAlogoUnless specifically disclaimed, the Office will assume the presence of CBD in products containing cannabis extracts, regardless of THC quantity. On that basis it will reject applications for hemp products that are ingestible (food, drinks, nutritional supplements, etc.), or that claim a medical or therapeutic purpose, under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The FDCA requires Federal Drug Administration (FDA) endorsement to add “drugs” to such products, the FDA classifies CBD as a “drug,” and the FDA has authorized only a few products that include CBD. Thus, an allowable good that is ingestible or therapeutic must not only contain the low THC disclaimer, but must also state an absence of CBD. Notably, the Office has not been rejecting products on the basis that they contain CBG (cannabigerol) or other naturally occurring non-THC, non-drug cannabinoids.

Are the Goods Sold Really Allowable?

Of course this scheme of word-smithing designations to obtain allowance of federal trademark registrations invites error, if not fraud. Registrations are subject to cancellation if use of the mark with the designated goods is not maintained, or if it can be shown that the registration was fraudulently obtained. Thus, critical to a claim of use is that the applicant offers products that actually meet the designation description. The Office does not check for THC levels or CBD presence, and most purveyors of hemp products don’t either. Indeed, there is not even a standardized method for measuring these things. However, studies show that more than half of hemp products either purposefully or accidentally misrepresent their actual THC and CBD levels.i Though legally untested, this presents a potential problem for many existing federal registrations.

If a mark registered for use with goods having < 0.3% THC is found to be used only with products that actually have a greater amount of THC in them, the registration could be canceled. The same fate could befall a registration for goods claiming to have no CBD that, when tested, actually do contain more than trace levels. Even if non-hemp cannabis products are legalized under federal level, registrations obtained with THC and/or CBD limitations would still require the registrant to use the mark with products meeting such limitations.

Keeping Evidence for Insurance

So long as a registrant has maintained use of the registered mark “in commerce” in association with the designated goods, the registration is insulated from attack based on claims of non-use or fraud. The fact that the registrant also uses the mark for goods that are not legal on the federal level is of no consequence to the registration. Thus, it is wise to include in the product lineup under the brand to be protected at least some good that meets the present requirements for federal trademark registration.

One option is to include a product where the only cannabis extract is from hemp seed oil. Without even testing it, you can be reasonably assured that such a product will contain little or no CBD or THC. Another option short of testing is to obtain a certification or warrant from your supplier that particular ingredients truly are hemp, i.e., have < 0.3% THC by dry weight. This could be relied on as evidence should no original product be available for testing to show that use was legitimate at the time registration was obtained. If you can’t obtain such a certification, testing the occasional sample and keeping records over time would also work. Product samples can now be tested for THC content for around $100 per sample, with results back in about a week.ii

Zone of Natural Expansion

Though non-hemp cannabis products cannot be covered directly by federal registrations, a federal registration for CBD/hemp products can have spillover benefits. This is because the scope of a registration may expand to cover things similar to what is designated. The question comes down to likelihood of confusion. Imagine a company holds a registration covering LOOVELA for “nutritional supplements containing hemp seed oil having no CBD and < 0.3% THC by dry weight.” It would be logical for a consumer to assume that non-hemp cannabis products sold under the LOOVELA mark would likely be made by the same company. Thus, provided the company actually sold products complying with its designation, it could assert the CBD-based registration to prevent sale of LOOVELA branded non-hemp cannabis products. Also, should such products be legalized federally, the company would likely be the only applicant able to obtain an additional federal registration for LOOVELA for use with them, because any competing attempt would be confused with their pre-existing registration for CBD/hemp products.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the law in this space is evolving rapidly and is nuanced. Every situation is unique in some way, and there are many reasons an application may fail or a registration may be attacked that are not addressed above. But there is value in obtaining a federal registration for your hemp brands, and there is an overall strategy to be employed for brand protection in the cannabis space.

The content above is based on information current at the time of its publication and may not reflect the most recent developments or guidance. Neal Gerber Eisenberg LLP provides this content for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should seek advice from professional advisers with respect to your particular circumstances.

References

  1. See, e.g., Bonn-Miller, Marcel O., et al., “Labeling Accuracy of Cannabidiol Extracts Sold Online,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 318, No. 17, pp. 1708-09 (Nov. 7, 2017); Freedman, Daniel A. and Dr. Anup Patel, “Inadequate Regulation Contributes to Mislabeled Online Cannabidiol Products,” Pediatric Neurology Briefs, Vol. 32 at 3 (2018).
  2. See, e.g., www.botanacor.com/potency/

Solvent Remediation – The Last Step for Safe, Clean Hemp Extraction

By Tom Bisbee
No Comments

Botanical extraction is not specific to cannabis and hemp, and it is anything but new. Rudimentary forms of plant extraction have existed throughout history and evolved with high-tech equipment and scientific procedures for use in pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements and botanicals.

In food production, examples of hydrocarbon extraction processes are commonplace. Nut, olive and vegetable oil production use solvents to extract the oils. Decaffeinated coffee uses hydrocarbon extraction to remediate the caffeine, and making sugar from beets, or beer from hops, also requires solvents.

As such, the FDA has set guidelines for the amount of residual solvents considered safe for consumers to ingest. Yet, without FDA guidance in cannabis and hemp, many products aren’t being tested against these standards, and consumers will ultimately pay the price.

Understanding solvent remediation technology and processes

If we use ethanol extraction as an example, the extraction process is relatively simple. First, we soak the biomass in denatured or food-grade ethanol, ending up with a final solution that is 90-95% solvent. Then, we perform a bulk removal of the solvents, which takes out most, but not all, of the solvent. The next and final step should be to strip the remaining solvents from the extract entirely.

Stripping remaining solvents in bulk requires the right equipment.

But, in order to do so effectively, you need the right equipment, and unfortunately, this is where many producers fall short. Many producers use a vacuum oven to apply heat while reducing the headspace pressure to lower the solvent’s boiling point and evaporate it off.

However, it’s a static environment in a vacuum oven, which means the material is stagnant. So, the process may effectively remove the solvents close to the surface, but solvents deep inside the material tend to get trapped without some type of agitation or mixing.

The appropriate final step to complete solvent remediation is wipe-film distillation, which feeds small volumes into a column, which is then wiped into a very thin film and heated under vacuum pressure. Although the equipment necessary is costly, this last step removes any residual solvents from the product to create a safe, effective and consumable product.

Residual solvents present huge risks

As stated, many of the same solvents used in cannabis and hemp extraction have been considered safe in food production for decades. Reviewing chemical data sheets, many of the acceptable limits on solvents were determined for ingestion, which is fine for edibles and tinctures, but many cannabis and hemp products are intended for inhalation or vaporization.

Just a few of the dozens of various products types on the market today, extracted with a variety of different solvents

Unfortunately, some solvents can have negative health impacts, especially for those using cannabis or hemp for medical purposes or with compromised immune systems. Plus, as a therapeutic and recreational substance, consumers may be consuming more than the recommended amount, as well as using the products several times a day. Unfortunately, long-term exposure or repeated inhalation of these residual solvents hasn’t been thoroughly researched.

For example, inhaling ethyl alcohol (ethanol) can irritate the nose, throat and lungs. Extended exposure can cause headaches, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and unconsciousness. Repeated exposure can affect the liver and nervous system.

In the food industry, hexane is approved for extracting spices or hops, and this solvent is widely used in cannabis and hemp extraction. However, if used in an inhalable product, chronic exposure to hexane could be detrimental, with symptoms including numbness in the extremities, weakness, vision problems and fatigue.

Consumers deserve transparency

In the industry’s earliest days, companies were tight-lipped about their processes, the chemicals they used and how they removed them. Everyone thought they had the “secret sauce” and didn’t want to share their approach. Today, companies are more open about what they use, how they process it and providing that necessary transparency.

Lack of quality and consistent regulations in these industries creates confusion for the consumers and loopholes for producers. Some producers test for everything under the sun, and some producers know exactly which labs will pass their products, regardless of test results.

While the regulatory bodies are distracted by the amount of THC that might linger in products, getting sick is overshadowed by the risk of getting high. In the meantime, consumers are left to their own devices to determine which products are safe and which are not.

Although testing mandates and regulations will help clean up the industry, until then, consumers need to demand full-panel COAs that not only show cannabinoid potency but also accurately display the test results for residual solvents, pesticides and heavy metals.

FDA Issues Warnings on Delta-8 THC Products

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

On September 14, the FDA published a consumer update on their website, seeking to educate the public and offer a public health warning on delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as delta-8 THC.

For the uninitiated, delta-8 THC is a cannabinoid that can be synthesized from cannabidiol (CBD) derived from hemp. It is an isomer of delta-9 THC, the more commonly known psychoactive cannabinoid found in cannabis. Delta-8 THC does produce psychoactive effects, though not quite as much as its better-known cousin, delta-9 THC.

FDAlogoDue to loopholes in federal and state laws, namely the 2018 Farm Bill specifying that hemp must contain less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, delta-8 THC is technically legal across the country. It grew in popularity across the United States very quickly over the past year, largely due to online sales.

Following the surge in sales, a number of states including Colorado, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington have implemented some form of regulation or outright ban on products containing delta-8 THC. Christopher Hudalla, president and chief scientific officer of ProVerde Laboratories, told Chemical & Engineering News that he has a lot of safety concerns about the whole delta-8 THC craze. Hudalla says he’s more concerned about the processing involved to produce it in large quantities. “These are pretty aggressive synthetic conditions that use strong acids,” Hudalla says. “They might be using strong bases to neutralize. They can use metal catalysts. I hear different people doing it different ways.”

The FDA’s consumer update included this picture at the top of the page

The FDA shares similar concerns. Their fourth point in the consumer update mentions that delta-8 THC products “often involve use of potentially harmful chemicals” in its production. They even claim that some manufacturers might be using unsafe household chemicals to synthesize delta-8 THC. “The final delta-8 THC product may have potentially harmful by-products (contaminants) due to the chemicals used in the process, and there is uncertainty with respect to other potential contaminants that may be present or produced depending on the composition of the starting raw material,” reads the FDA report.

In their consumer update, they note that between December 2020 and July 2021, they received 22 adverse event reports. Of the 22 reports, 14 were hospitalized following ingesting a delta-8 THC product. Notably, those reports included reactions consistent with symptoms from overconsumption of delta-9 THC, such as vomiting, hallucinations, trouble standing, and loss of consciousness.

The chemical structure of Delta 8 THC.

The FDA says that national poison control centers received 661 cases of delta-8 THC products, with 41% being unintentional exposure, 39% involved pediatric patients and 18% required hospitalization.

In the consumer update, they tell the public that delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated by the FDA and that they “may be marketed in ways that put the public health at risk.” This includes marketing it as a hemp product, which it is. Still though, many consumers associate hemp products with somewhat innocuous things, like CBD oil, which is mostly harmless.

The FDA also mentions in the update that delta-8 THC does have psychoactive and intoxicating effects. The FDA says they are notifying the public about the delta-8 THC due to an uptick in adverse event reports, marketing that is appealing to children and concerns regarding manufacturing with unsafe chemicals and contaminants.

Colorado to Bolster Hemp Testing Rules, Rollout Delayed

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

Earlier this year, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) announced a plan to introduce new testing rules for the state’s growing hemp industry. Under the new regulations, hemp products must be tested for residual solvents, heavy metals and pesticides, in addition to making sure they contain less than 0.3% THC.

The CDPHE are planning on a gradual rollout to prevent any supply chain issues or a lab testing bottleneck, similar to what we’ve seen in other states launching new testing requirements in years past, such as Arizona or California. Well, the Colorado rollout appears to be hitting similar snags and because of supply chain issues related to instruments and consumables in laboratories, the implementation of those testing rules is somewhat delayed. What was originally supposed to be implemented over the summer was pushed back to an October 1 deadline, and that deadline has now been pushed back to 2022.

The pesticide testing list to be implemented January 1, 2022

As a result of supply chain shortages and the learning curve to test for such a wide range of pesticides, Colorado is opening hemp testing to out-of-state labs in an effort to stay on schedule with the rollout. Dillon Burns, lab manager at InfiniteCAL, a cannabis testing company with locations in California and Michigan, just completed an audit with the CDPHE in their work to get certified and start conducting hemp testing for businesses in Colorado.

Burns says they’re well-acquainted with the list of pesticides because of how similar the list is to California’s requirements. “For the pesticide testing rules that were supposed to go into effect on August 1st, it’s basically the same list as California just with slightly different action levels,” says Burns. “I would say these action limits are generally stricter – they have much lower LOQs [limits of quantification].”

The pesticide testing list (continued) to be implemented January 1, 2022

Come January 1, 2022, they are expecting an additional 40 pesticides to be required under the new rules. “But currently, it’s still unclear when these regulations will actually go into effect,” says Burns. The full pesticide testing list is currently slated to be implemented on April 1, 2022.

The supply chain issues referenced above have a lot to do with what the state is asking labs to test for. Previously, most of the pesticides tested for under Colorado’s adult use and medical cannabis programs could be analyzed with an LC/MS. A handful of pesticides on the new list do require GC/MS, says Burns. It’s entirely possible that a lot of labs in Colorado just don’t have a GC/MS or are in the process of training staff and developing methods for using the new instrument. “Cleanliness of these instruments is such a priority that it takes time to acquire the right skill set for it,” says Burns.

Dillon Burns, Lab Manager at InfiniteCAL

The new testing rollout isn’t just another compliance hurdle for the cannabis industry; these rules are about protecting public health. Dillon Burns said he’s seen hiccups in California with the amount of new hemp farmers getting into the space. “The hemp products we’ve tested in California often fail for pesticides,” says Burns. It’s a lot easier in most states to get a license for growing hemp than it would be for growing adult use cannabis. “You’ll see a lot more novice growers getting into hemp farming without a background in it. They’ll fail for things they just haven’t considered, like environmental drift. We see a lot of fails in CA. Hemp is bioaccumulating so it presents a lot of problems. If they’re not required to look for it, they weren’t monitoring it.”

When asked how the market might react to the new rules, Burns was confident that Colorado knows what they’re doing. “I don’t anticipate that [a testing bottleneck] happening here. The regulators are reasonable, supportive of the industry and opening it up to out-of-state labs should help in preventing that.”

6 Trends Influencing the Cannabidiol (CBD) Market Forecast Through 2027

By Shreya Bhute
No Comments

The rise in the number of optimistic regulatory frameworks instigated by various regional governments will positively anchor the forecast for the cannabidiol (CBD) market. The growing awareness regarding the benefits and effects of the product as an alternative treatment method has accelerated its preference among consumers and suppliers. Moreover, the continued advancements in the approval processes by various authorities worldwide have also made way for numerous opportunities supporting CBD market growth.

According to a report by Global Market Insights, Inc, the global CBD market size could exceed $108.8 billion by 2027.

Growing presence in cosmetics

The overall industry share from creams and roll-on products is poised to hit a 35.8% CAGR up to 2027. This is owing to the increasing scope of CBD in cosmetic applications as it is highly effective in treating skin conditions. This, as well as its anti-inflammatory characteristics from a medicinal perspective, are leading to increased demand for CBD products like creams and roll-ons.

Scope in the treatment of mental health

Some of the many infused products on the market today.

CBD market value from anxiety/stress applications exceeded USD 1.5 billion in 2020 due to the growing need for helping mental health. The World Health Organization reported that over 4.5% of the total population in Europe suffers from depression. This escalating anxiety and stress rate has encouraged healthcare practitioners to increasingly make use of CBD-based medications.

Higher demand for oral administration

Demand for oral cannabidiol administration held nearly 45% of the industry proportion in 2020 due to its growing preference considering the gradual relief of pain compared to other disorders. The increasing dependency on the oral administration route for product development by several manufacturers will add positive impetus to market growth.

Medical benefits of cannabis

Annual revenue of the CBD market from the segment of the market dealing with THC (and CBD) products is expected to cross USD 30.1 billion by 2027. This is largely due to its increasing penetration across various countries and regions on account of its legal status. Furthermore, the relatively higher THC content of the compound has led to its growing usage to combat medical conditions, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, among others.

Online distribution to see a considerable footprint

Ads for CBD products online regularly perform very well

The online CBD industry was responsible for more than 46% of the market in 2020. This is mainly due to the numerous advantages of online channels, like on-time delivery and adequate inventory, compared to their offline counterparts. Besides, this distribution platform minimizes the operational costs related to the maintenance of brick and mortar retail.

Australia to lead the regional landscape

Australia dominated the Asia Pacific CBD market by holding over 25% of the market share owing to the expanding geriatric population and the liberal stance of the regulating bodies in the region. The permittance to the medicinal and cosmetic use of CBD products is likely to spur regional adoption. The rising amendments in regulatory scenarios have also triggered awareness regarding the potential benefits of the product in the country. For instance, in April 2020, the Australian government released a new proposal for over-the-counter CBD in a bid to relax its narcotic scheduling whilst making it a Schedule 3 substance.

Providers of various CBD products are actively indulging in numerous growth strategies, like acquisitions and partnerships, to reinforce their market presence. For example, Mota Ventures Corp., in January 2020, acquired Spanish producer and online retailer, Sativida OU in a USD 2.2 million deal. The acquisition expanded the company’s presence in Europe and Latin America.

Although the demand for CBD is likely to experience certain hesitation from consumers in the short term, the market will witness lucrative growth in the long run. However, counterfeit and substandard quality products may potentially restrain industry expansion to some extent.

Pesticide Remediation by CPC

By Arpad Konczol, PhD
2 Comments

Like any other natural product, the biomass of legal cannabis can be contaminated by several toxic agents such as heavy metals, organic solvents, microbes and pesticides, which significantly influence the safety of the end products.

Let’s just consider the toxicological effects. Since cannabis products are not only administered in edible forms but also smoked and inhaled, unlike most agricultural products, pesticide residue poses an unpredictable risk to consumers. One example is the potential role of myclobutanil in the vape crisis.

Unfortunately, federal and state laws are still conflicted on cannabis-related pesticides. Currently, only ten pesticide products have been registered specifically for hemp by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. So, the question arises what has to be done with all pf the high-value, but also contaminated cannabis, keeping in mind that during the extraction processes, not only the phytocannabinoids get concentrated but the pesticides as well, reaching concentrations up to tens or hundreds of parts per million!

Currently, there are three different sets of rules in place in the regulatory areas of Oregon, California and Canada. These regulations detail which pesticides need to be monitored and remediated if a certain limit for each is reached. Because the most extensive and strict regulations are found in Canada, RotaChrom used its regulations as reference in their case study.

Centrifugal Partition Chromatographic (CPC) system

To illustrate that reality sometimes goes beyond our imagination, we evaluated the testing results of a THC distillate sample of one of our clients. This sample contained 9 (!) pesticides, of which six levels exceeded the corresponding action limits. The most frightening, however, regarding this sample, is that it contained a huge amount of carbofuran, a category I substance. It is better not to think of the potential toxicological hazard of this material…

The CPC-based purification of CBD is a well-known and straightforward methodology. As the elution profile on the CPC chromatogram of a distillate shows, major and minor cannabinoids can be easily separated from CBD. At RotaChrom, this method has been implemented at industrial-scale in a cost effective and high throughput fashion. In any case, the question arises: where are the pesticides on this chromatogram? To answer this, we set ourselves the goal to fully characterize the pesticide removing capability of our methodologies.

Our results on this topic received an award at the prestigious PREP Conference in 2019. The ease of pesticides removal depends on the desired Compound of Interest.

Here is a quick recap on key functionalities of the partition chromatography.

  • Separation occurs between two immiscible liquid phases.
  • The stationary phase is immobilized inside the rotor by a strong centrifugal force.
  • The mobile phase containing the sample to be purified is fed under pressure into the rotor and pumped through the stationary phase in the form of tiny droplets (percolation).
  • The chromatographic column in CPC is the rotor: cells interconnected in a series of ducts attached to a large rotor
  • Simple mechanism: difference in partition

Let’s get into the chemistry a bit:

The partition coefficient is the ratio of concentrations of a compound in a mixture of two immiscible solvents at equilibrium. This ratio is therefore a comparison of the solubilities of the solute in these two liquid phases.

The CPC chromatogram demonstrates the separation of Compounds of Interest based on their unique partition coefficients achieved through a centrifugal partition chromatography system.

CPC can be effectively used for pesticide removal. About 78% of the pesticides around CBD are very easy to remove, which you can see here:

In this illustration, pesticides are in ascending order of Kd from left to right. CBD, marked with blue, elutes in the middle of the chromatogram. The chart illustrates that most polar and most apolar pesticides were easily removed beside CBD. However, some compounds were in coelution with CBD (denoted as “problematic”), and some compounds showed irregular Kd-retention behavior (denoted as “outliers”).

If pesticides need to be removed as part of THC purification, then the pesticides that were problematic around CBD would be easier to remove and some of the easy ones would become problematic.

To simulate real-world production scenarios, an overloading study with CBD was performed, which you can see in the graph:

It is easy to see on the chromatogram that due to the increased concentration injected onto the rotor, the peak of CBD became fronting and the apparent retention shifted to the right. This means that pesticides with higher retention than CBD are more prone to coelution if extreme loading is applied.

To be able to eliminate problematic pesticides without changing the components of the solvent system, which is a typical industrial scenario, the so-called “sweet spot approach” was tested. The general rule of thumb for this approach is that the highest resolution of a given CPC system can be exploited if the Kd value of the target compounds fall in the range of 0.5-2.0. In our case, to get appropriate Kd values for problematic pesticides, the volume ratio of methanol and water was fine-tuned. Ascending mode was used instead of descending mode. For the polar subset of problematic pesticides, this simple modification resulted in an elution profile with significantly improved resolution, however, some coelution still remained.

In the case of apolar pesticides, the less polar solvent system with decreased water content in ascending mode provided satisfactory separation.

Moreover, if we focus on this subset in the three relevant regulatory areas, the outcome is even more favorable. For example, myclobutanil and bifenazate, dominant in all of the three regulatory regions, are fully removable in only one run of the CPC platform.

Based on these results, a generic strategy was created. The workflow starts with a reliable and precise pesticide contamination profile of the cannabis sample, then, if it does not appear to indicate problematic impurity, the material can be purified by the baseline method. However, if coeluting pesticides are present in the input sample, there are two options. First, adjusting the fraction collection of the critical pesticide can be eliminated, however the yield will be compromised in this case. Alternatively, by fine-tuning the solvent system, a second or even a third run of the CPC can solve the problem ultimately. Let me add here, that a third approach, i.e., switching to another solvent system to gain selectivity for problematic pesticides is also feasible in some cases.

In review, RotaChrom has conducted extensive research to analyze the list of pesticides according to the most stringent Canadian requirements. We have found that pesticides can be separated from CBD by utilizing our CPC platform. Most of these pesticides are relatively easy to remove, but RotaChrom has an efficient solution for the problematic pesticides. The methods used at RotaChrom can be easily extended to other input materials and target compounds (e.g., THC, CBG).

cannabis close up
Soapbox

Too Many Cannabis Firms Put Sustainability in Last Place

By Mitesh Makwana
No Comments
cannabis close up

Cannabis has long been considered a green industry by the masses.

As a standalone item, the cannabis plant is very environmentally friendly. This is particularly true when it comes to hemp, a variety of the cannabis plant with a huge range of environmental benefits. An extremely versatile and robust crop, hemp uses far less land and water than other common crops and even captures carbon dioxide and regenerates soil. Approximately 20,000 products can be made from its seed, fiber and flower, from biodegradable plastics to food supplements, meaning all in all – it is an environmentally and economically sustainable crop

Yet as with most things, when cultivated in mass, the cannabis plant isn’t quite so green anymore. With its high demand for water, land and artificial lighting, cannabis cultivation can actually leave a large environmental footprint (this does however, pale in comparison to the food industry).

What’s more, many firms do not properly understand how to correctly treat and apply chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and use a machine gun approach to growing their crops. This can result in unnecessary bleed waste, which in turn can kill micro-organisms and contaminate soil, water and other vegetation. Packaging has also been cited as particularly environmentally unfriendly in the cannabis industry, with several organizations using single use plastic for their products, due to the strict guidelines attached to packaging products of a medical or pharmaceutical nature.

A field of hemp plants, (Cannabis sativa L.)

So as the CBD, medical and even adult use cannabis industries become increasingly commercialized across the globe, there is risk cannabis might start moving in the wrong direction when it comes to sustainability.

Still relatively new, the cannabis sector is nascent and exciting, with the global cannabis market size valued at $10.60 billion in 2018 and projected to reach $97.35 billion by the end of 2026. Yet as the industry grows, so too will its footprint.

I’ve seen it first-hand. The industry being hugely competitive, so for companies vying for precious investment and fighting for a spot on the stock market, often, sustainability is the last thing on their minds. In my opinion, this is wrong. Not only morally – we all play a part in looking after our planet – but it’s also a poorly calculated business decision.

It’s no secret sustainability and ESG have become a hot topic when it comes to investing. Just yesterday, Credit Suisse told CNBC that the pandemic has accelerated the trend towards sustainable investments. The bank has even introduced an exclusion strategy whereby those investing can actively exclude controversial sectors.

So with the environment firmly on investors’ minds, cannabis firms need to realize that actually, if they want to secure the support of forward-thinking shareholders, they need to consider more than just the bottom line and truly take the sustainability of their operations into account.

photo of outdoor grow operation
Outdoor growing can require less energy inputs

Luckily, there are practices which cannabis cultivators can take on board to reduce their environmental footprint. To start with – growing outdoors. This enables cannabis farmers to harness the sun’s natural power, saving them money on electricity bills and increasing energy efficiency. With cannabis being a rather thirsty plant, water use is also a major concern – although this is nothing compared to the amount of water used by cotton plants. However, it is in fact possible to design indoor operations which recycle close to 100% of the water use, including capturing the perspiration from plants – at AltoVerde this is something we are looking to implement in our upcoming Macedonian sites.

Firms keen to improve on sustainability should also cultivate in a way in which soil is fully replenished and repaired after use – this is called regenerative farming, and it’s extremely effective for maintaining and improving soil quality, biodiversity and crop yields. Another interesting concept is the use of hemp. Some farmers have started using hempcrete – a concrete-like material made from harvested cannabis plants. As if the recycling aspect wasn’t good enough, hempcrete is actually carbon negative, meaning the production of hemp for hempcrete removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it produces.

It’s been incredibly exciting to be a part of the cannabis industry and I am excited to watch its growth in the years to come. It’s taken hard work for the sector to improve its traditionally poor image and to be accepted across the globe, so now, cultivators must lead by example and stop industry from being branded as one which pollutes. By transitioning to more environmentally sustainable practices, firms will be doing their bit for the planet, attracting the investors of tomorrow and ensuring their own success for years to come.

SC Labs Develops Comprehensive Hemp Testing Panel

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

SC Labs, a cannabis testing company with roots in Santa Cruz, California, announced this week that they have developed a comprehensive hemp testing panel that covers a number of contaminants on a national regulatory level. In the press release, the company says they aim to fill the void of national hemp testing requirements.

The hemp testing panel they have developed purportedly meets testing standards in states that require contaminant levels below a certain action limit. The SC Labs hemp testing panel could theoretically be used for regulatory compliance testing across the country, reaching action limits and analyte levels that meet the strictest state requirements.

The panel tests for pesticides, heavy metals, microbiology, mycotoxins, residual solvents and water activity.

The panel is one sign of progress on the long road to nationally harmonized testing standards. “As an industry, we’ve been advocating for national, standardized, and transparent testing regulations for years now,” says Jeff Gray, CEO of SC Labs. “The government has been slow to respond so we decided it was time to act. As an industry, we’ve been advocating for national, standardized, and transparent testing regulations for years now. The government has been slow to respond so we decided it was time to act.”

SC Labs is headquartered in Santa Cruz, but has licenses in California, Oregon, Texas and Colorado (pending). Their California and Oregon locations are both ISO 17025-accredited and conducting THC-containing cannabis testing, as well as hemp testing.