Tag Archives: laboratory

June 18, 2019

A Case for Digital Cultivation Management in the Cannabis Industry

By Allison Kopf

The steady destigmatization and legalization of medical and recreational cannabis at the state level continues to propel a large and fast-growing industry forward. In 2018, the legal cannabis industry grew to $10.4 billion in the U.S., employing more than 250,000 people according to New Frontier Data.

The mass production of anything that humans consume is invariably accompanied by an increased concern for safety and accountability—especially in the case of cannabis, which the federal government still deems a Schedule I substance. Each U.S. state has its own mix of laws based on the will of its voters, spanning the spectrum from fully legal to fully illegal.

While the mix of legality in states can be hard to keep up with, all states with any form of cannabis legalization have one thing in common: the need to regulate this new industry. Last year, the federal government issued a Marijuana Enforcement Memorandum that allows federal prosecutors to decide how to prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana laws, so states are at risk.

If you are a public official involved in state cannabis regulation, or anyone involved in the supply chain from cultivator to dispensary, chances are you are using some kind of seed-to-sale tracking technology to monitor things like plant inventory, sales volume, chain of custody—and to hedge against federal encroachment by having a legitimate form of accountability.

Mandatory Request For Proposals (RFPs) issued by states for compliance solutions have spawned an entire sub-industry of seed-to-sale tracking, and point-of-sale hardware and software vendors, with large multi-million dollar contracts being awarded. Metrc’s RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) plant and packaging tags are gaining wide usage, and 11 states plus DC have adopted the technology.

While states are taking the right steps to keep their legal cannabis industry legitimate and accountable, there is actually a major gap that existing systems don’t cover: cultivation management. Most of the existing RFPs and platforms focus on the post-harvest side of the business (processing, packaging, distribution) and may have some cultivation management capability, but are not geared for the cultivation operation, which is where a lot of the risk actually lies for both growers and state regulators.

As a state official or a cultivator, what could be more damaging to business than a massive product recall—especially after the product has been distributed and consumed? This is the fastest way to get shut down or audited by the state as a grower or invite federal investigation if you’re a state. And these recalls cost growers millions of dollars and possibly their license. There is massive risk involved by not addressing the cultivation side.

PlantTag — A plant tagged with a barcode and date for tracking

With current tracking systems, it’s possible to see where the product came from in the event of such a recall, but nearly impossible to pinpoint and see what actually happened and when the recall happened. This makes it almost impossible to stop the same problem in the future and puts consumers at unnecessary risk.

The reason most seed-to-sale systems are difficult for growers to use is because they were designed for regulators to address the most obvious regulatory questions (are growers abiding by the law? Who is selling and buying what and how much? Is the correct tax amount being levied?). They were not designed for growers and in many cases, cultivation teams are using two systems—their own ERP and/or spreadsheets and seed-to-sale tracking mandated by regulators.

This means there is a huge missing link in data that should be captured during the cultivation process. In many cases, growers are tracking crop inventory during the growth stage with pen and paper, or at best, in Excel. Cultivators need a tool designed for them that helps both run better operations and identify hazards to their crop health before it’s too late, and regulators need complete traceability along the supply chain to reduce risk to consumers.

To fill this critical data gap, there is a strong case for states in their RFPs and ongoing regulatory capacity, to adopt and encourage cultivators to use Cultivation Management Platforms (CMPs) alongside any existing seed-to-sale and ERP solutions for complete traceability.

As more states move to legalize medical and recreational cannabis, mitigating risk as part of a larger regulatory framework will only become more important. Adopting and using a CMP empowers growers to focus on not just tracking data, but making that data accessible and functional for growers to drive efficiency and profits all while ensuring security and regulatory compliance in this rapidly evolving industry.

June 12, 2019

European Cannabis Week Kicks Off First Year In London

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

Hold your hats and book your seats! The Limeys, no matter what they are doing on Brexit, are getting organized on the cannabis front. A unique coalition of “home-grown” as well as cross-European, American and Canadian industry insiders are already making travel plans for London during the last week of June.

Unlike Trump’s recent visit to the British capital, however, they are likely to meet nothing but enthusiasm if not a growing understanding in the British populace at large that the Great Green Cannabiz Has FINALLY Landed.

Now the question is getting the entire industry mainstreamed (just on the medical side).

On the CBD “recreational” discussion, the entire enchilada is still being formed and reformed. A high-end CBD “pop up” shop opened in a ritzy part of London in January while a more crunchy CBD restaurant in the seaside town of Brighton was shuttered right as it planned to open. Just another innocent victim in all the fuss about novel food still working its way through the entire British conversation (as it is elsewhere in Europe, including most recently Germany and Italy), certainly, but hopefully one of the last.

However, for that very reason, enthusiasm is already high as organizers continue to add events even three weeks out.

What Is On The Agenda?

Check the event website for details and scheduling. There is also a lot that is not on the official website, but has clearly been organized around it. That includes a patient advocacy and policy formation gathering on Thursday being organized by the United Patients Alliance and other events not on the “official” ECW list (or website) but clearly all with the goal of networking, interacting and gaining ground (such as the internationally organizing Cannabis Tech Society).

The first two days are reserved (at least during the day) for Cannabis Europa – the “other” major European cannabis business conference that got its start in 2018 in London. Earlier this year, the event was also held to a standing room only audience in France. Organized by two of the leading cannabis consultancies in the UK who are making a clear play towards both North America and Europe- Prohibition Partners, and Hanway Associates, the event is primed to bring together those in the international industry curious about changing times and opening opportunities not only in the UK but across Europe.

The rest of the week, events are spread out across the city (and are already selling out). Of note on Wednesday is an investors conference as well as an introduction to the growing ranks of British doctors (one hopes for the future of nascent doctor training programs everywhere across Europe, without borders), even if nascent at the moment, who are joining the medical cannabis crusade.

Thursday’s planned events also include a focus on connecting women in the industry to investors – particularly of the medical kind – and MedPayRx’s third pilot to market workshop (Unveiling The Digital Prescription). It will also include a ground-breaking seminar about cannabis certification for doctors at King’s College (long known for its critical studies about the supposed connection between cannabis and a host of nasty mental illnesses and conditions starting with schizophrenia).

There is also a round of private parties, events, industry soirees and more that are invite only. However, as with most cannabis industry events, showing up and tagging along is one of the best ways to network and meet people.

It will be a busy week, for sure.The entire cannabis debate is absolutely hitting in this space in the UK in a way that it has not in other places

Why Is This Significant?

The British are finally kicking off their version of “the industry.” That said, problems abound, including of the kind seen in places like Germany, with the added whiff of further disruptions thanks to a still-pending Brexit. On the healthcare discussion at least, it is hard to find a fan of the NHS in the ranks of average cannabis patients (who are still struggling to get their numbers over 100 for the entire country six months after Schedule II prescriptions were authorized). However, it is also equally hard to find anyone in the ranks of the chronically ill at least, who would welcome a more U.S. style approach to healthcare provision – even if they can avail themselves of private healthcare coverage. That is just 10% of the population.

The entire cannabis debate is absolutely hitting in this space in the UK in a way that it has not in other places (including Germany). This is, beyond Brexit discussions, in part a testament to the creakiness of the British system, although the German one at present also leaves a lot to be desired.

Nobody wants an “American” system. And the Canadians in the room are also dealing with the problem that so far, Canadian public health insurance does not cover medical cannabis either.

Like it or not, this is also a theme that colors cannabis politics in Europe as much as the industry does not know how to channel and harness it. The Green Vest movement is certainly alive and well in the UK. Nor should it be underestimated. And that resentment at the moment also is hitting some of the biggest industry players who are the only ones allowed market entry where it counts (the regulated ones including medical).

On the CBD front, despite assurances by activists as late as last year, and certainly overflowing enthusiasm about the potential of this market, novel food still applies.

Where the conversation will certainly get interesting is the ability to distribute through online pharmacies (unlike in Germany where this is still verboten– and for all drugs, not just cannabis). But even here, don’t look for the UK to become just another Amazon outlet. New rules, including GDPR, still affect the UK and will continue to do so no matter what happens in the fall. This has to do with what is called “trusted nation” status that affects regulatory issues including pharmaceuticals but also financials (which is why the idea of the UK sailing off entirely on its own or as an American subordinate state is also ludicrous).

Not to mention of course, that supply and demand has yet to be effectively linked anywhere in Europe.

Cannatech, beyond distribution platforms, will also become more of a focus in climate change conscious Europe.

And of course, with a focus in London, there will be a much greater opportunity for both the concentration of specialty equity and the industry itself (in English) that will impact issues across the continent.

In a nutshell, in other words, the week-long events in London (held in conjunction with an equally interesting gathering now coalescing in Berlin just the weekend before) is proof positive that not only is the European cannabis industry in the middle of another seismic year, but the British and German movements are connecting, coordinating, cooperating, and driving change both at home and elsewhere across the region.

Disclaimer: European Cannabis Holdings and Prohibition Partners are sponsors of MedPayRx and a business relationship exists between them.

June 4, 2019

Biros' Blog

FDA Public Hearing On Hemp: What You Need To Know

By Aaron G. Biros

2 Comments

Folks from around the country and the world tuned into the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) website as they held a public hearing on Friday, May 31. Manufacturers and suppliers asked the FDA to regulate CBD like food or dietary supplements, while the FDA seemed to want more evidence on the safety of CBD products before giving the greenlight.

Background On The Hearing

For the uninitiated, after President Trump signed the Farm Bill into law back in December 2018, Scott Gottlieb, now former director of the FDA, issued a statement the same day the Farm Bill passed, clarifying the FDA’s regulatory authority. In the statement, Gottlieb explained that Congress preserved the FDA’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis and its constituents under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

In April 2019, around the same time he resigned from the FDA, Gottlieb issued another statement, acknowledging the quickly growing industry throughout the country and total lack of federal regulatory guidance. This time around, Gottlieb laid out a handful of steps that the FDA plans on taking to address regulations around hemp and cannabidiol (CBD). Those included scheduling the public hearing for May 31, where written and oral public comments were submitted by stakeholders, sharing “their experiences and challenges with these products [hemp and CBD products], including information and views related to product safety.”

That statement also announced the formation of an internal agency working group to “explore potential pathways for dietary supplements and/or conventional foods containing CBD to be lawfully marketed; including a consideration of what statutory or regulatory changes might be needed and what the impact of such marketing would be on the public health.”

Fast-forward to May 31, the day of the public hearing, and all eyes in the industry focused on what all these stakeholders had to say to the FDA about CBD. The day started off with about two hours of oral comments, each speaker had roughly two minutes to deliver their thoughts.

Karen Howard, CEO of the Organic and Natural Health Association, speaks about the quality of CBD products

Oral Comments

Industry stakeholders representing cannabis businesses sang much of the same tune, clamoring for wise regulations on safety, testing, banking and interstate commerce, among other standards. NCIA Policy Director Andrew Kline’s comments included running through five major positions of the industry trade organization representing CBD companies. Those included recommending the FDA act quickly in setting up regulations, stressing the massive economic impact of the industry, saying that CBD products are generally safe, clamoring for voluntary, consensus-based standards and informing consumers of any potential risks. “The bottom line is this – an overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds present minimal health and safety concerns,” Kline told the folks at the FDA. “Time is of the essence. Hemp-derived CBD products are in very high consumer demand and the industry is eagerly awaiting FDA’s regulatory framework for these products. We strongly recommend that FDA act quickly to clarify the regulatory environment because there is significant confusion in the market.”

Anna Williams, representing the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), stressed the importance of testing for contaminants and adulterants as well as advocating for national standards on lab testing, instead of the state-by-state network of different standards.

Patients & Public Safety

After industry stakeholders had their chance to speak, the FDA allowed a group of advocacy organizations representing patients time to speak. That included representatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and the American Epilepsy Society, both of which were hesitant to throw their full support behind CBD as medicine. Kevin Chapman with the American Epilepsy Society said he wants to see clear warning labels, testing standards, more clinical trials and more studies before the group is ready to form a position on using CBD as medicine. Keith Fargo with the Alzheimer’s Association supports clinical trials to study it more, but thinks CBD is risky for patients without serious evidence of efficacy. A representative from the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance also echoed similar concerns. They want to see labeling of drug interactions on labels of CBD products.

After those comments, some organizations had the chance to speak followed by comments from retailers and distributors. Patrick Bird, owner of PMB BioTek Consulting, spoke on behalf of AOAC International, where he primarily discussed public safety. He said they want cannabis products to be regulated with food safety in mind, asking for FSMA to apply to hemp products. They want to adequately ensure product safety with things like mandating HACCP plans, recall readiness, saying hemp products should be treated just like food products.

Retailers & Distributors

Peter Matz, representing the Food Marketing Institute, the trade association for the supermarket industry, said that regulatory ambiguity is a serious issue that needs addressing. “There is mass confusion in the marketplace for the public, suppliers, retailers and state regulators,” says Matz. “Demand for CBD products in human and animal use is growing rapidly. ¼ of American have already tried it. We are fielding questions from companies seeking clarity regarding the current federal regulatory framework.” He added, what many others also mentioned, that the FDA needs to move swiftly to provide a pathway to regulation.

State Regulators

Next on the docket came presentations from state government entities, including state departments of agriculture, followed by healthcare professionals. The state regulators that spoke mentioned a lot about food safety, standards, testing regulations, GMPs and things like that to protect consumer safety. “Currently states are struggling with the lack of sound scientific research available in CBD and long-term health impacts,” said Pam Miles, representing the Virginia Department of Agriculture.

One interesting aspect on their talks however was telling the FDA just how large their markets have gotten already and how they need guidance on how to regulate markets in their own states. Joseph Reardon, with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, said they already have about 600 farmers growing hemp and thousands of processors working with the product in their state. “We urge the FDA to resolve the statutory issues improperly establish a legal pathway for CBD products to enter the market place,” Reardon commented. He also asked that the FDA extend the written comment period from July to August. “We are simply looking for a regulatory framework on the extraction, production and reconstitution of CBD or cannabinoid related products.”

Healthcare & Research

Healthcare providers, and physician testimony also echoed a lot of the same concerns, including the lack of research done, concerns about effects on at-risk populations and concerns about use as ingredients in dietary supplements and food. Some of the presentations also highlighted the room for nefarious activity in an unregulated marketplace. Some went as far as to mention cases where they found CBD vape juices with DXM in it (the active ingredient in cough syrup), CBD products found to contain THC, as well as synthetic cannabinoids responsible for drug overdose deaths. Some advocates in the hemp and CBD community have equated these arguments similar to reefer madness.

The major takeaway from this hearing is that everyone wants to see more data. Researchers and healthcare providers want to study the efficacy of CBD used in medicine, regulators want public safety information, patient advocates want to see data about effects on at-risk populations, trade organizations want data to back up label claims and the FDA wants to see just how safe CBD really is.

May 30, 2019

Arizona To Implement Mandatory Lab Testing

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

Good news came to patients using medical cannabis in Arizona earlier this week: Lawmakers in Arizona unanimously passed SB1494 through the state’s House and Senate, the bill requiring mandatory lab testing for medical cannabis products. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is expected to sign the bill and has ten days to do so.

When Governor Ducey signs the bill into law it will mark the first time since the state legalized medical cannabis in 2011 that a measure to protect patient safety via lab testing will be implemented. According to the bill, beginning November 1, 2020, all cannabis products shall be tested prior to sales “to determine unsafe levels of microbial contamination, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth regulators and residual solvents and confirm the potency of the marijuana to be dispensed,” (Page 6, Section 36-2803).

The bill requires dispensaries to provide test results to patients immediately upon request. Dispensaries need to display a sign notifying patients of their right to see “certified independent third-party laboratory test results for marijuana and marijuana products for medical use,” according to the text of the bill (Page 7, Section 36-2803.01).“There will have to be some serious planning, but other states have achieved this and we can too.”

Under the new bill, the Arizona Department of Health Services will adopt rules to certify and regulate labs, establishing requirements like health and safety protocols, mandatory quality assurance program and standards, chain of custody and sampling policies, adequate records, accreditation, proficiency testing, among other requirements (Page 6-7, Section 36-2803).

Ryan Treacy, co-founder of the Arizona Cannabis Laboratory Association (ACLA) and CEO/Founder of C4 Laboratories, says this is a major turning point for Arizona’s cannabis industry. “We have been devoid of regulations with regard to testing the entirety of the program since it was legalized; This will be a significant change,” says Treacy. “Now patients can make sure they are getting a safe and clean product and getting exactly what they paid for.”

For those in the know when it comes to cannabis testing in the United States, the new requirements will look very similar to other states with testing requirements. One particularly unique aspect of the new program, however, is the establishment of a “Medical Marijuana Testing Advisory Council,” made up of stakeholders representing different interests in Arizona’s cannabis industry. Members of the council will include representatives from dispensaries, labs, cultivators, concentrate producers, edibles producers, as well as registered patients, caregivers, a representative from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, a licensed health care provider and “any other members deemed necessary by the director,” reads the text of the bill (page 16, Section 36-2821).

Ryan Tracy, co-founder of the ACLA and founder/CEO at C4 Labs.

“Other states like California have complained about detection limits, while Arizona is taking a unique approach with an advisory council with stakeholders in the cannabis industry,” says Treacy. “So that when the Department of Health Services promulgates rules, they are taking into account the challenges in the cannabis industry specifically. We have a chance to do this right and avoid pitfalls we’ve seen in other states.”

One problem worth mentioning for Arizona’s cannabis industry: Dispensaries have not been required to test products for patients since medical cannabis was legalized back in 2011. That means many producers could be very used to operating procedures that don’t account for lab testing. With mandatory lab testing, some producers may be behind the curve when it comes to mitigating contamination.

According to Treacy, this could disrupt the supply chain a little bit. “When testing becomes mandatory in November 2020, dispensaries will need a full panel of tests performed on their samples,” says Treacy. “With the entire market now required to complete a full panel in depth analysis on each product, product testing will become a more time-consuming stop in the supply chain. So companies will need to work that into their plan to meet regulation requirements to prevent a bottleneck and maintain patients’ access to their cannabis medicine.”

Arizona has a chance to prevent that type of bottleneck seen in states that implemented testing requirements, like California for example. “When you have a habitual history of not testing products, it can be very hard to change, which adds to Arizona’s challenges,” says Treacy. “We need to make sure this does not affect access for patients and the ability of the industry to continue to flourish and grow.”

While Treacy thinks the transition will be difficult for some, it’s absolutely necessary for Arizona’s patients to access clean and safe medicine. “There will have to be some serious planning, but other states have achieved this and we can too.”

May 22, 2019

Arizona Still Doesn’t Require Lab Testing, But That Could Change Soon

By Aaron G. Biros

2 Comments

As of today, Arizona is the only state in the country that has legalized medical cannabis but does not require producers to test their medical cannabis. States throughout the country that legalize medical cannabis routinely implement regulations that require third-party, independent lab testing to protect patient and consumer safety. Arizona legalized medical cannabis for a number of qualifying conditions back in 2011, but still has no measure like other states to protect patient safety.

Lawmakers in Arizona now have the opportunity to change that with SB1494, which passed unanimously through the state’s Senate back in March of 2019. According to the Arizona Cannabis Laboratory Association (ACLA), the bill awaits action in the House of Representatives. The ACLA says in a press release that “supporters of the bill are calling on lawmakers to move on a bill that unanimously passed in the Senate earlier this year.” The bill would require producers to use independent, third-party labs to test cannabis for things like harmful toxins and molds.

According to Ryan Treacy, co-founder of the ACLA and CEO/Founder of C4 Laboratories, the ACLA was formed for a few important reasons: “We feel it is very important that we encourage and cultivate a professional and collaborative rapport among the reputable Arizona cannabis labs,” says Treacy. “So that we can call upon the collective groups’ years of experience to help provide insight and suggestions on how we as a group can insure the most accurate and consistent results for our clients throughout the state and ultimately their patients.” Treacy went on to add that it is particularly important their collective voice be heard at the State Capitol as lawmakers work towards passing SB 1494.

“There isn’t any reason to wait for someone to get sick before the legislature passes this bipartisan bill. Let’s get it done!”George Griffeth, President of the ACLA, says there is a sense of urgency in passing this bill before the voters decide on legalizing recreational adult-use cannabis next year. “Everyone agrees that now is the time to be proactive to protect patients from unsafe contaminants,” says Griffeth. “Currently 61 tons of medical marijuana is consumed by patients and many believe that the number of people using the medicine will continue to grow. With a ballot initiative related to the recreational use of marijuana facing voters next year, Arizona must act now to make sure standards are in place.”

They say the bill has bipartisan support and many stakeholders in Arizona’s cannabis industry express support for it as well. For Ryan Treacy, he is worried about patients consuming harmful chemicals and toxins. “My colleagues and I are deeply concerned that more than two-hundred thousand people who use medical marijuana could be inadvertently exposing themselves to toxic chemicals, E. Coli, Salmonella or mold,” says Treacy. “There isn’t any reason to wait for someone to get sick before the legislature passes this bipartisan bill. Let’s get it done!”

Treacy says this bill is particularly difficult to pass because the original measure to legalize medical cannabis was a ballot initiative. That means the bill needs 75% support in both the House and the Senate in order to amend the original measure. “The passing of this bill would be a huge win for the patients and will help to ensure honesty and transparency for those that operate in the current medical cannabis program here in AZ,” says Treacy. “This testing bill is also written with legislative intent to cover any and all future adult use or recreational use legislative laws or ballot initiatives. We hope to have a final verdict on this bill by end of this week or early next.”

May 22, 2019

EU Regulations Address Heavy Metals In Consumer Products

By Christopher Dacus

No Comments

RoHS 3 (EU Directive 2015/863) adds a catch-all “Category 11” of regulated products that includes electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), e-cigarettes, cannabis vaporizers and vape pens. This category becomes effective July 22, 2019. The most significant restricted substance applicable to this category is lead, and RoHS requires regulated products to contain less than 1000 parts per million (ppm). This follows on the heels of California’s new 2019 regulations requiring the testing of contents of cannabis vape cartridges using even stricter limits for lead (which makes sense because it applies to the product being consumed, not the separate electronic components). These regulations may seem unrelated, but anecdotally there have been widespread reports of higher than expected lead content in China-sourced electronic components, including both cartridges and related electronics. Whether metal used in e-cigarette type products is the source of any lead in the actual nicotine, cannabis or other concentrated product is an entirely different topic, but new laws, and in particular the new RoHS catch-all category, make 2019 an important year for any company responsible for certifying or testing lead levels in e-cigarette or vape products.

Background on EU RoHS

RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) originated in the EU in 2003 as a restriction on hazardous substances in specified categories of electronics and electronic products. Other countries have passed laws styled after RoHS, but only the EU RoHS is addressed here. Unlike some environmental laws, RoHS is not only focused on the safety of products during their life cycle of consumer use, but is designed to keep restricted substances out of landfills and recycling centers.

The original RoHS restricted the use of lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, PBB and PBDE. RoHS now restricts the use of a total of ten substances after the EU added four types of phthalates to its restricted substance list. Compliance with RoHS became a requirement for the use of the CE mark in 2011, and replaced a RoHS compliant mark on restricted products.

RoHS specified categories for regulation include large household appliances, small household appliances, computer equipment, lighting, power tools, toys, certain medical devices, control equipment (smoke alarms, thermostats and their industrial equivalents), and ATM machines. Newly added Category 11, the “catch all” category, includes all other electronic and electrical equipment not covered in the previous categories, including electronic nicotine delivery systems, cannabis vaporizers and vape pens.

RoHS Lead Exemptions Complicate Compliance

RoHS provides numerous exceptions to its strict 1000ppm lead standard that are slated to expire in phases from 2021 through 2024. Most Category 11 exceptions will not expire until 2024. For example, RoHS permits different levels of lead for lead in glass and ceramics, lead in high temperature solders, and lead in copper and aluminum alloys. So, an e-cigarette may contain some parts that are held to the highest level of lead restriction, it may but contain isolated components that (at least through 2024) are held to more permissive standards. While this leeway may reduce manufacturing costs for certain components, it creates greater complexity in testing. Anecdotal reports suggest that especially for products that compete heavily on price, sourcing from lesser-known Chinese foundries has resulted in unpredictable lead levels.

Take Away Points

As vape and e-cigarette companies compete with new features and design elements each year, and companies rely on new manufacturers, keeping up with regulations has proven to be difficult for both U.S. and for EU regulated products. For example, a company has to comply with numerous regulations regarding the oil or concentrate that will ultimately be inhaled by a consumer, and with regulations like RoHS that regulate parts a consumer may never touch or see. Each year, some company comes out with a new set of electronic features that may interact with newly formulated oils or concentrates, other companies compete for features or price points, making these products a moving target when it comes to testing.

Adding lead to many metals makes them easier to work with and therefore cheaper. Anecdotal reports suggest that especially for products that compete heavily on price, sourcing from lesser-known Chinese foundries has resulted in unpredictable lead levels. This can be the result of any number of causes: changes in sub-contractors, uses of industrial equipment for other products that permit higher lead content, or simply unscrupulous management that is willing to risk a contract to save money manufacturing a batch of components. There is speculation that some lead may leach into oil or concentrates in e-cigarette and vape products from the contact between the oil or concentrate and internal heating elements in certain type of products. RoHS compliance with regard to lead levels may reduce the chance of inadvertent lead contamination by such means, and compliance may therefore yield benefits on several regulatory fronts.

Compliance with RoHS for each part of an e-cigarette or vape therefore requires knowing your supplier for each component, but given increased regulation of these products (both the hardware and consumable elements) this can only help compliance with regulations in every relevant jurisdiction.

May 22, 2019

BioTrackTHC Selected For Maine’s Traceability Contract

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

On May 15, BioTrackTHC was announced the conditional winner for Maine’s seed-to-sale tracking system government contract. The award is still pending final approval from the State Procurement Review Committee and the successful negotiation of the contract.

BioTrackTHC, a Helix TCS subsidiary, announced in a press release their conditional award earlier this month. The contract means that BioTrackTHC would partner with the state to provide software for tracking both medical and recreational cannabis products from the immature plant to the point of retail sales.

The contract could go for as long as six years, through 2025. If this contract receives final approval from the state internally, then this will become the ninth government contract for BioTrackTHC. Patrick Vo, CEO of BioTrackTHC, expects a quick deployment of the software once the contract is finalized. “We are excited to be working with the State of Maine and are grateful for their vote of confidence in our team’s ability to execute upon state-level tracking contracts and rapidly deploy a sound and secure technology solution,” says Vo.

Zachary L. Venegas, Executive Chairman and CEO of Helix TCS, Inc, says BioTrackTHC’s technology is leading the industry in shaping regulatory oversight for legal cannabis. “As states and countries begin to rollout or expand legal cannabis programs, our technology continues to lead as demonstrated by this Intent to Award and our multiple recent contract extensions with our partners,” says Venegas. “We look forward to playing a vital role in shaping the global cannabis industry and ensuring that it is able to operate efficiently and transparently.”

May 9, 2019

The Need for Standardization in Medical Cannabis Testing

By Andrew James

2 Comments

There has been a move towards the legalization of cannabis for medical and/or recreational use across many countries and US states in recent years, leading to greater demand for accurate potency and safety testing. Despite this, there are currently no standardized regulations between states or countries for quality control including content, composition, adulterants, potency or levels of toxic residues. As such, in many cases where regulations are in place, testing is generally carried out at a small number of approved independent testing laboratories.

The need for self-regulation has led to the growth of portable gas chromatography (GC) being used in the field of cannabis testing.This lack of clarity makes it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions about what they are purchasing, an issue which could be damaging to the industry’s changing reputation. As it stands, producers of cannabis and cannabis-derived products can supply goods with potentially harmful contaminants such as fungi or pesticide residues, which are potentially threatening to human health. Most cannabis products sold legally in the US are required to be tested and labelled for THC, the chemical responsible for most of cannabis’s psychoactive effects. A US study found that as few as 20% of recreational cannabis products are accurately labelled with only 17% of products reviewed accurately labelled for THC content (i.e. within 10% of the labeled value). It also found 23% were under labelled, and 60% were over labelled.

If cannabis were to be categorized as a regulated pharmaceutical drug, it would be rigorously tested to comply with stringent rules and regulations regarding quality and safety of the product, as are all other drugs. However, as there is currently no centralized regulatory body that oversees this, the responsibility of quality assurance falls to the grower, manufacturer and sometimes the consumer.

The Need for Cannabis Analysis

The most common requirement when testing cannabis is positive identification and quantification of the total THC:CBD ratio. In a highly competitive marketplace, this information is important, as cannabis consumers tend to equate THC levels with price. In many instances, lower THC products are cheaper and higher THC concentrations make products more expensive. Without robust systems in place for sufficient testing, this information cannot be accurately determined, meaning the customer often cannot make an informed decision.

Pesticide use is surprisingly common in the cannabis cultivation industry

In addition to potency testing, one of the core issues facing the industry and by extension, the end consumer, is the prevalence of pesticides in cannabis products. In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Environment and Health reported that over 90% of cannabis plants tested had pesticides on them. While steps have been taken to tackle this, the lack of cohesion in testing standards combined with the onus on individual labs to carry out testing, has led to some issues within the industry.

Many individual retailers in the U.S. and internationally are self-testing for impurities such as pesticides, heavy metals and microbials. While there is a clear need for standard testing across all locations, the need for self-regulation at present has led to the growth of portable gas chromatography (GC) being used in the field of cannabis testing.

Using GC as an analytical tool

With the increased need for quality control and quality assurance in the largely unregulated cannabis industry, technology is now more accessible to smaller companies and to people with minimal laboratory experience. There are a range of cannabis testing packages available for smaller individual labs which offer more mobile testing with affordable packages. The lower entry price makes GC analysis affordable for more laboratories while still delivering reliable, high quality results.

Portable GC instruments can offer high quality potency testing, pesticide screening, terpene and flavor profiling, and residual solvents analysis. These instruments can give growers and processors an accurate result of cannabinoid percentages, a fundamental piece of information for growers and dispensaries. Systems can be configured for manual injection or a range of autosampler options can be added.

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

GC enables the rapid and accurate identification and quantification of the THC:CBD ratio. This is important for companies which are carrying out self-testing as it allows their customers to have assurances in the short term over the quality of their product, as well as reducing any potential risks to public health.

An example of this in practice is the use of GC by Dutch company Shamanics which carries out testing service for coffee shops in the Netherlands. The company conducts terpene analysis and potency testing to assure the quality of the products it supplies, with a portable GC, which offers the flexibility required without any established guidelines on testing in place.

When testing for potency using the GC, they look for total THC and CBD by converting the acidified versions of the cannabinoids into neutral forms within the heat of the GC injector. The process has flexibility which means that if they need to see both the acidified and neutral versions, they can do this by derivatizing the sample. The accuracy of this process is crucial to Shamanics and similar companies within the industry so that they can accurately judge the quality of a product, and relay this information to retailers and consumers.

The future of GC in standardized testing

While the growing availability of portable GC instruments and the increasing sophistication of individual labs means more companies are able to self-test products, there is still a significant hurdle to overcome in terms of standardising and regulating both the medical and recreational cannabis markets. Where regulation is brought in it should be consistent across states and countries and most importantly, it should be monitored and enforced. In the meantime, responsible producers are using the technology available to them to provide consumers with guarantees that their cannabis products are safe and of a high quality.

May 7, 2019

Implementing a HACCP Plan to Address Audit Concerns in the Infused Market

By Daniel Erickson

1 Comment

The increasing appeal and public acceptance of medical and recreational cannabis has increased the focus on the possible food safety hazards of cannabis-infused products. Foodborne illnesses from edible consumption have become more commonplace, causing auditors to focus on the various stages of the supply chain to ensure that companies are identifying and mitigating risks throughout their operations. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans developed and monitored within a cannabis ERP software solution play an essential role in reducing common hazards in a market currently lacking federal regulation.

What are cannabis-infused products?

Cannabis infusions come in a variety of forms including edibles (food and beverages), tinctures (drops applied in the mouth), sprays (applied under the tongue), powders (dissolved into liquids) and inhalers. Manufacturing of these products resembles farm-to-fork manufacturing processes common in the food and beverage industry, in which best practices for compliance with food safety regulations have been established. Anticipated regulations in the seed-to-sale marketplace and consumer expectations are driving cannabis infused product manufacturers to adopt safety initiatives to address audit concerns.

What are auditors targeting in the cannabis space?

The cannabis auditing landscape encompasses several areas of focus to ensure companies have standard operating procedures (SOP’s) in place. These areas include:

Regulatory compliance – meeting state and local jurisdictional requirements
Storage and product release – identifying, storing and securing products properly
Seed-to-sale traceability – lot numbers and plant identifiers
Product development – including risk analysis and release
Accurate labeling – allergen statements and potency
Product sampling – pathogenic indicator and heavy metal testing
Water and air quality – accounting for residual solvents, yeasts and mold
Pest control – pesticides and contamination

In addition, auditors commonly access the reliability of suppliers, quality of ingredients, sanitary handling of materials, cleanliness of facilities, product testing and cross-contamination concerns in the food and beverage industry, making these also important in cannabis manufacturers’ safety plans.

How a HACCP plan can help

Whether you are cultivating, harvesting, extracting or infusing cannabis into edible products, it is important to engage in proactive measures in hazard management, which include a HACCP plan developed by a company’s safety team. A HACCP plan provides effective procedures that protect consumers from hazards inherent in the production and distribution of cannabis-infused products – including biological, chemical and physical dangers. With the lack of federal regulation in the marketplace, it is recommended that companies adopt these best practices to reduce the severity and likelihood of compromised food safety.

Automating processes and documenting critical control points within an ERP solution prevents hazards before food safety is compromised. Parameters determined within the ERP system are utilized for identification of potential hazards before further contamination can occur. Applying best practices historically used by food and beverage manufacturers provides an enhanced level of food safety protocols to ensure quality, consistency and safety of consumables.

Hazards of cannabis products by life-cycle and production stage

Since the identification of hazards is the first step in HACCP plan development, it is important to identify potential issues at each stage. For cannabis-infused products, these include cultivation, harvesting, extraction and edibles production. Auditors expect detailed documentation of HACCP steps taken to mitigate hazards through the entire seed-to-sale process, taking into account transactions of cannabis co-products and finished goods at any stage.

Cultivation– In this stage, pesticides, pest contamination and heavy metals are of concern and should be adequately addressed. Listeria, E. coli, Salmonella and other bacteria can also be introduced during the grow cycle requiring that pathogenic indicator testing be conducted to ensure a bacteria-free environment.

Harvesting– Yeast and mold (aflatoxins) are possible during the drying and curing processes. Due to the fact that a minimal amount of moisture is optimal for prevention, testing for water activity is essential during harvesting.

Extraction – Residual solvents such as butane and ethanol are hazards to be addressed during extraction, as they are byproducts of the process and can be harmful. Each state has different allowable limits and effective testing is a necessity to prevent consumer exposure to dangerous chemical residues.

Edibles– Hazards in cannabis-infused manufacturing are similar to other food and beverage products and should be treated as such. A risk assessment should be completed for every ingredient (i.e. flour, eggs, etc.), with inherent hazards or allergens identified and a plan for addressing approved supplier lists, obtaining quality ingredients, sanitary handling of materials and cross-contamination.

Following and documenting the HACCP plan through all of the stages is essential, including a sampling testing plan that represents the beginning, middle and end of each cannabis infused product. As the last and most important step before products are introduced to the market, finished goods testing is conducted to ensure goods are safe for consumption. All information is recorded efficiently within a streamlined ERP solution that provides real-time data to stakeholders across the organization.

Besides hazards that are specific to each stage in the manufacturing of cannabis-infused products, there are recurring common procedures throughout the seed-to-sale process that can be addressed using current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP’s). cGMPs provide preventative measures for clean work environments, training, establishing SOPs, detecting product deviations and maintaining reliable testing. Ensuring that employees are knowledgeable of potential hazards throughout the stages is essential.Lacking, inadequate or undocumented training in these areas are red flags for auditors who subscribe to the philosophy of “if it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen.” Training, re-training (if necessary) and documented information contained within cannabis ERP ensures that companies are audit-ready.

Labeling

The importance of proper labeling in the cannabis space cannot be understated as it is a key issue related to product inconsistency in the marketplace. Similar to the food and beverage industry, accurate package labeling, including ingredient and allergen statements, should reflect the product’s contents. Adequate labeling to identify cannabis products and detailed dosing information is essential as unintentional ingestion is a reportable foodborne illness. Integrating an ERP solution with quality control checks and following best practices ensures product labeling remains compliant and transparent in the marketplace.

Due to the inherent hazards of cannabis-infused products, it’s necessary for savvy cannabis companies to employ the proper tools to keep their products and consumers safe. Utilizing an ERP solution that effectively manages HACCP plans meets auditing requirements and helps to keep cannabis operations one step ahead of the competition.

May 2, 2019

Soapbox

Cannabis Pioneers vs. Cannabis Innovators: Who Has the Advantage?

By Jeff Arbour

No Comments

In today’s innovation marketplace, everybody wants to be the first. Tech and non-tech companies alike are racing to raise capital for crypto, blockchain and AI, yet these sectors and technologies are still not even close to mass adoption.

Today’s entrepreneurs are obsessed with disruption. While this is obvious in the world of tech, it may soon be overshadowed by the nascent cannabis industry in the United States. Every time a new state opens an application submission period for a new cannabis dispensary, hundreds of companies apply. Each new market and state have pre-existing demand. Until recently, obtaining cannabis was difficult for many and illegal.

Often, the latecomers who learn from pioneers’ mistakes are the ones who earn the greatest successes.

Most of these companies apply in good faith, only to run into unforeseen problems as the regulatory landscape changes. This is part of the risk inherent to pioneering and disrupting industries. Often, the latecomers who learn from pioneers’ mistakes are the ones who earn the greatest successes.

The Difference Between Pioneering and Innovating

In the world of commerce, paving the way for a new product to hit the market is usually a thankless, time-consuming task. It exposes the weaknesses of the market’s operators and invites newcomers to disrupt the already unstable status quo.

Although household names like Levi’s and Wells Fargo owe their success to the California Gold Rush, historians pay relatively little attention to the hundreds of thousands of casualties the Gold Rush caused. Pioneers paved the way, and innovators – like Levi Strauss – profited from the result.

Similarly, when it comes to cars, Peugeot and Tatra are not household names like Ford and Honda. Henry Ford’s assembly line innovations and Honda’s unbeatable factory flexibility led to those younger companies becoming far more successful than their older counterparts.

Pioneers change the way an industry operates. Airbnb did not succeed because it offered superior service compared to the powerful and deep-pocketed hotel industry. It succeeded because it improved the model that HomeAway and VRBO launched years prior – and did so in a way that undermined the hotel’s typical strengths while capitalizing on their weaknesses.

Pioneering disruption is not equal to innovation, and the cannabis industry will follow the same course.

Although pioneering the creation of new business models is an admirable thing to do, it’s not for everyone. Airbnb has been fighting regulators since the very beginning. The company has been forced to pay fines and taxes that simply didn’t exist until Airbnb’s business model came into being.

Uber’s regulatory troubles regularly make headlines around the world. Although it successfully disrupts every market it enters, established taxi companies and newcomers like Taxify often get the last laugh when they implement Uber-like functionality into existing business models. Uber found it too difficult to compete in China and sold its business to local newcomer Didi Chuxing.

All of these cases demonstrate that being the first or early to introduce a business concept comes with many challenges. Pioneering disruption is not equal to innovation, and the cannabis industry will follow the same course.

Cannabis Industry Pioneers vs. Innovators

In the cannabis industry, being the first often meant living in constant fear of being arrested. During the early years of medical cannabis legislation, it was unclear whether federal authorities would raid and prosecute cannabis cultivators and dispensaries.

Every new cannabis market offers important, expensive lessons to future cannabis entrepreneurs:

California changed its cannabis product packaging laws several times before its market went live.
Oregon’s lack of state inspectors led to a laboratory testing bottleneck and an upsurge in black market cannabis diversion that the state’s last audit called “currently unstoppable.”
The two largest medical marijuana cultivation facilities in Illinois cost about $40 million to build, yet they compete over a market of less than $10 million.
Major pioneers like Medmen have paid enormous sums of money to gain entrance into regulatory environments they can’t accurately predict profits from.

Newer cannabis industry entrepreneurs are taking notice of all these obstacles and implementing plans to overcome them. It’s likely that the next generation of medical and recreational dispensaries will have far greater success than today’s biggest names, primarily due to this fact.

Consider the fact that all three of the S&P’s biggest cannabis industry companies have valuations far in excess of their actual sales. It is possible that these large, deep-pocketed organizations will generate enough revenue to justify their valuations, but in the meantime, newer players will enter the picture with greater responsiveness and startup efficiency.

Newcomers to the cannabis industry are setting themselves up for success with highly targeted business objectives, strong executive teams and high-impact advisors. They are navigating the regulatory landscape with more agility than early cannabis pioneers can muster, obtaining lower price-to-sales ratios in the process.

Cannabis entrepreneurs need to be creative in their assessment of the opportunities these new environments create.

This is the hallmark of innovation. While disruptions and inventions typically take the form of new products or services, innovations expand marketplaces and lay the groundwork for new interactions between economic actors in those marketplaces.

What Tomorrow’s Cannabis Innovators Can Do Now

States like Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey are currently leaning towards recreational marijuana legislation like those currently in place in Colorado and California. Cannabis entrepreneurs need to be creative in their assessment of the opportunities these new environments create.

Opening a cannabis company is no small task. As regulators gradually come to agree on the requirements each state will ask its business owners to meet, the next generation of pioneering cannabis entrepreneurs will have to adapt. At the same time, a relatively small contingent of innovators – the new generation of Levi Strauss’s – will coincide to provide much-needed products and services to the incoming rush.

These innovators will not be limited to one side of the industry. Innovation thrives on integration, and tomorrow’s cannabis entrepreneurs are going to develop streamlined solutions for tackling today’s inefficiencies in ways that simply are not possible right now. These lean, sophisticated startups will use that path paved by the first generation of cannabis industry incumbents.

Cannabis innovators will need to develop solutions for minimizing the costs and complications of setting up companies in highly regulated environments. This can mean anything from developing superior seed-to-sale tracking POS integrations to building a more efficient supply chain and a path to the consumer.

With luck, the next generation of cannabis entrepreneurs will look to the past when informing their strategic decisions for the future.