Tag Archives: ISO/IEC 17025:2017

September 30, 2022

Ask the Experts: Ensuring the Validity of Cannabis Lab Testing

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

Cannabis testing laboratories are one of the major players in the industry for protecting public health. Ensuring that laboratory test results are reliable and valid requires a multipronged approach involving method validation, proficiency testing and performing frequent reviews of equipment and processes.

Cannabis testing laboratories often use a variety of different methods to conduct proficiency testing. Laboratories can either participate in programs run by ISO/IEC 17043-accedited proficiency testing providers or through intralaboratory comparison. Comparing different instruments, methods, technologies against pre-defined criteria is a must when validating methods for a specific type of test and ensuring the competence of the laboratory.

Beyond proficiency testing, there are a number of other stopgaps at a laboratory’s disposal for ensuring valid results, like using accredited certified reference materials, performing checks on measuring equipment frequently, reviewing reported results and retesting retained items. All of that and more is outlined in the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard, section 7.7.

labsphoto — What good is a test result if you cannot attest to its validity?

There’s a lot that goes into making sure laboratories provide valid results, much of which is detailed in the accreditation process. For more information, we sit down with Keith Klemm, senior accreditation manager for ANSI National Accreditation Board to learn about laboratory accreditation, method validation and other certifications and credentialing available in the cannabis industry.

Q: Why is method validation important for cannabis test methods?

Keith Klemm: Because cannabis production, testing, and sales is regulated by each individual state, there are very few standard methods for testing cannabis and cannabis-derived products. Non-standard methods or methods developed by the laboratory must be validated to ensure the methods are fit for their intended purpose. What good is a test result if you cannot attest to its validity? There would be no confidence that the results are accurate. Additionally, while organizations such as ISO, AOAC and ASTM are developing standard methods for use in the laboratory, the wide range of products and matrices being tested require modifications to standard methods. Standard methods used outside their intended scope must also be validated, again to ensure the method remains fit for the intended purpose.

Q: We’re pretty familiar with laboratory accreditation. What other accreditations are available in the cannabis industry?

Klemm: Accreditation programs are available for product certification and personnel credentialing, in addition to laboratory accreditation. ANAB’s product certification program was launched in 2020 and is based on the requirements of ISO/IEC 17065. The program combines the requirements of this standard with specific scheme requirements to attest to the competency of certification bodies who then certify products within the scheme. Two schemes are in development specific to the cannabis industry: Cannabis Safety and Quality (CSQ) and PurityIQ. For personnel credentialing, a new Cannabis Certificate Accreditation Program (C-CAP) was developed and is based on ASTM D8403, Standard Practice for Certificate Programs within the Cannabis and Hemp Industries. It also includes any additional state Responsible Vendor Training requirements.

Q: What are the steps to becoming an accredited cannabis testing laboratory, product certification body, or C-CAP organization?

Klemm: The process begins with a request for quote. The organization prepares for the initial assessment by implementing the requirements of the applicable standards, regulatory requirements, and scheme requirements. ANAB believes in a partnership approach to accreditation with a focus on customer needs while ensuring accreditation requirements are met. Once the organization is ready, an initial document review is performed. The accreditation assessment is then performed on-site by technically skilled and knowledgeable assessors. If any nonconformities are encountered, the organization provides a response with cause and corrective actions. Once all nonconformities are resolved and technical review is completed, a scope of accreditation and certificate are provided to the organization. The technical review may vary depending on the accreditation that is being sought, but the general process of accreditation is the same. After accreditation is achieved, the organization moves into a cycle of surveillance and reassessment as defined by the accreditation program and any scheme requirements.

About Keith Klemm

Keith Klemm is a graduate of Manchester University with a B.S. in Biology. Keith is an experience laboratory director and operations manager with 30 years’ experience in the laboratory environment and has worked as a senior accreditation manager for ANSI National Accreditation Board for the past five years.

Keith’s areas of expertise include:

Microbiological assays for food, medical device, and environmental test matrixes.
Environmental chemistry of water and wastewater.
Biocompatibility testing of medical devices.
ISO/IEC 17025:2017
AOAC International – guidelines for food laboratories program requirements
21 CFR Part 58, GLP program requirements
EPA NLLAP program requirements
AAFCO program requirements
FDA ASCA Pilot program for Biocompatibility
Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency program requirements
ISO 20387 Biobanking

June 30, 2020

Deibel Bioscience Rebrands, Achieves ISO 17025 Accreditation

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

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.”

May 27, 2020

Priorities During the Pandemic: How to Run a Lab Under COVID-19

By Dr. Peter Krause, Udo Lampe

No Comments

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most testing laboratories have been classified as relevant for the system or as carrying out essential activities for national governments. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain activities and optimally assess the changes that are occurring, framed within the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Analytica Alimentaria GmbH, a testing laboratory with its headquarters in Berlin, Germany and a branch office in Almeria, Spain, decided to focus its management on the analysis of events and the options available, at the legal and employment level, to ensure continuity of activities and reducing, as much as possible, the damage for the parties involved: employees and company. Accredited by the International Accreditation Service (IAS) to ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Analytica Alimentaria GmbH is required to implement risk-based thinking to identify, assess and treat risks and opportunities for the laboratory. Since March 12, 2020 a crisis committee was established, formed by the six members of the company’s management, covering general management, human resources, direction of production, finance and IT. The committee meets every day and it intends to:

Minimize the risks of contagion
Be able to continue providing the service required by our clients
ensure that the company as a whole will survive the economic impact of the crisis
Take measures that are within the legality of both countries where the laboratory operates (Spain and Germany),
Manage internal and external communication related to the crisis

To achieve correct decision making, daily meetings of the committee were established, to review the situations that were presented day after day and the actions that should be carried out. Each decision was analysed in a prioritized, objective, collaborative and global way.

The basis of the lab’s action plan was a well-developed risk assessment. In addition to the risk of getting a droplet or smear/contact infection with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (risk I) by contact with other people, psychological stress caused by changing working conditions (home office), contact options and information channels were also identified (risk II).

As a result of the risk assessment, the conclusion was that a mix of various measures is the best form of prevention:

Keep distance
Avoid “super spreader” events
Personal hygiene
Regular communication between managers and personnel about the current situation and possible scenarios

The risk assessment took both areas into account. The following assessment was developed together with an external specialist and focused on risk I:

Risk I	Assessment	Protective measures / hygiene plan
Organisation
Working hours and break arrangements	High	Limit the gathering of people and ensure a minimum distance: Relocated work, break and mealtimes Create fixed groups of shift-working staff Time gap of 20 min. between the shifts Enable home office wherever it is possible
Third party access	Moderate	Few but “well-known” visitors: Reduce the number of visits and keep internal contacts to a minimum Ensure the contact chain Inform visitors about the internal rules and obtain written consent
Dealing with suspected cases	High	Isolation and immediate leave of the company: Contactless fever measurement (in case of typical symptoms) Leave the company or stay at home If the infection is confirmed, find contact persons (including customers or visitors) and inform them about a possible risk of infection
Contact with other persons
Traffic route from home to work	Moderate	Avoid public transportation: Take a car, bicycle or go by foot Enable mobile work and teleworking
At work	High	Always keep a sufficient distance of 2.0 m from people: If minimum distances cannot be maintained, wear protective masks or install physical barriers (acrylic glass) Organize traffic routes so that minimum distances can be maintained (one-way routes, floor markings indicating a distance of 2 m) Use digital meetings instead of physical ones
Sanitary facilities	Moderate	Remove virus-loaded droplet as often as possible: Provide skin-friendly liquid soaps and towel dispensers Shorten or intensify cleaning intervals Hang out instructions for washing hands at the sink Include instructions for proper hand-disinfection
Canteens, tea kitchens and break rooms	High	One person per 10 m² = minimum: Reduce the number of chairs per table Informative signs in every room, indicating the maximum number of permitted persons
Ventilation	High	Diluting or removing bioaerosols (1 µm virus-droplets): Leave as many doors open as possible Regular and documented shock ventilation every 30 minutes or more frequently, depending on the size of window Operate ventilation and air-conditioning systems, since the transmission risk is classified as low here
Use of work equipment	Moderate	Use tools and work equipment for personal use: Regular cleaning with changing use (PC, hand tools, coffee machine, …) If possible, use gloves when using equipment for a larger number of users
Protective masks	Moderate	Use of protective masks as an additional measure, indicating that this does not replace keeping distance Recommend wearing masks in commonly used areas and explain that they do not protect yourself, but help to protect others Give clear instructions (written and oral) on how to use a mask correctly and explain the use and purpose of different mask-types Distribute masks freely

A number of guidelines and concrete measures addressing the risks related to health issues are already in place. Those health issues in risk group II are more closely related to the psychological effects of the crisis, however, are also more complex to mitigate. The key strategy is communication and, in particular, actively listening to all employees of the company.

Analytica’s robust company culture, based on values established in coordination with the whole staff, has been of significant help during the crisis. The some 150 staff members are organized by over 22 team coordinators. During the crisis, active communication has been intensified significantly. The crisis management team set up regular alignment meetings with all the coordinators and with individual persons with particular situations. This way, not only was it possible to explain the development of the crisis and the subsequent measures, the conversations with coordinators were also the most important source of information enabling the appropriate decisions. The coordinators, closely aligned and in sync with management, were then able to communicate with their team members with a high degree of confidence. One outcome of the communication was a measure that proved very effective in fortifying trust within the company: all measures and evaluations, as well as a chronological review, are published in a dynamic internal report and are made available, with full transparency, to all staff members. Besides the many individual and group alignment meetings (usually held by video conference), this has been a key measure to establish confidence and security within the company.

On the other hand, the company made a great effort to balance the effect of the general closure of kindergartens and schools in Spain and Germany. Each case where staff members were required to care for children at home was studied individually and agreements were established, adapting shifts and making use of time accounts, to allow childcare at home without significant loss of income.

The success of the measures is shown by the continuous work of both laboratories during the crisis. Besides the personal tragedy of a possible infection, the identified risk to the company has the consequence of a (partial) quarantine due to an infected person in contact with the staff and the consequent loss of work-power which might lead, in extreme cases, to a closure of the laboratory. According to the governmental regulation in Germany, if an infection occurs (confirmed by the health department), contact persons cat. 1 (more than 15 min. contact face to face) are identified and sent to quarantine. Other contact persons, e.g. contact persons cat. 2 (same room without face to face) must be identified quickly with the collaboration of the infected person and notified and, if necessary, sent in quarantine. In this case, there is a confirmed emergency plan that maintains the laboratory’s ability to work, defining replacements and alternative work-flow strategies.

It has been part of our strategy to validate all our measures with the relevant guidance documents made available by the official competent institutions. The German Federal Office for Public Safety and Civil Protection (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe) has published a guide, “Crisis Management in Companies, 9-point Checklist” especially for critical infrastructure companies in the CoVid-19 crisis.

Having been classified as a core business enterprise (Spain) and “relevant to the system” (Germany), we consider it important to use them as a reference to confirm our level of alignment with your proposal for crisis management.

An important effect, relevant to any leader in times of crisis, is that the confirmation of all points of such a checklist provides certain peace of mind regarding the question: Have we done everything we could?

December 3, 2018

Discussing Lab Accreditation: The New ISO 17025:2017 Standard

By Aaron G. Biros

2 Comments

At this year’s Food Safety Consortium a couple weeks ago, the newly launched Cannabis Quality Track featured a number of panels and presentations that highlighted the many intersections between food safety and cannabis. One particular topic of interest was measuring the quality and safety of cannabis products through laboratory testing. At the event this year, representatives from the leading laboratory accreditation bodies in the country sat together on a panel titled Accreditation, Regulation & Certification: Cannabis Labs and Production.

Representatives from ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB), the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation (PJLA) discussed the new ISO standard, common issues that labs encounter when getting accredited, the future of the cannabis lab industry and certifications for food safety and quality.

The panelists included:

Tracy Szerszen, president/operations manager, PJLA
Natalia Larrimer, engagement and program development manager, ANAB
Lauren Maloney, food safety program accreditation manager, Perry Johnson Registrars Food Safety, Inc. (PJRFSI)
Chris Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA

The new ISO 17025:2017 standard was a topic addressed pretty early in the panel. Tracy Szerszen introduced the topic with a recap of the 2005 standard. “With 17025, for those that are familiar with the older version, 2005, there are really two sections of the standard for that one,” says Szerszen. “The newer standard is a little bit different, but there is a quality management system review that we do and we look at the laboratory to ensure that they are testing appropriately based on what they applied for. So, for cannabis labs, they typically have the same scope in types of methods with respect to microbiology and chemistry, and we are making sure they are following the standard from a technical standpoint, meaning they have the right equipment, the appropriate personnel and also have a quality management system.”

Chris Gunning followed that up with a closer look at the changes coming to the new 2017 standard. “If you are familiar with the 2005 version, you know that a lot of the clauses started out with a ‘you shall have a policy and procedure for doing X,’” says Gunning. “One of the major changes to the 2017 version is it gives laboratories more latitude on whether they need to have a policy/procedure to do certain things.” Gunning says the 2017 version is much more of an outcome-based standard. “As far as assessing to it, it becomes a little harder from our side because we can’t say you have to have this quality manual or you have to have this procedure that were going to assess you to. We are more open to looking at the outcomes.”

Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA

The most interesting change to the ISO standard comes with addressing the idea of risk. “One of the newest concepts in this standard is risk and how you assess your risk to your organization how you assess risk of impartiality, how you assess your measurement uncertainty when you are creating decision rules,” says Gunning. “Those are the big concepts that have changed in the 2017 standard in that it is more outcome-based and introducing the concept of risk more.”

After discussing some of the broader changes coming to the 2017 version, the panelists began delving into some common pitfalls and issues labs face when trying to get accredited. “From our experience, in Michigan, the new standard was written into the regulations, but a lot of labs were already accredited to 2005,” says Szerszen. “So, we actually contacted the state and explained to them that they have three years to transition. And some states will say ‘too bad, we want the 2017 ISO,’ so some of the cannabis labs are asking us to quickly come back so they can get appropriate licensing in the state and do a transition audit quickly.” She says most states seem to be comfortable with the current transition period everyone has, but it certainly requires some discussion and explanation to get on the same page with state regulators. “November 29, 2020 is the deadline for moving to the new 2017 standard.”

In addition to state requirements like traceability and security on top of an ISO 17025 accreditation, labs can run into issues not typically encountered in other testing markets, as Gunning mentioned during the panel. “One of the hardest parts of getting accredited is the need for properly validated methods, for all the different matrices in samples,” says Gunning. “Some of the biggest hurdles for new labs getting assessed are validation and the availability of reference materials and proficiency testing samples that meet their state requirements.” Those are just a handful of hurdles that labs aren’t usually anticipating when getting accredited.

Natalia Larrimer, engagement and program development manager, ANAB

Another big topic that generated a lot of dialogue during the panel was the need for a national accreditation standard for cannabis testing labs, one that Natalia Larrimer is advocating for. “Many laboratories are operating facilities in more than one state and what they are facing is a different set of criteria for laboratory recognition in each state, says Larrimer. “One initiative that we would love to see more support for, is a set of uniform requirements nationally. ACIL is currently working on developing these type of requirements which would be in addition to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard and specific for cannabis industry…” Larrimer says she’d like to see these requirements recognized nationally to get labs on the same page across multiple states. “This includes requirements for things like security, traceability, proficiency testing, sampling and personnel competence. The industry would greatly benefit from a uniform cannabis testing program across the US, so that testing facilities in Oregon are operating to the same criteria as facilities in California or Colorado, etc.”

The panelists went into greater detail on issues facing the cannabis lab testing industry, but also delved into certifications for food safety and quality, an important new development as the infused products market grows tremendously. Stay tuned for more highlights from this panel and other talks from the Food Safety Consortium. We will be following up this article with another that’ll shed some light on food safety certifications. Stay tuned for more!

October 10, 2018

Lab Accreditation Bodies To Meet At Food Safety Consortium

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

The Food Safety Consortium, taking place November 13-15 in Schaumburg, Illinois, will host a series of talks geared towards the cannabis industry this year. The newly launched Cannabis Quality Track features a number of panels and presentations designed to highlight the many intersections between food safety and cannabis.

The track will have presentations discussing food safety planning in cannabis manufacturing, HACCP, GMPs, regulatory compliance and supply chain issues among other areas. One particular topic of interest in the quality and safety of cannabis products is laboratory testing. At the event this year, leading laboratory accreditation bodies in the country will sit together on a panel titled Accreditation, Regulation & Certification: Cannabis Labs and Production.

Panelists will include:

Roger Muse, vice president of business development of ANAB
Christopher Gunning, life sciences accreditation manager with A2LA
Tracy Szerszen, president/operations manager, PJLA
Lauren Maloney, food safety program accreditation manager, Perry Johnson Registrars Food Safety, Inc. (PJRFSI)

Laboratories that are new to the industry and looking to get accredited should be aware of the new ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard, which was released last year. According to Tracy Szerszen, labs that have already been accredited to the 2005 version will be required to transition to the 2017 version by November 29, 2020. “This can be done in conjunction with routine assessments scheduled in 2019 and 2020,” says Szerszen. “However, laboratories are cautioned to transition within a reasonable timeframe to avoid their 17025: 2005 certificate from lapsing prior to the transition deadline. Some of the changes to the standard include but are not limited to: the re-alignment of clauses similar to ISO 9001:2015 and other ISO industry standards, modifications to reporting and decision rules, the addition of risked based thinking and a new approach to managing complaints.” Szerszen, along with the other panelists, will go much more in-depth on changes to the new ISO 17025 and other topics during the panel at the Food Safety Consortium.

Some of the other topics the panel will discuss include:

ISO/IEC 17025 –what’s expected, benefits of accreditation, common deficiencies, updates to the new 17025 standard
Standards available for production facilities-GMPs & GFSI standards
How standards can be used to safeguard the quality of production and safety requirements
An open discussion with panelists from leading accreditation bodies on the state of cannabis lab testing

According to Chris Gunning, many states are requiring accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025, the standard used throughout the world in many other high-profile industries such as the testing of food and pharmaceuticals, environmental testing, and biosafety testing. “In an industry where there are few standard methods, where one hears that you can ‘pay to play,’ and where there are ‘novice’ laboratories popping up with little experience in operating a testing laboratory, it is extremely important to have an experienced, independent, 3rd party accrediting body evaluating the laboratory,” says Gunning. “This process confirms their adherence to appropriate quality management system standards, standard methods or their own internally developed methods, and can verify that those methods produce valid results. Ultimately, the process of accreditation gives the public confidence that a testing laboratory is meeting their state’s requirements and therefore consumers have access to a quality product.” He says most states with legal cannabis recognize the need for product testing by a credentialed laboratory.

Lauren Maloney, food safety program accreditation manager, Perry Johnson Registrars Food Safety, Inc. (PJRFSI)

Another important topic that the panel will address is the role of food safety standards in the cannabis industry. Lauren Maloney says cannabis product manufacturers should consider GMP and HACCP certifications for their businesses. “Food safety is important to the cannabis industry because although individual states have mandated several food safety requirements there still considerable risks involved in the production of cannabis products,” says Lauren Maloney. “Consumers want the assurance that the cannabis products are safe and therefore should be treated like a food product. Because FDA does not have oversight of these production facilities, third party certification is essential to ensure these facilities implement a robust food safety system.”

The panelists will examine these issues along with other topics in greater detail during their talk at this year’s Food Safety Consortium.

August 2, 2018

EVIO Labs Massachusetts Accredited to ISO 17025

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

EVIO Inc.’s Massachusetts lab announced yesterday they received ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). According to the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, the body in charge of regulating the state’s cannabis industry, accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025: 2017 is a requirement for cannabis testing labs.

The press release says this makes EVIO Labs Massachusetts one of only a few operating and accredited testing laboratories serving the state’s medical cannabis industry. With recreational sales coming shortly to the state, EVIO is preparing for a higher demand in their lab testing services. “We are very proud of all of the teams’ hard work that resulted in this advanced accreditation,” says James Kocis, lab director of EVIO Labs Massachusetts. “With the state-mandated laboratory regulations, EVIO upholds the high standards of testing and plays a pivotal role in ensuring consumer safety and confidence in the states burgeoning marijuana market.”

According to Adam Gouker, general manager at A2LA, EVIO Labs Massachusetts, based in Southborough, MA, is the first cannabis laboratory they accredited in the state. “A2LA is excited to expand our cannabis accreditation program into yet another state, promoting the value of independent third-party accreditation to support quality products in the industry,” says Gouker. “Having the opportunity to work with a prominent name in the industry such as EVIO Labs and assess their exceptional Massachusetts laboratory has been an additional bonus.”

According to the A2LA press release, by achieving ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, EVIO Labs Massachusetts demonstrates that they “have management, quality and technical systems in place to ensure accurate and reliable analyses, as well as proper administrative processes to ensure that all aspects related to the sample, the analysis, and the reporting are standardized, measured, and monitored.” It also requires that personnel are competent to perform each analysis.

EVIO Inc. operates in the cannabis testing market with lab services in a number of states, including Oregon, California and Florida among others. Their Florida location was the first accredited cannabis lab in the state and they recently earned the same accreditation for their Berkeley, California location.