Tag Archives: law

Federal Funding Is Flowing To Canada’s Cannabis Production

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments

The Canadian federal government is going where the U.S. (for now) is not: namely allowing provinces to channel federal agricultural funds into commercial cannabis production on the provincial level. The program is called the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (or CAP), which is a $2.2 billion annual initiative designed to support agricultural businesses across the country.

So far, not every province has opened this funding to cannabis production, although British Columbia already has, and Alberta is currently considering it.

Even more intriguing of course, are other programs that tie into such agricultural subsidies (including government support for exporting product). See Europe for one.

These programs are of course nothing new, including in the United States.

What is new, different and intriguing, is that unlike the United States, for the first time such government funds are being used to support not only the domestic cultivation of cannabis, but its global export. If there ever was the beginning of a “green new deal” then this might be it.

Canadian companies are certainly seeming to benefit from this federal largesse at the production point. For example, in the first weeks of April, CannTrust Holdings Inc. announced that its entire 450,000 square foot, perpetual harvest facility in Pelham, Ontario is fully licensed and will be online by summer 2019. THC BioMed just announced that it received Health Canada’s permission to begin additional production at its flagship location in Kelowna, B.C. And Beleave has just commenced sales of cannabis oil products at licensed facilities in Hamilton, Ontario.

The Rise of Government Funding In a “Publicly Owned” Company Environment

One of the more intriguing impacts of the rise of government funding for the industry comes at a time when the industry itself, certainly coming out of Canada, is facing a bit of a zeitgeist moment.

Sure, the industry has gained legitimacy, and there might be nascent cannabis funds in the UK, Switzerland and Germany, but the entire “public cannabis company” discussion is hitting a bit of a reset at the moment.

It was after all, ostensibly “public” Wayland that just dusted much higher fliers from the stock price perspective on winning the German cultivation bid. In fact, some insiders on the ground have commented that it is precisely because Wayland is not a stock market favorite, rather focused on fundamentals that they got chosen in the first place. Starting with the old-fashioned idea of committing resources and elbow grease to create production on the ground, locally.

There are also firms who are benefitting from the first tax funds that have flowed to promote the hemp industry (those are available from state governments here).

However, it is not just Germany where this discussion is going on in Europe right now. In Spain, there is political discussion about ensuring that the nascent and valuable cannabis industry does not end up in the control of “outsiders.” Namely international firms who have more of an eye on profit than community building. The idea of the cannabis industry as an economic development tool has certainly caught on in Europe (see Greece and Macedonia). And core in that idea is that the euros generated by this still remarkably price-resilient plant, and the products produced from it, should stay local.

Cannabis Socialism?

For now, and certainly in Canada, federal public funding looks pretty much like a fancy agricultural grant. But in the future as prices drop and the wars over strains and “medical” vs. “recreational” really begin to rage in Europe, the idea of government-funded cannabis cultivation may be an idea whose time has come.

The German automobile industry, for example, did not come from nowhere – and even today receives massive government funding. For now, certainly in Deutschland, that is not the case with cannabis, but things may be changing with the resolution of the first tender bid.

In the future, in other words, as countries across Europe begin to think about posting their own production bids and Germany contemplates additional ones, government funding of the industry and certainly incentives to help its growth will become much more widespread.

First Lab Authorized for Cannabis Testing in North Dakota

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to a press release published on April 3, Keystone State Testing (doing business as Dakota State Testing) became the first laboratory authorized to test cannabis in North Dakota. The lab also obtained their ISO 17025 accreditation for cannabis testing from the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), which is another first achievement for cannabis testing in the state of North Dakota.

Dr. Kelly Greenland, chief science officer at Keystone State Testing, says the North Dakota Department of Health set a high standard for the cannabis lab testing industry in the state. “Keystone State Testing is once again proud to of this monumental achievement and critical milestone in the company’s history to have met the highest levels of standards set forth by both A2LA and the North Dakota Department of Health,” says Greenland. “Keystone chose A2LA as its Accreditation Body due to their reputation in the industry, their diverse clientele, and the quality of their assessors.  A2LA’s assessors have spent decades in their respective fields, which helps to ensure that Keystone is providing the best services possible to their clients, regulators and patients.”

Keystone State Testing’s ISO 17025 accreditation scope covers 11 testing methods at their facility in Fargo, North Dakota. Those methods include: Cannabinoid potency analysis, cannabinoid profile, moisture content, residual solvents, water activity, along with microbiological tests like total yeast and mold count, E. coli, Salmonella, total aerobic microbial count, among others.

Water Policy in California: Six Key Takeaways from the State Water Board’s New Cannabis Cultivation Policy

By Amy Steinfeld
No Comments

Cannabis is the most highly regulated crop in California, and the state just added another layer of regulation. This article breaks down the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) recently updated Cannabis Cultivation Policy – Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation (“Policy”) into six key takeaways.1 These guidelines impose new rules on cannabis cultivation activities that have the potential to impact a watercourse (stream, creek, river or lake). Most of these rules apply to cultivation of sun-grown cannabis, which is currently allowed in some form in 12 counties. Compliance with these new requirements will be implemented through the CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Program.

  1. When developing farmland, hillsides should be avoided and erosion must be controlled.

The Policy provides specific rules for growing pot on undisturbed land. To prevent erosion, numerous limitations are placed on earthmoving and activities in sensitive areas, and cultivators are not allowed to grade hillsides that exceed a 50% slope.2

Cultivation prepping activities must minimize grading, dust, soil disturbance, erosion, and impacts on habitat, especially during the winter season.3 No vehicles or heavy equipment may be used within a riparian setback4 or watercourse,5 and cultivators must avoid damaging native riparian vegetation6 and oak woodlands.7 All farm equipment, fuel, and hazardous materials must be carefully stored away from creeks and sensitive habitat.8 The Policy also governs road construction.9

  1. Cultivators should avoid work in or near a surface waterbody.10

If a cultivator’s activities impact a river, stream, or lake, they must consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).11 Cultivators must maintain minimum riparian setbacks for all cannabis activities, including grading and ancillary farm facilities. Before grading land, a biologist must identify any sensitive flora or fauna, and if any is located, consult with CDFW and provide a report to the Regional Board.12 No irrigation runoff, tailwater, chemicals or plant waste can be discharged to a waterbody.13 Diversion facilities for the irrigation of cannabis may not block fish passage, upstream or downstream, and must be fitted with a CDFW-approved fish screen; new facilities are subject to all applicable permits and approvals.

  1. During the dry season, cultivators may not use surface water.

The use of surface water supplies in California requires a valid water right and the use of water for cannabis cultivation is no different.14 Anyone seeking to appropriate “water flowing in a known and defined channel” or from a watercourse must apply to the SWRCB and obtain a permit or license.15 Alternatively, a landowner whose property is adjacent to a watercourse may have a riparian right to divert the water for use on her land. Riparian users do not need permission from the SWRCB to divert water, but they must report water use annually.16

The biggest obstacle that growers face under this Policy is that they cannot divert anysurface water during the dry season—the growing season (April 1 through Oct. 31). It should be noted:

  • The seasonal prohibition of surface water diversion applies regardless of the nature of the water right or what has been historically used to irrigate other crops.
  • During the dry period, cultivators may only irrigate using stored water (see no. 5 below) or groundwater.
  • It remains to be seen whether a legal challenge will be brought against the state for their draconian prohibitions on irrigating cannabis during the six-month growing season. Because this prohibition applies to all watersheds in California, singles out one low-water use crop, and ignores established water rights, it is overly broad and may constitute a constitutional “taking” of property rights.
  1. During the wet season, surface water diversions must be monitored closely.

Cannabis-specific restrictions also apply during the wet season. From Nov. 1 to March 31, cultivators must comply with instream flow requirements and check in with the state daily. All surface water diversions for cannabis are subject to “Numeric and Narrative Instream Flow Requirements,” to protect flows needed for fish migration and spawning. To ensure diversions do not adversely impact fish flows, cultivators must also “maintain a minimum bypass of at least 50% of the streamflow.”17,18

While valid appropriative right holders may divert more than 10 gal./min. for cannabis irrigation during the wet season, riparian right holders are not allowed to exceed that diversion rate.19 All cultivators (including small diverters <10 acre-feet (“AF”)/yr) are required to employ water-saving irrigation methods, install measuring devices to track diversions daily, and maintain records on-site for at least five years.20 Cultivators must inspect and repair their water delivery system for leaks monthly,21 and inspect sprinklers and mainlines weekly to prevent runoff.22

  1. Cannabis cultivators may obtain a new water storage right for use during the dry season.

To address dry season irrigation limitations, cultivators are urged to store water offstream during the wet season, including rainwater, for dry season use. Growers may not rely on onstreamstorage reservoirs, except if they have an existing permitted reservoir in place prior to Oct. 31, 2017.23 Alternatively, small growers (storage is capped at 6.6 AF/yr) may benefit from the new Cannabis SIUR Program, an expedited process for cultivators who divert from a surface water source to develop and install storage offstream. Only diverters with a valid water right that allows for diversion to storage between Nov. 1 and March 31 qualify.

  1. Groundwater is less regulated, but cultivators should avoid drilling or using wells near waterbodies.

Groundwater is generally the recommended water supply for cannabis because, unlike surface water, it may be used during the dry season and is not subject to many of the restrictions listed above. It should be noted however:

  • Many groundwater basins are now governed by California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), which requires water agencies to halt overdraft and restore balanced levels of groundwater pumping from certain basins. Thus, SGMA may result in future pumping cutbacks or pumping assessments.
  • In some counties, moratoriums and restrictions on drilling new wells are on the rise.
  • Under this Policy, the state may step in to restrict groundwater pumping in the dry season in watersheds where there are large numbers of cannabis groundwater, wells located close to streams, and areas of high surface water-groundwater connectivity.24

In short, groundwater pumpers are at risk of cutback if the state deems it necessary to maintain nearby creek flows.Noncompliance can bring lofty fines, revocation of a grower’s cultivation license, or prosecution

Final Takeaways

This cannabis policy presents one of California’s most complex regulatory schemes to date. Before investing in a property, one must understand this Policy and have a robust understanding of the water rights and hydrology associated with the cultivation site. Growers looking to reduce permitting time and costs should invest in relatively flat, historically cultivated land with existing wells and ample groundwater supplies, or alternatively, grow indoors.

This article attempts to synthesize the maze of water supply and water quality regulations that make compliance exceedingly difficult; more detailed information can be found here. Noncompliance can bring lofty fines, revocation of a grower’s cultivation license, or prosecution. Growers are encouraged to contact a hydrologist and water lawyer before making major investments and to designate a water compliance officer to monitor and track all water diversions and water used for irrigation. Growers should also consult with their local jurisdiction regarding water use restrictions and stream setbacks before moving any dirt or planting cannabis.

References

  1. The Policy is available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cannabis/cannabis_policy.html (will go into effect on or before April 16, 2019.)
  2. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 4. The Policy defines “Qualified Professional” as a: California-Licensed Professional Geologist, including Certified Hydrogeologist and Certified Engineering Geologist, California-Licensed Geotechnical Engineer, and Professional Hydrologist. (Policy, Definition 72, p. 11.)
  3. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Terms 4 and 10.
  4. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 3.
  5. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 40.
  6. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 33.
  7. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 34.
  8. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 7.
  9. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Terms 15 to 29.
  10. Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 41.
  11. Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 3; see also 1602.
  12. Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 10.
  13. Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 326.
  14. Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 69.
  15. Wat. Code §1225; See alsoWat. Code §1201 [providing that the state shall have jurisdiction over, “[a]ll water flowing in any natural channel” except water that is appropriated or being used for beneficial purpose upon land riparian to the channel.”]
  16. Wat. Code §§ 5100–02.
  17. Policy, p. 12.
  18. Policy, Attachment A, pp. 60, 63.
  19. Policy, Section 2, Term 78.
  20. Policy, Section 2, Term 82.
  21. Policy, Section 2, Term 95.
  22. Policy, Section 2, Term 99.
  23. Policy, Section 2, Term 79.
  24. Policy, p. 11.

Taxes & Cannabis: 280E, R&D Credits, 199A & Qualified Opportunity Funds: Part 2

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman
No Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the second piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discussed tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones. 

While 280E is the most influential code section for the cannabis industry, structuring never happens in a vacuum. There are many open questions that each business must answer for themselves without court adjudication. We believe that among the riskiest of questions is whether a cannabis business can claim research and development credits.

There is no clear legal authority that either allows these credits or disallows them but certainly utilizing such credits comes at great risk. At the beginning of this article we talked about Congress and the purpose of 280E. Congress’s intention was to make sure that only the minimum required tax deductions were available to Schedule 1 and 2 sellers. A cannabis business receiving a research and development credit would not be with the intension of Congress. While the credits would be computed based on COGS expenditures, at this time we do not believe that a cannabis business should take this credit. Disallowance of COGS would create a constitutional challenge which is why Congress allowed the COGS deduction. Disallowance of Research and Development Credits does not open up the same constitutional issue since the credit is not part of COGS although calculated based on COGS expenditures. 280E states very clearly that credits arising from other code sections are disallowed in the entirety.

More recently the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) opened up new issues for cannabis companies that are still unfolding. Two of the most publicized are Qualified Opportunity Funds and Section 199A, the 20% deduction (Qualified Business Deduction).

The 199A deduction allows eligible pass-through entities to claim an additional deduction of 20% of the income (subject to certain limitations) at the individual level potentially lowering the tax rate from 37% to 29.6%. While the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and others have asked the IRS to clarify if 280E would make a cannabis business ineligible, the final regulations on the subject did not address this issue. There are other significant limitations and hurdles in 199A regulations that any business would have to first pass to be considered for the rate deduction. If a cannabis business meets all other eligibility and limitation criteria, should the pass-through income to their investors be qualified income under 199A? The answer will depend on whether the courts will treat this “deduction” as falling under the general prohibition of 280E.

We believe that there is a reasonable chance that the courts will allow the 199A deduction for cannabis companies. That does not mean, however, that we advise cannabis companies to claim this on their pass-through returns as Qualified Business Income. Much like everything else, it depends on the particular business and the risk profile that management is willing to tolerate. This is one area of tax law that is sure to be challenged in court. The more risk-averse business should pass on claiming this deduction on their returns, but monitor development with an eye to amending at a later date if favorable precedent emerges. If the amounts are large enough, consideration should be given to applying for a Private Letter Ruling, but that also has its own tax risks.

Another new tax incentive that was in the TCJA was Section 1400Z or Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ). The incentive allows for the deferral of capital gains until December of 2026. The use of 1400Z also results in up to a 15% decrease in capital gains tax- and tax-free appreciation if all requirements are met. While the IRS has only released proposed regulations and we anticipate significant changes to them when they are released as final, there was nothing in the proposed regulations limiting cannabis businesses from using Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOF) in their structure. It is interesting to note that the TCJA and proposed regulations did list other types of businesses that could not make investments under 1400Z along with all its benefits. Liquor stores, golf courses and sun tan parlors were among those listed but cannabis growers and dispensaries were not.

As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.Using Opportunity Zones to entice investors sounds like a great opportunity, but there are significant risks. The first risk is that the proposed regulations, while currently proposed, may not be final. There is always a chance that the IRS will take a different position when the final regulations are released and add cannabis to the type of businesses that do not qualify. Another risk, and one that was previously mentioned as part of 199A and other areas of structuring, is that the IRS and the courts can always disagree with the taxpayer’s position. This is a new area of tax law and will eventually be litigated. The loss of the Opportunity Zone benefits can significantly change the return to the investors and lead to other issues.

All of these issues come into play when structuring businesses in this industry. These issues must be evaluated as they pertain to the business needs. This can be very complex and requires a great deal of research for each business opportunity. We have found that professionals operating in this industry like to know about all of their options. The most important thing we can do for the industry is to continue to educate the professionals working in it.

Accountants should be available to assist their clients and their clients’ attorneys with structuring techniques aimed at asset protection and minimizing 280E disallowances. Accountants should also be ready to speak to the questions outlined above and be prepared to explain the risks associated with each choice. As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.

Introducing the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

An educational and networking event for cannabis safety and quality solutions: Innovative Publishing and Cannabis Industry Journal are pleased to present the first annual Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo (CQC). The conference will take place October 1-3, 2019, hosted at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center in Schaumburg, Illinois.

The inaugural CQC will consist of two separate tracks: The Cannabis Labs track, focused on all things cannabis lab testing, and the Cannabis Quality track, focusing on quality in cannabis product manufacturing.

Sharing an exhibit hall and meeting spaces right alongside the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo, the CQC allows cannabis professionals to interact with senior level food quality and safety professionals, as well as regulators. Visit with exhibitors to learn about cutting-edge solutions, explore two high-level educational tracks for learning valuable industry trends, and network with industry executives to find solutions to improve quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness in a quickly evolving cannabis marketplace.

The CQC will be hosted at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center in Illinois (just outside of Chicago)

With the cannabis industry in the Midwest growing at a rapid pace, the CQC offers attendees, exhibitors and sponsors unparalleled access to explore these emerging markets, their regulations, opportunities for business growth and best practices from the more established food industry.

For information on speaking opportunities and to submit an abstract, click here to view the Call for Proposals. The CQC will be accepting abstracts for consideration until June 3, 2019. For information on exhibiting, as well as additional sponsorship opportunities, contact RJ Palermo, Sales Director, rj@innovativepublishing.net, (203) 667-2212.

Take advantage of this chance to connect with cannabis industry and food safety professionals in the Greater Chicago Area. Don’t miss this opportunity to network with hundreds of industry stakeholders, get the latest on regulatory developments and see the newest technology disrupting the cannabis space.

Taxes & Cannabis: 280E, R&D Credits, 199A & Qualified Opportunity Funds: Part 1

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman
3 Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the first piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discusses tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones. Stay tuned for Part two coming next week!

When building a knowledge base in the cannabis industry as a CPA, one’s tax research typically starts with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E. For those that are unfamiliar, 280E is only three lines long. With this in mind, we at Janover realized that we needed to understand the context for this highly influential tax section.

The genesis of 280E dates back to 1981 with a Tax Court case: Jeffrey Edmonson v. Commissioner. The decision in this case was that a seller of cocaine, amphetamines and cannabis could deduct most business expenses, cost of goods sold, packaging, home, phone and automobile expenses relating to the seller’s illegal business.

In 1982, 280E was enacted to reverse the Edmonson decision and deny sellers of Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substances the right to deduct business expenses. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government defined Schedule 1 drugs as drugs that have no currently acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse. Since cannabis is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, cannabis businesses were unable to deduct most business expenses.

To get a better understanding of what the legislators were trying to accomplish, House and Senate reports provided insight into what their goals might have been. Under the Explanation of Provision, the Senate Report reads:

All deductions and credits for amounts paid or incurred in the illegal trafficking in drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act are disallowed. To preclude possible challenges on constitutional grounds, the adjustment to gross receipts with respect to effective costs of goods sold is not affected by this provision of the bill.

As the Senate Report explanation provides, 280E specifically excluded cost of goods sold (COGS) from the disallowance of deductions. This treatment was affirmed by the Tax Court in 2012 in Olive v. Commissioner (139 T.C. 19 2012).

To date, there are not many cases that have dealt with the tax issues of 280E. In a 2007 decision involving Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP), the Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer may deduct expenses allocable to an affiliated business that was separate from the entity “trafficking in a controlled substance.” In CHAMP, the legal caregiving business, which was a separate business, was able to deduct the allocated portion of shared expenses. This set a legal precedent that allowed a taxpayer engaged in the selling of a Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substance to distinguish expenses incurred on behalf of other non-prohibited business lines and deduct these expenses.

In addition to these court cases, tax professionals can rely on IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum CCA 201504011. The IRS Chief Counsel released this memorandum in January 2015 in order to respond to questions the IRS was receiving from practitioners.

Although Chief Counsel Memoranda, in general, may not be cited by taxpayers as precedent, this memorandum is the current and best authority outlining the IRS’s position with respect to the extent to which a cannabis business may deduct business expenses. The memorandum also refers to IRC Section 162, ordinary and necessary business expenses that would be disallowed, as well as separately identifying certain direct and indirect business expenses that would be allowed. Citing methods in Treas. Reg. 1.471, the memorandum states that a cannabis producer may allocate to inventory and COGS direct production costs, including direct material costs (Cannabis seeds or plants), direct labor costs (e.g., planting, cultivating, harvesting, sorting, etc.), and transportation or other costs to acquire of the cannabis. It also indicates certain indirect costs that may be taken as COGS.

As the industry continues to mature, more cases are finding their way to the Tax Court. On June 13, 2018, the Tax Court issued a ruling in Alterman v. Commissioner that specifically disallowed the use of 263A under 280E and applied only Section 471 to determine COGS. While we need to follow the facts and circumstances of each case, the broad language used might very well disallow capitalizing of inventoriable costs for companies subject to 280E.

IRC Section 471 is the general rule for inventory accounting for tax. IRC Section 263A is the uniform capitalization rules for tax. Most businesses need to utilize both 471 and 263A when accounting for inventory and to properly capitalize costs into COGS.This opinion may have lasting effects on the part of the industry trying to create brands associated with their cannabis products.

Many resellers and retailers of cannabis thought they could use 263A to capitalize more costs into inventory decreasing their tax burden. The Chief Counsel Memorandum disagreed and more recently the Tax Court in Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corp v Commissioner sided with the IRS and upheld some of the precedents set in Alterman v. Commissioner. In siding with the IRS, the judge concluded that a taxpayer who is subject to 280E can only deduct costs of goods sold under 471 as the IRC existed when 280E was enacted (in 1982). The taxpayer in the case used two arguments that were not new to the cannabis industry, but to no avail. The first argument was that the business was not trafficking in a controlled substance because the government had abandoned a civil forfeiture action. The second argument that was rejected was that a portion of the business involved branding, marketing and the sales of other non-illegal products. The claimant tried to convince the court that deductions related to these operations should not be subject to the same disallowance of deduction as outlined in 280E.

This second argument is very important for structuring purposes. The court used a significant portion of its opinion to address why the entire business is integrated and completely subjected to 280E. This opinion may have lasting effects on the part of the industry trying to create brands associated with their cannabis products.

This case has even more implications given part of the ruling in which the courts stated that being state licensed in no way effected the Schedule 1 determination at the federal level and, therefore, subjected them to 280E. The judge went so far as to separate the Department of Justice, which enforces the Schedule 1 status of cannabis, and the Department of the Treasury, which has full authority and enforcement rights to treat cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug subject to 280E for income tax purposes. This ruling made it clear that even if the Department of Justice is not pursing criminal charges against state-licensed cannabis businesses the IRS is not precluded from fully enforcing the Internal Revenue Code.

A2LA Accredits GoodCat Analytical to ISO/IEC 17025

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

According to a press release published last week, the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) announced the accreditation of GoodCat Analytical, LLC, a cannabis testing laboratory based in Naples, Florida. This marks the first time that A2LA has accredited a cannabis testing lab in the state.

Adam Gouker, A2LA General Manager, says this is a momentous achievement for GoodCat Analytical. “A2LA is excited to expand our cannabis accreditation program into yet another state, promoting the value of independent third-party accreditation to support quality products in the industry,” says Gouker. “We congratulate GCA Laboratories in achieving this milestone for their organization and wish them all the best as they move forward with this new endeavor.”

According to Jimmy Dodsworth, chief science officer at GoodCat Analytical, they had to develop a lot of methods on their own. “I can’t say enough about each of our staff members efforts to develop and validate each analytical method,” says Dodsworth. “The level of quality for these internally developed tests is amazing considering we started from scratch.”

Raymond Keller, owner and president of GoodCat Analytical, says A2LA’s support was an incredibly valuable resource for them. “We also need to acknowledge the tremendous guidance and support from the A2LA staff,” says Keller. “There is no doubt that they had a hand in making our lab the impressive operation it is today and know they will continue to do so moving forward.”

german flag

German Cultivation Bid Appears To Have Three Finalists

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
german flag

The Frankfurt-based newspaper Handelsblatt Zeitung is reporting that three Canadian firms (actually two Canadians and a German start-up cofounded by another Canadian company) have now been selected as the first cannabis cultivation bid finalists, however insiders on the ground say that this is not necessarily a final decision.

A Berlin-based subsidiary of Wayland in Germany called Demecan, along with Aphria and Aurora have all been named as bid finalists pending a normal review period.

However, there are other complications still looming. This is far from over.

The first issuance of the bid in 2017 went down in court over a technical fault on the part of the issuing agency. The current iteration was posted last summer and saw its application moved several times because of further legal challenges.

As Peter Homburg, partner and head of the European Cannabis Group at Dentons said when contacted by Cannabis Industry Journal, “This is of course not an official announcement. I have a tendency to believe that others involved in the tender process historically may well challenge this decision.”

BfArM, the federal German agency in charge of the cannabis cultivation tender process, did not respond to a request for a comment as of press time.

The Decision Is Far From Over

Here are the basic challenges still ahead:

There is a lawsuit pending against the bid itself from applicants that has yet to be decided. The Klage (formal hearing in court) is due next week. If that does not derail the process, here are the next considerations.

While all three firms named in the bid have international reputations, there are some pending questions.

Wayland is far ahead of the other two firms in terms of production capability in the country. Their facility in eastern Germany has just been certified GMP standard – which means they are qualified to produce the quality of flower required for medical consumption. This news is also far from a surprise.

As Ben Ward, CEO of Wayland Group, commented when contacted by CIJ for a response via email: “At Wayland, we believe in meaningful partnerships, investing in Germany from day one, demonstrating a long-term commitment to the market,” says Ward. “Wayland GmbH is a German company, operated by Germans, existing in Dresden and Munich and is committed to this market. The companies awarded lots received the allocation based on a rigorous application process, not media sensation.”

Of all the Canadian firms, in fact, despite its lack of high-flying stock price, Wayland has made the most concerted effort to show its commitment to producing in Germany by a large investment of capital and expertise. Further, the firm has shown itself to be the most culturally sensitive to German culture, including hiring a female member to the board (a hot topic far from the cannabis industry). However, there are other issues looming. On the same day that Wayland issued a press release announcing its position in the bid, it also issued one announcing the merger talks with ICC had failed.

The second is that Aphria’s main cultivation center in Canada is not EU-GMP certified although they have applied for the same and now also own one of Germany’s largest distributors (with approximately a 6% market share).

Other firms not only kicked off the entire cannabis discussion in Germany, but have established GMP-compliant facilities both in Canada and across Europe, namely Canopy Growth, which was widely believed to have also applied to the second tender. However prevailing rumours about a Canadian “crop failure” in British Columbia (described by the company as a deliberate destruction of plants created by delays in the licensing process) last fall may have also played a role in the German decision.

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logoAurora is also in interesting waters. Having distinguished itself as Canopy’s closest rival across Europe, winning significant kudos in Denmark, Italy, Poland and Luxembourg last year, the company is also clearly not “just” a medical cannabis company and apparently was refused an opportunity to go public on the Deutsche Börse last fall. The selection of the firm by BfArm for the bid in a situation where the company is on a watch list created by the stock market regulatory agency in Frankfurt is also an intriguing one. Especially given the company’s announcement of its Polish success on the same day as the decision to import was announced, and the fact that so far it is the only Canadian cannabis company to successfully import to Luxembourg.

And The Import Game Is Just Getting Hot…

The unsurprising news that the bid appears to be moving forward is actually not the hottest news in Europe right now. The reality on the ground is already shifting. Several weeks ago, a Frankfurt-based distribution start-up announced that they had successfully imported cannabis into the country from Macedonian-based Nysk Holdings via Poland.

At the International Cannabis Business Conference (ICBC) in Berlin last weekend, Australian producers (for one) were also reporting a German demand for their product that was greater than they could fill. And there were many Israelis present for what is expected to be an official opening of their import ability by the third quarter of this year.

Price Wars Are Looming

The bid itself is going to have a powerful impact on pricing in both the German and European market beyond that. It represents the first time in any country that a government has attempted to pre-negotiate prices for the drug as a narcotic beyond Israel and in this case, it will have at least regional implications.

aurora logoAt the same time, it is also clear that producers like Nysk and beyond them, Israeli and Australian firms (in particular) are actively finding ways to have their product enter the country- and further at prices that are catching the Canadians on the hop. Indeed Aurora is reporting that it actually lowered its “usual” prices to win European contracts which have been reported as being 3.2 euros a gram in Italy and 2.5 euros a gram in Luxembourg.

To put this in perspective, this is a range of about CA$3-5 a gram of flower which is also well below what Canopy (for one) has reported selling its product even to recreational users in Canada and significantly below medical export prices as reported by recent company corporate reports.

Wayland in contrast, is reporting that its production price in Germany will be at least a euro-per-gram cheaper than this. Or in other words, more in line with prices expected to be generated from both the bid itself and the cannabis now entering the country from other sources.

And of course, this is only the first of what is expected to be a series of new tenders. The original amount, itself increased in the two years the issue has been pending, is clearly not enough to even begin to meet demand as proved by the levels of competitively priced imports now entering the country.

Beyond questions about whether this time the tender will actually stand, are those now pending about new ones potentially in the offing – and not just in Germany but across Europe as cannabis continues to see a very green spring.

Soapbox

Third-Party Cannabis Safety Audits & How to Prepare in 7 Steps

By Tyler Williams
2 Comments

Unlike the food industry, the cannabis industry is still in its infancy. Which means there is not a push from retailers demanding cannabis farmers, extractors or manufacturers to get third-party audits. In fact, most grow operations supply into their own dispensaries. So why should a cannabis farmer, extractor or manufacturer get a third-party audit? Third-party audits are crucial to maintaining product safety and quality by providing a third set of eyes to verify what is working and what is not. Besides regulatory requirements and customers requiring your facility to get a third-party audit, there are numerous other benefits to receiving an audit. Some of these benefits include:

  • Improvement to product safety
  • Improvement to product quality and consistency
  • Meeting regulatory compliance
  • Eliminating potential risks and possible recalls
  • Marketing advantages over competitors who are not audited by a third-party
  • Improvement to consumer confidence and an increase to brand loyalty

How to Prepare for a Third-Party Audit

Working for a certification body, I am in the unique position to see numerous sites go through the certification process. In this position I have seen both extremes: Sites that spend 6-8 months and a lot of resources preparing for an audit, as well as sites that wait until the day before to even look at the audit standard. Unfortunately, the latter is almost always going to fail the audit. Here are seven steps for preparing for your next third-party audit.“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”– Benjamin Franklin

  1. Start Preparing Early

Think of your third-party audit as a college exam one month away. You could start studying for the exam now and get a real understanding of the material or you could wait until the day before to start your no-sleep, energy drink-fueled, 24-hour cram session. We all know which preparation method will get a better score on the exam. Now let’s apply that same strategy to your third-party audit. Once you have decided what audit is best for your site and have those specific standards in your hand, the clock starts ticking and you should already be preparing for the audit, whether it is one month or six months away.

  1. Get Management Commitment

It is essential to the entire cannabis safety and quality system to have commitment from top down. Without this, the site will not get the resources (people, equipment, money, time, etc.) they need to pass a third-party audit. Management commitment is so important that it is often seen as its own section in most modern audit standards. It is very easy for third-party auditors to identify when there is a lack of management commitment in a site. Therefore, if you don’t get management commitment, then you are already starting off the audit on a bad note.

  1. Create a To-Do-ListGMP

Think of the entire audit checklist or standard as your long to-do list. Some things, like attaining a certificate of analysis (COA) from a supplier, may only need to be done annually. While other things, such as ensuring employees are following Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), will need to be done continuously throughout day to day operations. Go through the audit checklist and separate what needs to be done annually, semiannually, quarterly, monthly and continuously throughout day to day operations. This will give you a list with all of the frequencies of each different requirement.

  1. Teamwork“Teamwork makes the dream work, but a vision becomes a nightmare when the leader has a big dream and a bad team.” – John C. Maxwell

The preparation of an audit should never rest on the shoulders of one person. Yet this is something I tend to see too often in both food and cannabis facilities alike. Your site should establish a cannabis safety and quality team of multidiscipline personnel that have an impact on product safety and quality. Once the team is established, various tasks from the to-do-list can be disbursed among all the members of the team. Collaboration is key to successfully preparing for a third-party audit, especially when the timelines are very stringent.

  1. Training

Training is essential to preparing for your third-party audit. This is what closes the gaps between what the safety and quality department have developed and what your front-line employees are applying. All employees should know what part of the audit standard applies to them. Additionally, employees should be trained on interview questions that the auditor might ask them during the audit. Helping them prepare for these types of questions will help ease their nerves and allow them to answer the questions with self-assurance when it comes time to the actual audit.

  1. Conduct Internal Audits

Conducting internal audits is not only a great way to prepare for your third-party audit, it’s a requirement. You should always use the audit checklist to observe your documents and facility to see where there are gaps. If possible, the person or team conducting the internal audit should never review their own work. Additionally, all issues or non-conformances should be noted, evaluated, corrected and closed out.

  1. Third-Party Pre-Assessment or Mock Audit (Optional)

A third-party pre-assessment or mock audit is the closest thing you can get to an actual audit. This is where a company would come in and evaluate your site to the specific standards and give a formal report over any deficiencies found during the assessment and how to fix them. This is a great way to test your preparedness before the actual audit.

Marguerite Arnold

Farmako Inks Deal To Import 50 Tonnes of Polish Cannabis Into Germany

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
Marguerite Arnold

The ex-im cannabis map of Europe has been promising to get interesting for some time. And in March, it’s long promised potential just bloomed a little more as Frankfurt-based Farmako announced a first-of-its kind import deal of 50 tonnes of medical cannabis (and from Poland no less) over the next four years.

Farmako was just founded in September 2018. They began distribution to German pharmacies this month. They also have an office in London and cross-European aspirations.

While Farmako is the first to announce such a unique cross-border production and distribution agreement, however, they are far from the only ones planning the same. In fact at least Tilray is expected to announce that their newly-minted Portuguese crop is being processed into oil bound for German pharmacies any day now. It is also not unrealistic to expect that (at least) Canopy Growth, of the big Canadian producers at least, will soon announce the same situation for their crops in countries across the continent, starting with Spain.

Outside Germany of course, this kind of entrepreneurial endeavour is already underway. In the UK, a new import group just announced the first bulk shipment of Dutch medical cannabis into the country, distributed directly to over 1,000 pharmacies nationwide.

There still are a couple of jaw-dropping things to consider about this new German development. Namely, that the amount of just this deal over the next four years between two (relatively new, non-Canadian) companies is approximately five times the amount currently called for in the still pending domestic cultivation bid in Germany.

The second, of course, is that the Polish company on the other side of the border and this ex-im deal, PharmaCann Polska, is a uniquely positioned conglomeration of individuals with apparently Canadian and Israeli market experience. This means that they are already positioned to access the biggest two production markets in the world and are certain to be looking to exploit other Eastern European connections (at minimum). If not ones further afield than that.

One thing is absolutely certain far beyond the particulars of this one deal. The current import limitations from Canada and the Netherlands into the German market appear to be a thing of the past. And the cross-border trade for medical cannabis is now clearly entering a new phase.

Implications

Farmako clearly intends to go after the existing Canadians in the market on price, which means both Canopy Growth and Tilray. But it also means Wayland, at this point is the largest domestic certified producer (albeit with Canadian roots and partners) and an entire licensed facility in eastern Germany ready to go. That is not an insignificant threat and sets up another looming question: Which will actually be cheaper in the long run? Domestically grown German cannabis, or that imported from adjacent countries with lower paying labor markets?

This announcement also means that the “cannabis shortage” in the country is officially over as of this spring. And that won’t just come from Farmako but others already in the market and those angling now to get in via other creative means.

Regardless, what that will do to overall sales, patient numbers and overall speed is another matter.

Other Looming Problems

There are two big issues that this development does not solve of course. The first is the ability of patients to find doctors willing to prescribe the drug, and further to make sure they spend the time filling out the paperwork and negotiating with the patient’s insurer, to make sure that patients can actually get it. Starting with affording medical cannabis in the first place. Most patients on what is known as “statutory” health insurance (90% of the country) cannot afford the out of pocket cost at pharmacies without insurance approvals. Once they get them, they pay up to $12 for a month’s supply (in the case of flower, about an ounce).

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

The second issue is that it is currently unclear, mostly due to the lack of granularity provided by the country’s statutory health insurers, what is actually being prescribed for which kind of condition and to whom. Earlier this month, new information was made available about the overall growth of coverage of medical cannabis in Germany. While the total spending, and rough breakdown of flowers vs. product was provided, it is unclear beyond that, where this is going. There were also apparently just over 46,000 patients in Germany as of December 2018. And this is a growth trend that while clearly on an upward trajectory for the last three quarters is slow and steady as she goes. The sudden uptick in the market seen in the second quarter of last year appears to be an anomaly.

Further, understanding market price points is also hard. Flos and prepared pharmaceuticals such as Sativex are highly expensive right now. In the case of the Canadian firms, their medical exports are being sold at about twice the price of their domestic recreational sales points. Look for this to change dramatically as real competition heats up across Europe (and from more distributors than just this Frankfurt upstart).

What the news in other words about Farmako really signifies is that the price barriers in the medical market are about to come down at the point of sale- and hopefully in the short term, patients will not have to rely on the approval of their insurance companies to be able to access the drug because they will be able to afford it themselves. No matter what happens with the bid. Although this too will also serve to lower prices.

The great medical normalization race for medical cannabis in Europe is now officially “on.” And that is good news not only for patients, but of course, the industry.