Ancillary services are a hot topic in the cannabis industry, as they are in many niche industries turning to B2B marketplaces to connect with specialized expertise and products.
Platforms such as Amazon Business, Flexport, SupplyHog and others have emerged to connect mainstream business sectors with the vendors and services they need, but things look a lot different in the cannabis space. The many disparate aspects of launching, running and scaling a cannabis business—and vetting dozens of service providers clamoring for your business—can feel like playing whack-a-mole blindfolded.
While a business consultancy can do some of the heavy lifting, there are reasons why this traditional “one-size-fits-all” approach is problematic. However, the rise of legalization is creating new avenues for founders in both established and emerging markets to take charge of their destiny and secure the services that truly meet their needs.
Understanding what’s available can help founders avoid pitfalls, from inadequate insurance coverage and predatory lenders to inexperienced service providers seeking to cash in on the “green gold rush.”
The Importance of Regulatory Knowledge
One reason B2B services look so different in the cannabis industry is because the industry itself is still rapidly evolving, as new state markets for medical cannabis and recreational adult use come online and states constantly amend their regulations. There’s also the sprawling scope of compliance requirements facing a cannabis operator, from securing tightly zoned real estate to building a facility with adequate security, to integrating into the state’s seed-to-sale tracking system.
It’s critical to engage with experts who are knowledgeable on the regulatory variances of the state (or states) where the business will operate. Someone who has experience interpreting cannabis regulations will know, for example, if you should have a real estate lease locked in prior to applying or if a particular state would prefer you move through the pre-opening process in a different order.
Another reason ancillary services are so important is that cannabis regulations aren’t standardized on the federal level or even state to state, which requires an especially deep, granular level of understanding of market trends and compliance demands. That can make the difference not only between a successful business launch and a swift nose dive, but also between a business surviving a major disaster or setback and becoming past tense.
Insurance and Lending Issues
Every business owner knows they need insurance, for example, but not every insurance broker knows what specific coverages to lock in to ensure a payout if a dispensary is vandalized or if a wildfire burns a grow operation to the ground. While federal legislation like the Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana (CLAIM) Act could one day make it easier for national insurance companies to serve legal cannabis businesses, currently criminal conduct exclusions can be used to keep plant-touching business owners from getting their full payout.
Not only does federal prohibition make it challenging for a cannabis business operator to find proper insurance coverage, access financial networks and establish employee benefits programs to keep industry jobs competitive, even seeking investment capital can leave cannabis companies exposed to unfavorable terms. Just look at the case of iAnthus, a multistate operator that claims to have been burned in a deal with Gotham Green Partners while looking for expansion funding.
So how can cannabis leadership locate and vet professional services, particularly in the critical startup stage when it feels like everything has to happen right away? That’s where the B2B marketplace trend comes in.
The Advent of Vendor-Agnostic B2B Marketplaces for Cannabis
While platforms such as Amazon Business have offerings for a variety of mainstream industries, they’re not tailored for cannabis. But there is a growing field of vendor-agnostic specialists helping cannabis founders make the right moves.
Necessity absolutely produced this particular innovation, which upends the traditional single-funnel consultancy model to instead create a village that can raise a variety of cannabis businesses. Vendor-agnostic consultancies are nimble and adaptable in a way that broad-scale platforms are not. And rather than being tied to a particular suite of products and service providers the way traditional business consultancies often are, the vendor-agnostic approach gives both consultants and cannabis founders much-needed flexibility.
In a cannabis B2B marketplace, a pool of inventory-tracking software vendors, for example, can be sorted to allow for easy comparison shopping based on whether the operator is a single-state startup looking for basic integration with the state compliance system, or an MSO that needs a more robust platform. And the customization extends from there—vertically integrated businesses versus standalone wholesale producers, plant-touching businesses versus other professional service providers and beyond.
As more and more industries specialize, it’s no wonder ancillary services are having a renaissance and replacing the traditional one-size-fits-all model popularized decades ago. But it’s also no wonder that the cannabis industry needs an especially unique approach to professional support for niche fields. The more this industry expands, the more founders and their B2B partners need to roll with their own solutions.
Founded in 2018, Bespoke Financial is the nation’s first fintech lender focused on the cannabis industry. Led by a premier team of experts in the credit, technology and cannabis industries, Bespoke Financial has financed more than $800M in GMV across the US cannabis industry and is on track to deploy $1B by end of year 2022 via their revolving lines of credit. Bespoke’s financing empowers cannabis companies to increase purchasing power, remove working capital limitations and accelerate growth in a rapidly growing industry. The company is backed by respected venture capital firms such as Casa Verde Capital, The General Partnership, Greenhouse Capital Partners and Ceres Group Holdings.
Bespoke recently entered into a milestone partnership with Blaze as the cannabis industry’s first tech-enabled B2B lending product available in CA & MA. Through this partnership, Bespoke and Blaze will be the first to bring “Buy Now Pay Later” to the industry. With just the click of a button, vendors can utilize this BNPL feature by paying directly within the Blaze platform via Bespoke’s financing with a 60-day repayment term on all vendor payments while minimizing dispensaries’ reliance on cash transactions.
We caught up with George Mancheril, co-founder and CEO of Bespoke Financial to learn more about trends in cannabis lending and their unique partnership with Blaze. George was the company’s CFO prior to taking the CEO position in 2019. Prior to Bespoke, George was a VP at Guggenheim Partners in California.
Aaron Green: What does it mean to be a fintech lender in cannabis?
George Mancheril: Bespoke Financial is a first mover in fintech lending for the cannabis industry, equipped with a robust network of investors, industry expertise and a multi-year track record solidifying our credibility in the space. We are focused on working with established cannabis companies who can use our financing to unlock growth, profitability, and success in the near- and long-term future.
Cannabis lenders must navigate a complex web of both cannabis and financing regulations, specific to each state, while trying to identify good borrowers in a nascent industry comprised of new companies. This has caused banks, traditional lenders, and institutional investors to avoid cannabis despite the unique growth opportunities and economic potential of the industry overall.
Green: What makes Bespoke different from other cannabis lenders in the business?
Mancheril: Unlike the few cannabis lenders active in the market, Bespoke Financial combines best-in-class technology and lending products designed to address the specific financing needs of the industry to better serve our clients. Our tech platform offers a simple interface for our clients to easily access financing, monitor loan balances, and manage payments. Bespoke’s technology allows us to service a broad array of clients in numerous markets across the US, offering our clients a reliable financing partner for their immediate and future needs.
Green: What markets do you serve in cannabis? Are you able to finance plant-touching operations?
Mancheril: Bespoke works with cannabis companies across the entire supply chain within 15 U.S. cannabis markets, with the vast majority of our borrowers being plant-touching operations, Our portfolio comprises cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, dispensaries, non-plant touching cannabis brands, ancillary service providers and CBD companies. Our financing options have helped a wide variety of cannabis operations overcome working capital limitations and capitalize on new growth opportunities and increase profitability.
Green: You recently announced a “Buy Now Pay Later” partnership with Blaze. What problems do dispensaries have that you are solving for there?
Mancheril: As broader economic activity slows in the US with the threat of a recession impacting both businesses and consumers, dispensaries face supply, demand, and fundraising challenges:
- Consumer demand challenges:
- Cannabis consumers in 2022 are significantly more price sensitive than recent years for several reasons.
- High inflation over the past 1yr+ has reduced disposable income for consumers in the US.
- Post-COVID return to normalcy has allowed consumers to spend disposable income on many goods and services which were largely been unavailable since the beginning of 2020 (ie travel).
- Concern about a recession and slower wage growth has further reduced consumer spending.
- Illicit cannabis has always been the main competition for legal dispensaries with little enforcement or curtailing of black-market activity to note in the US.
- New cannabis consumers are gravitating towards smaller (but growing) product categories (edibles, concentrates, infused beverages, etc.) as opposed to just purchasing packaged flower. Dispensaries must carry a wide array of products and brands in order to better attract and service new and existing customers.
- Cannabis consumers in 2022 are significantly more price sensitive than recent years for several reasons.
- Supply side challenges:
- Mature cannabis markets, such as California, have been saturated with over supply since Q2 2021 leading to inventory build ups and declining wholesale prices for cultivators, manufacturers, and brands (collectively referred to as suppliers). In this environment, suppliers are offering discounts to incentivize customers (i.e. dispensaries) who can:
- Purchase larger quantities more frequently to allow suppliers to move inventory before the product quality degrades.
- Pay COD for purchases as cashflow and capital are very important for suppliers during periods of economic stress.
- Dispensaries without the financial means to conform to suppliers’ preferences will be at a considerable disadvantage as they will continue to have trouble sourcing popular products at the lowest possible cost.
- Mature cannabis markets, such as California, have been saturated with over supply since Q2 2021 leading to inventory build ups and declining wholesale prices for cultivators, manufacturers, and brands (collectively referred to as suppliers). In this environment, suppliers are offering discounts to incentivize customers (i.e. dispensaries) who can:
- Fundraising challenges:
- Cannabis’ federal illegality has resulted in a much smaller universe of potential capital providers. Once a potential lender or investor is identified, typically the application process requires time and resources to complete which puts dispensaries in an especially disadvantageous position. Large MSOs, who tend to attract most of the available capital, can rely on internal finance teams to source capital whereas dispensaries are much more constrained and require a simpler, faster, and easier application process.
Our partnership with Blaze to offer B2B BNPL to dispensaries addresses these challenges and more. With access to our financing, dispensaries are empowered with:
- Fast access to financing without a lengthy application process, entirely housed within the Blaze POS’ platform
- Dispensaries on the Blaze platform do not need to seek out lenders or weigh various financing options.
- No materials need to be gathered for the application.
- At the click of a button, dispensaries gain access to capital which they are free to use as they see fit with no obligation.
- Easy to understand financing
- No obligation: dispensaries have full discretion to use our financing only when they choose.
- No prepayment penalties or additional fees.
- Increased purchasing power, enabling dispensaries to
- Carry a wider array of cannabis products and brands to better service consumer needs.
- Purchase a higher quantity of inventory from suppliers to qualify for volume-based discounts.
- Pay COD for purchases to qualify for early payment discounts.
- Offer lower prices to cautious consumers as a result of these discounts, thereby increasing sales and gross profit while strengthening their relationships with suppliers.
Green: Can you explain your decision to launch in CA and MA first?
Mancheril: While our ultimate goal is to offer B2B BNPL in all legal cannabis markets, we launched in CA and MA first because these states represent the largest and fastest growing markets in the US respectively. California was the first state that both Bespoke and Blaze launched in individually, so it was a natural starting point for our BNPL partnership. Massachusetts’ continued growth is compelling for any service provider and we believe our BNPL financing will be as successful addressing the needs and challenges in this newer market alongside those in more mature states.
Green: What trends are you seeing in US cannabis debt financing?
Mancheril: Since 2020, we’ve seen many MSOs increasingly rely on debt financing as opposed to equity capital. MSOs accounted for over ~80% of the debt raised over the past 2 years despite only representing a fraction of the broader cannabis market. Additionally, commercial real estate financing options for cannabis companies have increased over the same time period, driven by the growth of cannabis focused REITs. In general, by the end of 2021, we saw an increasing number of debt investors focused on higher yields participate in cannabis deals.
The recent macroeconomic volatility, increase in rates, and widening credit spreads in 2022 have slowed and slightly reversed the trends seen over the past 3 years. While banks and traditional lenders continue to wait for federal legalization, the vast majority of cannabis companies continue to have very limited access to debt financing options. Over the past quarter, we have seen debt investors leverage the recent illiquidity to negotiate higher interest rates and equity components in new debt deals, a trend we expect to continue until the broader economy strengthens or federal legalization gains traction.
At Bespoke, we empower entrepreneurs to grow their businesses without having to surrender control of their companies or visions. We are excited to continually be market leaders addressing this very vital need for cannabis companies of all sizes in all market environments.
Green: What trends are you following in US regulations and emerging markets?
Mancheril: The most recent headlines have been mixed for US cannabis regulations. Federal legalization is a huge point of focus with SAFE Banking failing (again) to survive the US Senate while the introduction of the revised CAOA offers a glimpse of hope. We believe federal regulatory changes will continue to be debated and discussed without any meaningful progress over the next 2 years but the current discussion of the CAOA revisions will provide the best insight on lawmakers’ priorities. On the local level, the list of states with adult-use sales continues to expand and we would expect to see a handful of new markets ushered in by voters in 2022.
Green: What would federal legalization mean for the cannabis lending industry? How do you stay ahead of the curve?
Mancheril: Federal legalization can occur in a variety of ways, including rescheduling cannabis (currently Schedule 1), descheduling cannabis entirely from the CSA, deferring to state specific regulation, implementing a national cannabis regulatory framework, or some combination of all of the above. The complexity of future regulatory changes makes the timeline for legalization difficult to forecast but we believe that the path forward will be comprised of multiple legislative changes over a number of years as opposed to a comprehensive reform addressing all the relevant points at once.
Based on the interests and goals of all stakeholders in this conversation, we believe that:
- Cannabis de-scheduling or rescheduling is unlikely to occur before 2025
- Any federal legislation which is approved will require long transition periods for new rules to be finalized, implemented, and adopted by relevant stakeholders (state regulators, courts, cannabis operators, financial institutions, etc.)
- Federal lawmakers may allow for financial institutions to service the cannabis industry prior to de-scheduling through limited scope legislation like SAFE banking
- Federal legislation will have a difficult time balancing deference to state specific cannabis regulation while enabling federal agencies such as the FDA and Treasury department to issue guidelines and rules for the broader industry. Too much federal agency interference will jeopardize existing & functioning cannabis markets while too much deference will impede vital oversight and consumer protection.
- We believe interstate commerce will not be allowed immediately following federal legalization. Interstate commerce will benefit larger MSOs and states with mature cannabis markets (which are hampered by oversupply) at the expense of smaller single state operators and new markets. State governments are motivated to legalize cannabis in the pursuit of tax revenue and economic opportunity for their constituents, both of which would be significantly reduced for newer markets competing with out of state operators.
Regardless of which path federal legalization takes in the coming years, the net benefit for the industry overall will be clear. Setting aside the societal benefit from expunging criminal records for non-violent offenders and freeing enforcement agencies to focus on more serious issues, any progress towards legalization would significantly reduce the challenges that cannabis operators face today. Cannabis companies will see a reduction in operating expenses, a wider array of options for basic business services like insurance and marketing, and an increase in consumer demand as the stigma of illegality fades into memory. Allowing banks to service the industry would remove cash as the primary form of payment, entice larger pools of capital to enter the cannabis market, and in general de-risk the industry tremendously. Bespoke will continue in our role as market leader and cannabis industry advocate in this new paradigm by empowering our clients with even greater access to the capital and services vital to their continued success.
The THC content you see on a label when you walk into a dispensary? There is a very good chance the number is false.
In every state with regulated cannabis, there is a requirement to label the potency of products so consumers can make informed purchasing and medicating decisions. The regulations usually state that the THC/cannabinoid content on the label must be within a particular relative percent difference of the actual tested results for the product to be salable. In California, that threshold is +/- 10%.
The problem is, with all the focus on THC percentage in flower and concentrate products, enormous pressure has been placed on cultivators and manufacturers to push their numbers up. Higher numbers = higher prices. But unfortunately, improving their growing, extraction and formulation processes only gets companies so far. So, they proceed to ‘lab shop’: giving their business to whichever lab provides them the highest potency.
There are roughly 50 Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) licensed labs in the state, and competition is fierce to maintain market share in a maturing and plateauing industry. Whereas competition used to be healthy and revolved around quality, turnaround time and customer service, now it’s essentially become a numbers game. As a result, many labs have sacrificed their scientific integrity to chase what the clients want: higher THC potency results without contaminant failures. The practice has become so prevalent that labs openly advertise their higher potency values to gain customers without fear of recourse. Here are two examples:
Over a year ago, a few labs fed up with what was happening got together to determine the extent of the potency inflation issue. We proactively purchased and tested over 150 randomly chosen flower samples off dispensary shelves. The results were staggering. Eighty-seven percent of the samples failed their label claims (i.e., were >10% deviant of their labeled values), with over half of the samples >20% deviant of their labeled THC values (i.e., over 2x the legal permitted variance). Additionally, our labs found multiple cases of unreported category 1 pesticides in some of the analyzed samples at multiple times the legal limit – a significant public health concern. The deceit was not limited to small cultivators trying to get by but also some of the industry’s biggest brands.
The same issues and economic conditions are in play for concentrates. Manufacturers of these products also hunt for the highest D9 THC values because wholesale prices for distillate are determined by THC content: <86% for the lowest value, 86-88%, 88-90% and >90%, with a new price point for over 94%. As a result, consumers can walk into a dispensary and find concentrates like the one shown below that report>99% total cannabinoids (>990mg/g) and contains almost 10% additional terpenes. You don’t have to be an analytical chemist to realize those numbers add up to well over 100%, which is physically impossible.
Everyone can agree that the system is broken, but who is at fault? Should the blame be placed on dispensaries, many of whom use THC % as their only purchasing or marketing metric? Or on cultivators, manufacturers and distributors, who seek the highest results possible rather than the most accurate ones? Or on the labs themselves, who are knowingly reporting inflated results?
Ultimately, the individual businesses are acting in their own self-interest, and many are participating in this practice simply to stay afloat. Dispensaries can’t reasonably be expected to know which results are inflated and which are not. Cultivators and manufacturers feel obligated to use labs that provide them with the highest results; otherwise, they’re putting themselves at a disadvantage relative to their competitors. Likewise, labs that aren’t willing to inflate their numbers have to be ready to watch customers walk out the door to maintain their principles – an existential dilemma for many.
The primary reason why potency inflation has become so prevalent is that there have been no negative repercussions for those that are cheating.
The axiom is true – don’t hate the player, hate the game. Unlike most businesses, testing labs operating with integrity want meaningful regulations and oversight to assure a level playing field. Without them, the economics force a race to the bottom where labs either have to inflate more and more or go out of business. Since 2016, the DCC (formerly BCC) has taken zero meaningful actions to discourage or crackdown on potency inflation— not a single recall of an inflated product or license suspension of an inflating lab— so predictably, the problem has gotten progressively worse over time.
So, to answer the question above – who is at fault for our broken system? The answer is simple: the DCC.
In the Fall of 2021, we began engaging with the DCC to address the industry’s potency inflation concerns. The DCC requested we provide them with direct evidence of our accusations, so we collected and shared the flower data mentioned above. The Department tested the same batches off the shelf and confirmed our results. Somehow not a single recall was issued – even for the batches containing category 1 pesticides.
We pushed for more accountability, and DCC Director Nicole Elliott assured us steps were being taken: “The Department is in the process of establishing a number of mechanisms to strengthen compliance with and accountability around the testing methods required of labs and will be sharing more about that in the near future.”
Instead, we got a standardized cannabinoid potency method (mandated by SB 544) that all labs will be required to use. On the surface, a standardized methodology sounds like a good thing to level the playing field by forcing suspect labs into accepting generally accepted best practices. In reality, however, most labs already use the same basic methodology for flower and concentrate cannabinoid profiling and inflate their results using a variety of other mechanisms: selective sampling, using advantageous reference materials, manipulating data, etc. Furthermore, the method mandated is outdated and will flatly not work for various complex matrices such as gummies, topicals, beverages, fruit chews and more. If adopted without changes, it would be a disaster for manufacturers of these products and the labs that test them. Nevertheless, the press release issued by the DCC reads as though they’ve earned a pat on the back and delivered the silver bullet to the potency inflation issue.
Here are a few more meaningful actions the DCC could take that would help combat potency inflation:
- Perform routine surveillance sampling and testing of products off of store shelves either at the DCC’s internal lab or by leveraging DCC licensed private labs.
- Recall products found to be guilty of extreme levels of potency inflation.
- Conduct in-person, unannounced audits of all labs, perhaps focusing on those reporting statistically higher THC results.
- Conduct routine round-robin studies where every lab tests the same sample and outliers are identified.
- Shutdown labs that are unable or unwilling to remediate their potency inflation issues.
For some less disciplinary suggestions:
- Remove incentives for potency inflation, like putting a tax on THC percentage
- Set up routine training sessions for labs to address areas of concern and improve communication with the DCC
Someone might retort – who cares if the number is slightly higher than it should be? No one will notice a little less THC in their product. A few counterpoints:
- Consumers are being lied to and paying more for less THC.
- Medical cannabis users depend on specific dosages for intended therapeutic effects.
- Ethical people who put their entire lives into cultivating quality cannabis, manufacturing quality products and accurately testing cannot compete with those willing to cheat. If things get worse, only the unethical actors will be left.
- Labs that inflate potency are more likely to ignore the presence of contaminants, like the category 1 pesticides we found in our surveillance testing.
- This single compound, delta-9 THC, is the entire reason why this industry is so highly regulated. If we are not measuring it accurately, why regulate it at all?
We will continue to fight for a future where quality and ethics in the cannabis industry are rewarded rather than penalized. And consumers can have confidence in the quality and safety of the products they purchase. Our labs are willing to generate additional surveillance data, provide further suggestions for improvement in regulations/enforcement, and bring further attention to this problem. But there is a limit to what we can do. In the end, the health and future of our industry are entirely in the hands of the DCC. We hope you will join us in calling on them to enact meaningful and necessary changes that address this problem.
When people have to make important decisions, we often consult a third party to increase our knowledge and confidence in a product. For instance, when choosing a car, an individual may weigh heavily on safety ratings and other awards from organizations such as Consumer Reports. These awards are often boasted and a heavy focus in car commercials because it tells the consumer that a third party has deemed their car valuable to own. For more than 100 years, the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC® International) has operated in this exact manner, and has set the bar and guidelines for testing in the cannabis industry through its special program called the Cannabis Analytical Science Program, also known as CASP.
The CASP program is designed to develop standards and validation guidance to evaluate testing methods, as well as the methods’ ability to detect the target organism or compound on the cannabis matrix. With the addition of new states permitting the legal sale of both medical and adult use cannabis and no federal governing body overseeing testing regulations, the value of AOAC cannot be understated, as these guidelines allow cannabis testing laboratories to have their own third-party reference to look to when choosing a compliant testing method to implement in their laboratory.
AOAC was founded in 1884 by the US government as the standard setting body in the country and, in 1991, became an independent association known as AOAC International, with a goal of building a reputation as an international, consensus-based standard-setting body and a conformity assessment organization in analytical sciences. As an independent third-party resource, AOAC has the Performance Tested Methods’ (PTM) and Official Methods of AnalysisSM (OMA) programs for certification of analytical testing methods in both biology and chemistry.
If analytical methods, including proprietary test kits, are deemed acceptable, AOAC provides approved certification, their seal of approval that the method works as designed. Though multiple factors are considered to determine if AOAC approval is given; accuracy and precision of the method are among the most important. For example, when validating a cannabis method for microbiology, AOAC will contract an independent testing facility to conduct a series of tests with known spiked samples to measure the recovery limit of the target microorganism. This allows the organization to determine if the method is sensitive enough to be named an AOAC-approved method through either the PTM or OMA conformity programs. Another way of ensuring the validity of results is by conducting an inclusivity and exclusivity study on a method. In this type of experiment, target organisms are tested while also spiking with non-target organisms to see if there will be a high rate of false positives.
In cannabis, discussions have grown surrounding testing of four strains of Aspergillus, which are A. terreus, A. flavus, A. fumigatus and A. niger. By spiking cannabis with one of the four Aspergillus strains and on a separate sample with a non-target Aspergillus strain such as A. clavatus, it ensures that only the target strains are being recognized and recorded on the method being tested.
This methodology limits the likelihood of unconfirmed positives occurring, ensuring the validity of the results. Of course, when a method is undergoing an actual AOAC evaluation for approval, the testing requirements for both the sensitivity and inclusivity/exclusivity experiments are much more thorough than the explanation above.
Regardless of which AOAC-approved method you select, you can feel confident that most of the “heavy-lifting” is done and that the method is accurate and precise enough to implement in a cannabis testing facility. In turn, the cannabis testing laboratory then only needs to complete their own internal method verification to ensure the method works with their processes, people, environment and product, but on a much smaller scale and aligns with state regulations.
On a consumer safety level, AOAC-approved methods are designed to keep cannabis consumers safe. Whether they are an adult using cannabis or medicinal cannabis patient, the product that is being sold should be held to the highest safety standards. By having a laboratory that is utilizing an independently approved AOAC method, an additional layer of confidence is achieved that the product being consumed is safe. This ultimately limits the number of costly recalls from dispensaries and minimizes risk to consumers. At the end of the day, cannabis testing laboratories want to keep the public safe and it is our job to do so. This means implementing these independently approved methods from agencies such as AOAC at various touch points in the seed to sale cycle to ensure the data is validated and reliable.
Overall, just as it is equally important to get a non-biased and reputable third-party approach to your automobile search, a scientist that is responsible for choosing methods in their cannabis compliance laboratory should also consider these third-party approvals. As a scientist, the goal every day is to report accurate data to help the client and the consumer equally. The cannabis compliance laboratories are the last line of defense in preventing harmful or contaminated products from getting into the marketplace and any extra assurance we have with our testing methodology is always encouraged. Ultimately, AOAC’s work is important and their standard of quality and safety is a must-have in the cannabis laboratory.
Cannabis sativa contains over 500 different bioactive compounds that can be separated through an extraction process. This is carried out in an extraction lab and the end result is the production of cannabis extracts with a high concentration of specific cannabinoids (such as THC or CBD) with up to 99% purity levels. Cannabis can get easily contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents or other contaminants and thereby pose a risk to the health and safety of consumers. In-house testing allows manufacturers to ensure that the cannabis products they put out to the market are not only potent but also are free of all sorts of contaminants.
The cannabis extraction market worldwide was valued at $9.7 billion in 2020. According to data from Grandview Research, the market size is expected to hit $23.7 billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 16.6%. While setting up a cannabis extraction facility can be cost-intensive at the start, the running costs are minimal, making this a profitable venture in the long run. However, you will need to consider these 7 important factors.
Cannabis is a highly regulated industry, regardless of the country. In the U.S, it is illegal at the federal level, and therefore there’s a need for judicious selection of location to avoid run-ins with the federal government. If you are in the U.S, you will need to check the specific laws in your state. These rules dictate how close an extraction facility can be to a daycare facility, children’s park, school, residential areas, etc. The rules may also spell out how many cannabis facilities can be located in one area and how close to each other they can be. At the end of the day, you also want to ensure that the location that you settle for is readily accessible, secure and close to resources.
2. Regulatory Compliance
A cannabis extraction facility needs to meet regulations that apply to the manufacturing and production of consumable goods to ensure that the safety of workers and end consumers is guaranteed. Here are a few that are of priority:
current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP): The CGMP is a regulatory standard enforced by the FDA. It defines the creation, implementation and monitoring of manufacturing processes to meet the quality and safety threshold. It requires manufacturers to use technology and have systems in place to ensure product safety and effectiveness. Cannabis extraction facilities should be GMP certified for operational standardization and for performing transnational business.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Extraction labs use flammable materials which can easily trigger fires. NFPA, which is a non-profit organization, has created standards and codes to minimize injuries, death, and economic losses attributable to fire accidents. The standard describes how labs should be set up and how flammable liquids should be stored and transported to prevent accidental fires.
Local Fire Codes: These are a set of codes/requirements that must be adhered to in all commercial and industrial buildings to prevent fires. They include the availability and proper use of the following:
- Fire extinguishers
- Extension cords
- Smoke detectors
- Fire exits
- Fire signage
- Fire assembly points
- Sprinkler heads and pipes
- Fire alarms
Here are some important fire codes that should be followed in a cannabis extraction facility:
- NFPA 1: The Fire Code Handbook
- NFPA 30: The National Code for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
- NFPA 45: Fire Protection for Labs Using Chemicals
- NFPA 70: The National Electrical Code
- NFPA 58: The Liquid Petroleum Gas Code
Occupational Standards for Health and Safety (OSHA): Cannabis extraction facilities are compelled by federal law to comply with OSHA requirements for occupational health and safety, and specifically regarding biological and chemical compounds that lab staff may come into contact with during their work. OSHA standard 29CFR1910.1200 requires labs to have a written hazard safety standard for all chemicals, and the standard should be accessible to all employees at all times. Labs are required to have an inventory of all hazardous chemicals with associated details recorded in a Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
3. Staff Management
Lab staff need to train on all hazards in the facility and be given first aid measures in case of an accident. The staff will need to sign that they have received training on the same.
4. Waste Management
Cannabis waste in an extraction facility includes plant trimmings, leftover extraction chemicals, disposed of samples and other debris left behind. Waste needs to be segregated according to hazardous or non-hazardous categories and disposed of accordingly. The lab needs to put measures in place for proper waste segregation so that the waste does not get mixed.
5. Worker Safety
Worker safety in an extraction facility is of paramount importance and should be based on the kinds of risks that each staff gets exposed to in the line of duty. This makes it necessary to have a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) to assess hazards and put measures in place to avert accidents and injuries.
6. Equipment Selection and Management
Cannabis extraction equipment can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $100,000, depending on the type and scale of extraction. When choosing the equipment, you need to factor in the cost efficiency, output, and the final product. All equipment used in an extraction lab should be Underwriters Laboratories Listed (UL-Listed). The equipment also needs to undergo regular maintenance to ensure maximum efficiency and productivity, and to prevent accidents and minimize wear and tear. National Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) certification is necessary to achieve this.
7. Supply Chain Management
Supply chain management refers to the strict monitoring of the entire workflow to ensure effectiveness, eliminate wastage, and boost productivity and profitability. This means tracking raw materials from the time they are received by the extraction facility to when they are released as cannabis extracts. A Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) comes in handy to support supply chain management in an extraction facility.
Role of a LIMS in Setting Up a Cannabis Extraction Facility
A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories, also known as a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), helps automate workflows, and thereby improve efficiency and productivity in an extraction facility. A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories streamlines in-house testing processes and guarantees that the final extracts produced are potent and free of impurities. A LIMS also comes in handy in managing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and human resources, tracking samples and lab inventory, scheduling equipment calibration and maintenance, and ensuring compliance with the necessary regulations.
When setting up a cannabis extraction facility, sufficient time needs to be allocated to the planning to ensure all-important considerations are in place. This starts with finding an ideal and compliant location, ensuring regulatory compliance, ensuring worker safety, efficiently managing staff, inventory, and waste, and the careful selection of equipment. A laboratory software for CBD/THC laboratories ties these factors together to ensure a smooth workflow and maximum productivity of the facility.
Hangovers are one of the aftereffects often experienced with spirits. Who doesn’t love a good martini or a refreshing margarita? One company is on a mission bring the flavor profile and buzz of spirited drinks without the negative consequences.
Like this article and want to see more? Subscribe to our free newsletter hereMXXN is a California-based cannabis infused beverage manufacturer specializing in 1:1 non-alcoholic replacements for everyone’s favorite spirits, enhanced with a touch of cannabis. By combining new technology in cannabis oil nano emulsions and alt-alcohol, MXXN is able to create flavor matching spirits sold by the 750 mL bottle. MXXN recently launched with three product SKUs including London Dry (gin), Jalisco Agave (tequila) and Kentucky Oak (bourbon) with a rum replacement due to launch soon.
We caught up with Darnell Smith, founder & CEO of MXXN, to ask about the technology going into infused non-alcoholic spirits, regulatory challenges and more. Prior to MXXN, Darnell was a spirits industry veteran, having worked with companies including Diageo, Pernod-Ricard and Bacardi.
Aaron Green: Darnell, nice to meet you. How did you get involved in the cannabis industry?
Darnell Smith: For me, it wasn’t something that was premeditated, in a sense. I had always been a cannabis user in my adult life. I played Division I sports. Cannabis replaced a lot of painkillers and medications that I probably would have had to take just to cope with athletic injuries. That’s how I got introduced to cannabis. And there is the recreational use of it as well.
To get to the origin story of MXXN, I spent a large part of my career working in spirits, namely, on the innovation and commercialization side of bringing new products to market under very well-known trademarks for large multinational companies. A few years into it, my liver was kind of at a point where it was like, “It’s gonna be you or me here, buddy.” So, I made the decision to start making – this is 15 years ago, in New York – a tincture where I would just heat up flower and decarb it and soak it in a high proof spirit. I would cover it for 30 days then strain it and have my tincture.
I’d be the guy in the bar, that would say “Hey, can I get a tonic and lime?” and I would put three drops of my tincture in there, and I would session cocktails along with everyone else. Next day at work, I’m the guy that’s bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and everyone else is kind of feeling a little bit weathered by that alcohol.
Innovation is usually born out of a personal need and that’s the same way here. So, fast forward 15 years and the technology has finally caught up. The rise of non-alcoholic spirits, the rise of cannabis and water-soluble emulsification, those two things combined really made the light bulb go off and say now is the time to offer this product. I feel like MXXN has a very specific place in our consumption of beverages and can fill a unique need that I think is rising.
Green: I’m interested in learning about the technology and the product. We can start with the technology that went into the product development process. I’ll go on to product next.
Smith: From a technical standpoint, up until a few years ago, the way that edibles were made was basically like raw extraction. There was very little ability to be precise about dosage. It was like trying to throw softballs through a chain-link fence. Non-uniformity made it very hard to say, “Here’s how this is going to affect you.” Fast forward and companies like Vertosa and Source have perfected this kind of nano-emulsion technology, which is basically water-suspended cannabis that can uniformly be used in food, beverage and cosmetic applications. And it’s akin to trying to throw sand through a chain-link fence. It’s just much smaller. It can remain more uniform, and thereby be more predictable in terms of dosage and effect.
So, that technology made it possible for us to then combine it with another wave that’s happening, which in the spirits industry is called alt-alcohol. What we do is distill all the flavor essences of well-known spirits and skip the alcohol. We then add the emulsified cannabis in place of the alcohol. And so with that, we offer a new kind of experience which is basically all the buzz but none of the booze. That’s really where technology-wise things have evolved. The rise of the non-alcoholic spirits and then the rise of being able to do water-soluble compatible cannabinoid emulsions.
Green: Are you selling this then as packaged goods or are you selling it as bladders similar to Coca-Cola in a bar setting?
Smith: This is a CPG packaged product and it really is analogous to a 750 ML spirits bottle similar to Tito’s or Grey Goose. The form factor is the same as spirits bottles, same 750 ML bottle. It doses just like a spirit would. Standard spirit pour is an ounce and a half. For us, an ounce and a half shot has six milligrams of THC.
For the average consumer, you can session cocktails and we give you the option to dose between two and six milligrams between a half ounce and an ounce and a half pour. So, it’s very analogous to what people are experienced in when it comes to spirits from the bottle to the dosage and to the actual recipes. We pride ourselves on being able to demystify something that has been a little bit complex in terms of making cannabis-infused cocktails. We are sticking close to what people are familiar with. People have a lot of experience with tequila or gin or bourbon and so we wanted to stay very familiar but also give people a chance to make the same recipes but sans alcohol.
Green: What kind of flavor profiles are you launching with?
Smith: We’re launching with three SKUs. Our first is London Dry, which is our take on a gin and that one has cucumber, juniper, coriander, and a nice peppery finish. We have Jalisco Agave, which is our take on a tequila or Mezcal. You have notes of agave, flint, salt, oak, and vanilla. And then the last one is Kentucky Oak, which is our version of a bourbon or whiskey. There you have charred oak, vanilla, and other flavor components that make up what bourbon is.
Now we have a rum in development that’s nearing the end of a robust R&D pipeline. We have some other options like ready-to-drink cocktails made with MXXN to more high-dose products for what we consider the “legacy consumer” who is maybe more medically inclined in the hopes of being able to give people more options when it comes to consumption of flavored spirits.
Green: On the cannabis side, with the infusions that you’re doing, is it pure THC or are you doing full spectrum?
Smith: Yes, full-spectrum cannabinoid. You’ll notice some beverage brands have what we consider a hybrid, some THC and some CBD. For us, and for the effects that we wanted to have the product to have we stuck with a THC-forward blend. There is a trace of CBD in there, but we don’t even claim it. It’s not something that we go forward with. Our emulsion is THC-based.
Green: Where are you at today in terms of the launch and presence?
Smith: We just finished a pilot test here in California. We started late-January, early-February and we’ve been selling direct-to-consumer. Just order and you can have it at your door in 24 hours for about 85% of the state. We’ve blown through our entire pilot run. Now we are entering into what we consider our launch phase which will be available in select retailers late-July. We are gearing up for our next big production run here in mid-July. We are basically all systems go.
At the same time, we’re exploring multi-state expansion. We have a lot of interest in states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and we’re having constant conversations with partners in those states to help bring the product to market.
Green: Have you looked at lounges?
Smith: Lounges have been our biggest traction as we start the retail rollout. We literally just started the dispensary piece of what we’re doing last month. And this is by design. First, we wanted to go direct-to-consumers for proof of concept to make sure we weren’t, you know, saying the story to ourselves. I think just by the performance of the pilot run and direct-to-consumer sales, we proved okay, this is a viable concept.
So as we go out, our number one targets are obviously establishments that also are connected to or have connections with a consumption lounge. There aren’t a ton at this point. They’re still kind of proliferating. But I will tell you the moment we walk into one of these accounts is like a no-brainer because it allows this account to offer a whole new experience. When it comes to consumption lounges in terms of great cocktails you already know: gin and tonics, margaritas, paloma, with no real education required on the part of who’s ever going to be serving. We basically take 20 retailers a month in chunks and so far of the 15-20 that we’ve done, four or five of them have consumption lounges and you’ll see it in those very soon.
Green: Are there any challenges there with dosing in a lounge where the onus is on the operator to dose? How do the regulations work there?
Smith: It’s similar to alcohol, right? As an establishment, you have a responsibility to kind of pay attention to what’s happening as the consumer is consuming. Typically, most of the legislation that was written is for an inhaled consumption lounge. Ingestibles weren’t necessarily considered heavily when it came to legislation. What we tell folks is you have the same responsibilities you would if you were a bartender. Our recommended pour in consumption lounges is a lighter dose. This way, the customer has a chance to start low and go slow, and really recognize how it’s going to affect them.
Legally, there is no firm guidance on what overconsumption looks like for the typical consumer. So, we tell folks you have to kind of get a feel for who the consumer is. If they’re curious person who doesn’t have a lot of experience with cannabis, we typically recommend not to exceed a five-milligram serve per sitting until you figure out how it’s going to affect them. However, if you have very high dose legacy consumers, who buy and drink these 100-milligram single-serve bottles it’s a different story. You kind of need to gauge that from consumer to consumer, and what their tolerance level is. A lot of onus is on the consumption lounge. And I think that’s why they’ve kind of been slow to really roll out how they deal with beverages, because it’s just a different beast. It’s absorbed differently by the body from inhalable products
Green: What trends are you looking at in the industry?
Smith: I love seeing more food-based options. Edibles to this point have been mostly candies and gummies and I see the trend going to more high-end, curated food selections. I think that’s super interesting. The condiments that go into cooking is a category that I’m keeping an eye on. I came across a THC and CBD-infused Siracha sauce the other day and I was like, “wow, this is fantastic!”
In the beverage space, there continues to be innovation, which we are on the forefront of. There’s a point of saturation that’s going to come for how many seltzers can exist in the market at the same time. And I think we’re kind of reaching that point. So, it’s going to be incumbent upon the beverage space to continue to innovate.
I’m also watching where things go with hemp-derived THC, the Delta-8s and those things and how is that going to be dealt with when it comes to the legal market. I think you see varying ways that it’s being dealt with across states. That’s a trend I’m certainly keeping an eye on as things continue to roll out across the country.
Green: What, in your personal life or in cannabis are you most interested in learning about?
Smith: Given where the world is today, I feel like we all live in this “OR” mindset. It’s either you OR me, it’s either this OR that. And I think you can see with some of the more recent political things that have happened, it’s this ideology of like, trying to force your beliefs on someone else. For me, it’s more about like, how can we learn to live more in the “AND” right? You can have this AND this and they can coexist, and they don’t have to be in competition. In my personal life, that’s where a lot of my energy is going. How do I spread that thought of getting out of this living in OR. We must move to this kind of mindset of AND. How can we be accommodating for a bunch of different beliefs, a bunch of different approaches? It causes so much friction when we try to impose beliefs on others that may not share the same beliefs.
I am thinking about how I can apply that to the cannabis industry as well. In terms of federal legalization versus state, where can we find that the happy ground? If we think about going across state lines, that’s effectively building a whole other business in the state, and in virtually no other industry does that exist. I can tell you economically this country could use infusion of cannabis to be more freely available. So those are the types of things that keep me moving these days. I’ve had a lot of success in my past and so for me, it’s less about financial achievements, and it’s more about how we can help move folks to this is AND mentality and not everything has to be OR.
Green: Great. That concludes the interview.
Despite the popularity of cannabidiol (CBD) infused edibles among consumers there are storm clouds on the horizon for this market. The potential threat stems from continuing uncertainty about the regulatory status of CBD in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). Recent statements by government agencies in both areas are reminders that regulators could make decisions or take actions that would suddenly end the viability of this market. Any company that sells, or is planning to sell, CBD infused edibles such as bakery items, candy and beverages needs to understand what the regulators are thinking now and what might happen in the future.
in the US, the 2018 Farm Bill created a category of products called hemp that are derived from the Cannabis sativaplant and contain less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This law also explicitly confirmed the authority of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the safety of hemp-derived infused edibles. This means CBD needs to navigate the New Dietary Ingredient pathway for dietary supplements, and either the food additive petition process or the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway for foods before it can be used as an ingredient in a food. All three of these processes require that someone (an individual, a company or a group) acting as a petitioner or notifier must submit safety data to the agency or arrange for a safety evaluation by independent experts.
In the EU, CBD is regulated as a Novel Food in a process that is triggered by a submission to the European Commission. The submission must include safety data that is evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In England and Scotland, CBD products are also novel foods and are evaluated using a process like that in the EU. As in the US, it is the responsibility of an applicant to provide the safety data.
The standard used by the FDA to judge the safety of new food substances in all three pathways is that there should be a “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the conditions of its intended use.” The standard used by EFSA for novel foods is, “the food does not, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, pose a safety risk to human health.”
It is important to realize that both in the US and the EU the safety standard for evaluating new food substances only considers the safety of that substance. The laws or regulations that define agency authority do not allow for consideration of any potential benefits. Approval (or rejection) must be based solely on the safety of the substance. Further, safety is evaluated in the context of the intended use of the substance, the planned level of use and the resulting consumer exposure to that substance.
What do we know about FDA’s and EFSA’s current thinking about CBD safety?
Unfortunately, both the FDA and EFSA have made it abundantly clear that they believe the available scientific data does not meet the required safety standards. FDA has issued multiple warning letters to companies that sell CBD products and has rejected two NDI notifications for CBD. Although these actions were primarily based on non-safety issues (illegal health claims and the drug exclusion provision in the FD&C Act, respectively), in each case the FDA also raised safety concerns. This was done by saying that the agency is not aware of any data that would support a GRAS determination or that the products raise “concerns about the adequacy of the safety evidence.” This doubt echoes statements from the agency in public meetings and advisories. These doubts were expressed as recently as June 2022 during a meeting of the FDA Science Advisory Board.
Similarly, EFSA has stated that they feel that there are critical gaps in the existing CBD safety data. In April 2022, they published a statement with a detailed analysis of the relevant scientific literature and explicitly identified critical data gaps. EFSA said that these data gaps prevented them from evaluating CBD as a novel food.
What do the regulators see as data gaps?
Although the details of each of the data gaps are technically complex, for both the FDA and EFSA they fall into few broad categories.
The first is that the agencies feel that they need better information on how CBD behaves in the human body. This is described as understanding the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADMA) of CBD. The agencies also would like to see data on whether repeated use of CBD might cause damage to specific organs that does not occur from single exposures.
The second need is for more data related to the negative effects that have been observed in some previous work. This includes effects on the liver and reproductive system. In particular, the agencies would like to know whether it is possible to identify a level of exposure that is low enough to not cause any negative effects. This is termed the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). In an ingredient safety assessment, the NOAEL is used to establish a safe intake level, called the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Comparing the ADI to the expected exposure for the intended use allows the regulators to assess overall safety for a substance. If the expected exposure is below the ADI, the substance is considered safe. Both agencies feel that the existing data do not allow them to identify a NOAEL for CBD.
The third data need relates to the composition of the CBD products used in safety studies. Food safety determinations are based on the total composition of an ingredient that is produced using a fully defined process. Even if the potential ingredient is 95% or 99% pure, a safety evaluation needs to know what is in that other 5% or 1%, and that this is the same from batch to batch. For example, the presence or absence of residual processing chemicals (such as extraction solvents) and the nature and concentration of substances such as other cannabinoids and terpenes will differ between manufacturers and processes. These differences could affect the overall safety profile for each CBD product. Therefore, it is considered important that studies supporting a safety determination for a new substance be carried out with the actual article of commerce.
Unfortunately, many different CBD preparations have been used in past studies, and in most cases these preparations were poorly characterized. This makes it difficult or impossible to combine the safety data obtained using one product with data obtained with a different product. For example, data obtained using CBD isolates from two different sources cannot be combined unless it can be shown that they were made using the same process and have the same overall composition.
What does this mean for the future?
Neither the FDA nor EFSA is likely to take any positive action on CBD until they receive safety data that fill the gaps that they have identified.
Given these data problems, it is likely that there will be little or no movement on regulatory approvals for CBD in edibles (or dietary supplements in the US) for at least several years. In the US, these products will remain in legal limbo, with state regulations playing the leading role in determining what is allowed on the market. Products with health claims will continue to be particularly vulnerable to FDA action. The situation in the EU will be at least as confusing because, in the absence of action from EFSA, the regulatory and market status of CBD edibles will be determined by each member country independently.
In view of this uncertainty and business confusion, that are three ways that companies making CBD and CBD edibles can respond. First, in the short term, they can develop and implement manufacturing processes that ensure that their products are consistent from batch to batch and that they have the intended dose of CBD per serving or per product unit. This includes working with the analytical community and organizations such as AOAC and ASTM to ensure that there are validated testing methods available for the CBD and for the final edible products.
In the medium term, business risk management plans for companies that make CBD and CBD infused edibles should consider the possibility that new scientific data will push food safety authorities to actively conclude the CBD does not meet the current regulatory safety standards. In that case, the regulators might start to act against all CBD-containing products.
Businesses should also be aware that the agencies could make a positive safety determination but that they would use the available data to establish a low maximum allowed dose per serving or set very low limits on the presence of specific contaminants such as other cannabinoids.
In the longer term, the CBD industry as a whole might consider advocating for legislative changes. The best statutory fix is likely to be one that that regulates all cannabis-derived products in a system or agency that is separate from the food safety system. This approach is being used in Canada under the Cannabis Act. It is also similar to the way that alcoholic beverages are regulated in the US. This approach, if appropriately designed, could avoid the need for safety determinations but might also limit market access. While this approach could bring clarity and certainty to the market, it is important to remember that it will take time and effort to create a functionally system under this scenario.
There are many market reports that forecast on-going high rates of growth for the CBD market. However, the regulatory and scientific developments that are likely to occur of the next couple of years will determine whether those projections can become reality.
Companies making these products need to monitor changes and prepare to respond to either positive or negative events.
These companies should also remember that edible products are mostly made from food ingredients using standard food product processes. It is critical that these products be made under a system that prevents food-borne hazards.
According to a press release published last week, SC Labs is in the midst of a multi-state expansion under new leadership. The company hired Jeff Journey as their new CEO, coming from a VP position at Thermo Fisher Scientific.
Last year, in what seemed like an initial move to establish the lab on a coast-to-coast level, SC Labs developed a hemp testing panel that covers a number of contaminants on a national regulatory level. The hemp testing panel they developed purportedly meets testing standards in states that require contaminant levels below a certain action limit.
Then in February of this year, the company announced a partnership with Colorado-based Agricor and Botanacor Laboratories, with the goal of establishing a national testing network, offering comprehensive cannabis and hemp lab testing. All three of those organizations are certified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for compliance testing required for hemp products.
In the press release that was published last week, they hinted at another announcement coming soon: a new partnership with Michigan-based Can-Lab. This, coupled with hints at further expansion and their current presence in California, Colorado and Oregon, means Journey will have his hands full and his sights set on nationwide cannabis testing.
“We’re looking forward to partnering with cannabis and hemp brands at every stage of the supply chain to share our innovative and forward-thinking scientific expertise so they can deliver safe products to the marketplace,” says Journey. “As cannabis legalization expands across the country, the testing industry is rapidly shifting and scaling to meet both market and regulatory demands.”
The leadership team will still have a few familiar faces, such as Jeff Gray as chief innovation officer and Josh Wurzer as chief operating officer. “The most important assets we can offer as a multi-state operator are scientific expertise, financial stability, and unquestionable integrity, the principles on which SC Labs has long stood for and will continue to provide to our valued customers,” says Journey.