Tag Archives: manufacture

Unnecessary Obstacles for the Canadian Edibles Market

By Steven Burton
No Comments

The edible cannabis market in Canada is still green. Delayed by a year from the legalization of dried flower, the edibles and extracts market poses significant opportunities for manufacturers. Edibles and extracts typically have higher profit margins than dried flower (“value-added” products) and consumer demand appears to be high and rising. So, what is causing trouble for cannabis companies trying to break into edibles and extracts? Below are four observations on the market potential of edibles in Canada.

Canada’s Edibles Market: The Numbers

In 2020, Canada – the largest national market in the world for cannabis products – grew more than 60%, largely as a result of the introduction of new products introduced in late 2019, often called “Cannabis 2.0,” which allowed the sale of derivative products like edibles. Deloitte estimates that the Canadian market for edibles and alternative cannabis products is worth $2.7 billion, with about half of that amount taken up by edibles and the rest distributed amongst cannabis-infused beverages, topicals, concentrates, tinctures and capsules. More recently, BDSA forecasts the size of the Canadian edibles market to triple in size by 2025 to about 8% of the total cannabis dollar sales.

Source: BDSA

In December 2020, the Government of Canada reported that edibles made up 20% of total cannabis sales; Statistics Canada data shows that 41.4% of Canadians who reported using cannabis in 2020 consumed edibles. While sales have gone up and down over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are clear indications that there is a substantial demand for edibles and extract products, which can be consumed more discreetly, with greater dosage precision and with fewer adverse effects (as opposed to smoking).

While sales of regulated edibles products continue to grow, edibles, extracts and topicals sales in Canada are facing a similar problem as dried flower sales: inventory growth is outpacing sales. Unsold stock sitting in inventory is growing at a dramatic pace, showing a clear lag in demand for these products on the legal market. How do we understand this contradiction?

1) Complex Regulatory Standards are a Major Barrier

Cannabis edibles compound the already existing problems around the conceptualization of cannabis products regulation. How should it work? Edibles can be considered in any of the following categories:

  • Cannabis as a pharmaceutical with medical application. Requires strict dosage and packaging requirements;
  • CBD as a nutraceutical with health benefits claimed. Requires specific nutraceutical regulations be followed;
  • Food product to be consumed. Must comply with food safety regulations around biological, chemical, physical hazards through a risk-based preventive control program. A full supply chain and ready-to-recall based system of regulatory standards need to be followed.

Incorporating elements from each of these three regulatory regimes into a single regulatory standards body is a confusing logistical and compliance challenge for both the regulators, and the producers and retailers of the product.

In mid-2019, the Government of Canada released the Good Production Practices Guide for Cannabis. This merged cannabis-specific regulations with food safety-specific regulations. Rigorous food safety requirements were combined with equally rigorous cannabis production and processing requirements, resulting in extremely laborious, detailed and specific regulations. These span everything from building design and maintenance, to pest control, to employee sanitation, to traceability – at all levels of the process. Navigating these regulations is a challenge, especially for many smaller producers who lack the necessary resources, like automation technology, to devote to understanding and tracking compliance.

2) Low Dosage Regulations Give an Edge to the Illicit Market

When edibles were legalized, THC dosage was capped at 10mg per package. For more experienced consumers, especially those who are dealing with chronic pain and other medical needs, this limit is far too low – and the unregulated market is more than able to fill this gap. One analyst from Brightfield pointed out that the dosage restriction, in combination with other regulations, will make it harder for the edibles market to grow in Canada.

It also makes the unregulated market almost impossible to beat. Barely more than half of cannabis consumers in Canada buy exclusively from government-licensed retailers, while 20% say that they will only buy unregulated products. According to a Deloitte report, 32% of legacy cannabis consumers said that unregulated products were better quality, and 21% reported that they preferred unlicensed products because there were more options available. Almost half of respondents also reported that quality was the biggest factor that would cause them to switch to regulated sources, and 28% said that higher THC content would prompt them to switch.

3) There is a Big Price Disparity between Legal and Illicit Edibles

As a result of dosage requirements and other factors, price per gram of regulated edible product is much higher than that of flower, unregulated edibles and edibles available through regulated medical distributors.

If you take the BC Cannabis Store’s price for Peach Mango Chews as an example: a 2pc package is $5.99. Since the dosage limits at 10mg per package, that’s the equivalent of $0.60/mg or $600/gram. A quick Google search reveals that an easily available edible from a medical cannabis distributor contains 300mg of THC and sells for $19.00, a price of $63.00/gram.

That means that not only is 10mg too low a dose for many users to achieve the result they were looking for, but the dosage restriction also makes the products less attractive from both a nutrition and cost standpoint. Deloitte reportsthat higher prices is the reason that 76% of long-time cannabis consumers continued to purchase from unregulated sources. The regulated industry as a whole is missing its legal market opportunity, where consumers prefer a lower price product with a greater range of dosage availability.

4) The Range of Products Available is Too Limited for Consumers

For most of 2020, chocolate edibles were the dominant product in this category in the Canadian market, garnering 65% of all edibles sales. But is this reflective of consumer wants? Despite a demand for other kinds of edibles like the ever-popular gummies, there are still only a few edible brands that offer the range of products consumers are asking for. According to research from Headset, there are 12 manufacturers in Canada making edibles but only two of them produce gummies. In comparison, 187 brands make gummies in the United States.

While some of this delay is likely due to the long licensing process in Canada and the newness of the market, there are other factors that make it challenging to bring a variety of products to market. The province of Quebec, Canada’s second-largest province, has banned the sale of edibles that resemble candies, confections, or desserts that could be attractive to children – giving yet another edge to unregulated sellers who can also capitalize on illegal marketing that copies from existing candy brands like Maynard’s.

When companies do want to introduce new products or advertise improvements to existing product lines, they are restricted by stringent requirements for packaging and marketing, making it harder to raise brand awareness for their products in both the legal and unregulated markets. Industry players are also complaining about government restrictions on consumers taste-testing products, which further compounds challenges of getting the right products to market.

In the meantime, illicit producers have also shown themselves to be savvy in their strategies to capture consumers. It is not uncommon to find illicit products packaged in extremely convincing counterfeit packaging complete with fake excise stamps. New consumers may assume the product they are purchasing is legal. Availability of delivery options for higher dosage, lower price illicit products is also widespread. All of this adds up to significant competition, even if it were easier to meet regulatory requirements.

Conclusion: Significant Room for Growth Remains Limited by Government Regulations

These four challenges are significant, but there are a number of opportunities that present themselves alongside them. A year and a half into the legalization of edibles, cannabis companies are getting a better picture of what Canadian consumers want and low dosages are proving to be desirable for Canadian consumers in some areas.

Some of the many infused products on the market today

In particular, sales of cannabinoid-infused beverages far outpaced other edibles categories last year, likely tied to the availability of these products in stores over the summer of 2020. BDSA’s research has shown that, in contrast with American consumers, the lower THC dosage for cannabis beverages is an advantage for Canadian consumers. Major alcohol brands like Molson Coors and Constellation Brands are investing heavily in this growing product area – though there the dosage limits also apply to how many products a consumer can buy at a time.

At the same time, the large quantity of unsold cannabis flower sitting in storage also poses an opportunity. While its quality as a smokeable product may have degraded, this biomass can be repurposed into extracts and edibles. Health Canada has also shown some responsiveness to industry needs when it shifted its stance to allow for Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP), which will help improve shelf life of products.

While strict regulatory obstacles remain, challenges will continue to outweigh opportunities and the illicit market will remain a strong player in the edibles market. As regulations become clearer and producers become more accustomed to navigating the legal space, barriers to entry into the regulated cannabis market and specifically the extracts and edibles market, will decrease. Meanwhile, those getting into the edibles market will do well to be wary of the challenges ahead.

Challenges with Process Scale Up in Cannabis/Hemp Extraction

By Darwin Millard
No Comments

What makes scaling up your process so difficult?

There are many factors that can lead to the challenges people face when scaling up their processes. These challenges are not unique to the cannabis/hemp industry, but they are exacerbated by the consequences generated from decades of Reefer Madness. In my time operating in the cannabis/hemp space, 15+ years, I have seen established equipment vendors and sellers of laboratory supplies, like Sigma-Aldrich (now Millipore-Sigma), Fisher-Scientific, Cerilliant, Agilent, and others, go from reporting individuals inquiring about certified reference materials to setting up entire divisions of their companies to service the needs of the industry. Progress. But we are still a fledgling marketplace facing many challenges. Let’s look at a few specific to process scale up.

Darwin Millard will deliver a presentation on this topic during the Cannabis Extraction Virtual Conference on June 29. Click here to learn more.Equipment Availability: Lack of available equipment at larger and larger process scales can severely impact project timelines. Making not only equipment acquisition difficult, but also limiting the number of reputable equipment manufacturers you can work with.

Non-Linear Expansion: NEVER assume your process scales linearly. Perhaps one of the most avoidable mistakes during process scale up. You will quickly find that for many processes you cannot just put in a larger unit and expect a proportional increase in output. This is because as process equipment increases so to must utilities and other supporting infrastructure, but not only that, process vessel geometry, proportions, and design are contributing factors to process efficiency as your scale of operations increases.

Hazardous Material Quantities: Just as important to the process as the equipment are the solvents and reagents used. As your scale of operations increases so does your demand and production of hazardous materials; solvents including carbon dioxide (CO2), ethanol, and liquid petroleum gases (LPG) like Butane and Propane are obvious hazards, but so too are the refrigerants used in the chillers, fuels used to power generators, steam created to heat critical systems, and effluents and wastewater discharged from the process and supporting systems. Not every municipality wants thousands of gallons of flammable substances and hazardous waste being generated in their backyard…

Contractor/Vendor Misrepresentation: Finding out in the middle of you project that your contractor or equipment vendor has never set up a system at this scale before is never a good feeling. Unfortunately, contractor and vendor misrepresentation of qualifications is a common occurrence in the cannabis/hemp space.

If all this was not bad enough, all too often the consequences of improper planning and execution are not felt until your project is delayed or jeopardized due to misallocation of funds or undercapitalization. This is especially true when scaling up your production capacity. Now let’s look at some ways to avoid these mistakes.

The Rule of 10

Construction drawings for a piece of process equipment.

When scaling up your process, NEVER assume that a simple linear expansion of your process train will be sufficient. It is often the case that process scale up is non-linear. Using the Rule of 10 is one way of scaling up your process through a stepwise iterative approach. The Rule of 10 is best explained through an example: Say you are performing a bench-top extraction of a few grams and want to scale that up to a few thousand kilograms. Before jumping all the way to your final process scale, start by taking a smaller jump and only increase your bench-top process by a factor of 10 at a time. So, if you were happy and confident with your results at the tens of grams scale, perform the same process at the hundreds of grams scale, then the thousands of grams scale, tens of kilograms scale, and so forth until you have validated your process at the scale of operations you want to achieve. By using the Rule of 10 you can be assured that your process will achieve the same yields/results at larger and larger scales of operation.

Scaling up your process through an iterative approach allows you to identify process issues that otherwise would not have been identified. These can include (but by no means should be considered an exhaustive list) improper heat transfer as process vessels increase in size, the inability to maintain process parameters due to inadequately sized utilities and/or supporting infrastructure, and lower yields than expected even though previous iterations were successful. However, this type of approach can be expensive, especially when considering custom process equipment, and not every processor in the cannabis/hemp space is going to be in the position to use tools like the Rule of 10 and instead must rely on claims made by the equipment vendor or manufacture when scaling up their process.

The Cannabis/Hemp Specific Process Equipment Trap

How many times have you heard this one before: “We have a piece of process equipment tailor-made to perform X,Y,Z task.”? If you have been around as long as I have in the cannabis/hemp space, probably quite a few times. A huge red flag when considering equipment for your expansion project!

Unless the equipment manufacturer is directly working with cannabis/hemp raw materials, or with partners who process these items, during product development, there is no way they could have verified the equipment will work for its purported use.

GMP compliant phytocannabinoid processing facility underconstruction.

A good example of this are ethanol evaporation systems. Most manufacturers of evaporators do not work with the volumes of ethanol they claim their systems can recover. So how did they come up with the evaporation rate? Short answer – Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, and Fluid Mechanics. They modeled it. This much surface area, plus this much heat/energy, with this much pressure (or lack thereof), using this type of fluid, moving through this type of material, at this rate of speed, gets you a 1000-gal/hr evaporator or some other theoretical value. But what is the real rate once an ethanol and cannabis/hemp solution is running through the system?

For a straight ethanol system, the theoretical models and experimental models are pretty similar – namely because humans like alcohol – extensive real-world data for ethanol systems exist for reference in designing ethanol evaporators (more accurately described as distillation systems, i.e. stills). The same cannot be said for ethanol and cannabis/hemp extract systems. While it is true that many botanical and ethanol systems have been modeled, both theoretically and experimentally, due to prohibition, data for cannabis/hemp and ethanol systems are lacking and the data that do exist are primarily limited to bench-top and laboratory scale scenarios.

So, will that 1000-gal/hr evaporator hit 1000-gal/hr once it is running under load? That’s the real question and why utilizing equipment with established performance qualifications is critical to a successful process scale up when having to rely on the claims of a vendor or equipment manufacturer. Except this is yet another “catch 22”, since the installation, operational, and performance qualification process is an expensive endeavor only a few equipment manufacturers servicing the cannabis/hemp market have done. I am not saying there aren’t any reputable equipment vendors out there; there are, but always ask for data validating their claims and perform a vendor qualification before you drop seven figures on a piece of process equipment on the word of a salesperson.

Important Takeaways

Improper design and insufficient data regarding process efficiencies on larger and larger scales of manufacturing can lead to costly mistakes which can prevent projects from ever getting off the ground.

Each aspect of the manufacturing process must be considered individually when scaling your process train because each element will contribute to the system’s output, either in a limiting or expansive capacity.

I go further into this topic in my presentation: Challenges with Process Scale Up in the Cannabis/Hemp Industry, later this month during Cannabis Industry Journal’s Extraction Virtual Conference on June 29th, 2021. Here I will provide real-world examples of the consequences of improper process scale up and the significance of equipment specifications, certifications, and inspections, and the importance of vendor qualifications and the true cost of improper design specifications. I hope to see you all there.

Until then. Live long and process.

Heat-Not-Burn: A Q&A with Mike Simpson, CEO and Co-Founder of Omura

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Heat-not-burn is a non-combustion technology consisting of a heating source and either an oven that the user packs cannabis into or a stick pre-filled with cannabis. The cannabis is heated to a lower temperature than a combusted joint or bowl to create an aerosol that the user inhales. Heat-not-burn in this way is distinct from traditional vaping where a liquid or oil is heated to become a vapor and inhaled.

Omura is a design company that has developed a platform product for the heat-not-burn market.

We spoke with Mike Simpson, CEO and co-founder of Omura. Mike co-founded Omura in 2018 after an international design career where he spent much of his time in Japan working with consumer products.

Aaron Green: Mike, what trends are you following in the market?

Mike Simpson: I’m always tracking trends in the heat-not-burn space. Because of my background, I know that the tobacco industry inspires a lot of the technology in the cannabis space. If you look at all the vape pens, that technology was initially developed for big tobacco, which then later was adopted by cannabis. I’m always looking to stay educated on what’s happening in the tobacco industry, as I know it’s directly tied to my work in cannabis.

I’m also looking at what’s happening all over the world with legislation. I’ve been studying it for years, but this past year has been phenomenal. Seeing five new states go to some level of legalization, the federal law and new states legalizing cannabis in the 2020 Election. I believe the Biden/Harris victory will have a major impact on the industry, however we still have to see what happens with the Senate. These next couple of years are going to be very interesting to see how things shape out for cannabis.

Aaron: What are you personally interested in learning more about?

Mike Simpson, CEO and co-founder of Omura

Mike: I am interested in learning how the world is going to behave next year with this new life that’s been thrusted upon us. How effective is the new vaccine going to be? How are people going to retrospectively look at this year, and the lifestyle that they used to have before going into COVID? How much of it’s going to become permanent? How much of this Zoom life will we continue to enjoy? In the future, will office spaces become obsolete? How much will we still be using home deliveries? Do we actually want to go to restaurants again? That’s what I’m very interested in learning about is how human behavior and the world will change because of what’s happening right now.

Aaron Green: How did you get started at Omura?

Mike Simpson: Great question. I moved to Japan as a designer working for Lego and set up their design office for Lego toys. After Lego, I started working instead with Nike and Adidas designing performance sneakers and apparel for a couple of years until I found Big Tobacco — which is where my Omura story begins. I rapidly found myself in a position where I was creating new technologies, for the consumption of nicotine and tobacco. While working on an early project, I was asked if I knew any science fiction writers. Thanks to Lego, I just so happened to know Syd Mead, the designer for popular sci-fi films including BladeRunner, Tron and Aliens. So, I called him and we worked on a project which was aimed at setting the future of the smoking industry. Obviously, this was a brilliant project for someone like myself to get involved in. We came up with several scenarios that depicted the future of what tobacco consumption would look like, and each of them essentially included vaporization. This was before the vaporization days which made it kind of a difficult sell. I spent many years working on where we could use existing technologies in order to execute some of these scenarios. Ten years later, I moved to California, and I started studying the cannabis space for Big Tobacco which ultimately led me to Omura.

Aaron: Can you give me a reference point on the date when you were back in California?

Mike: I came here eight years ago, and I was in Japan pretty much 10 years prior to that.

Essentially what I realized when I got to California was that cannabis was perfect for heat-not-burn because of all the cannabinoids and the terpenes. You heat it up, and you get all of the good properties out of it without the need for combustion. There were already hundreds of products in the market, which validated that people love doing it.

However, there was a ritual: you needed to buy the flower, grind it, pack the device, select the temperature and then use the same mouthpiece repeatedly. And it doesn’t stop there. When the session is finished, you dig out the used flower with a metal spatula or brush. After every 10 or 15 times you have to clean it with rubbing alcohol to get rid of any existing residue from those sessions. This is just a big messy job with a massive amount of inconsistency and variability. For me, it was mind blowing that people would even go through this procedure. With Omura, I knew we needed to simplify that process. Our product comes with a pre-filled flower stick with an exact dose, that you place in the device very simply. You then use the stick as the mouthpiece and when you’re finished, throw the flower stick in the trash. It’s compostable and biodegradable. So we eliminated all of those pain points.

Aaron: Great! Where are you guys based out of?

Mike: Venice, California.

Aaron: So, what makes the Omura vaporizer different from other heat-not-burn products? You mentioned you have the disposable cartridge. Is there a design philosophy around it that you can talk more about?

Mike: Omura comes with 12 flower sticks in child-proof packaging. What makes us different is that we have our proprietary flower stick and device that work together. With our heat-not-burn technology, you get all the terpenes, but when you set fire to it, as you would with other products, you mask that with smoke. Our product is different from anything else in the market, because it has simplified the user experience through efficiency, user interaction and also through design as well.

The other founders come from deep design and technology backgrounds, designing technologies for Apple and Philips Electronics, so it was an important focus for us with Omura. Our newest device, the Series X was designed by Michael Young, a world-renowned industrial designer who has built an impressive portfolio of innovative products.

The Omura Series X

With Omura, we’re bringing sophistication of the design world into the cannabis world. It’s not just about simplifying the experience and making a great kind of efficient method of consumption, it’s also about creating something for everyday use that is beautifully designed and easy to use.  

Aaron: The Series X is Omura’s latest device. Can you tell me what changes you’ve implemented to make it better than the first version?

There are a few differences between the Series 1 and Series X: First, the new design fits in the palm of your hands so it’s discreet. It comes with a USB-C charging base that automatically connects with magnets. We’ve also improved the efficiency of the oven. The first device boiled 94% of the cannabinoids, this one now boils 99%. We’ve increased user-efficiency, by removing the button from the Series 1 making it so all you have to do is put the flower stick in and the device starts automatically. Additionally, we wanted to give users an option between a hotter or cooler experience so we added an extra heat curve, as we recognize that some of our CBD users prefer more of a terpene experience.  

Aaron: Can the user modify that with an app?

Mike: It is a very simple switch on the bottom of the device that allows you to toggle between the higher and lower temperature curves

Aaron: Okay, cool. Can we talk about your supply chain a little bit here? Do you manufacture everything in Los Angeles? Or do you have partners? 

Mike: Everything is designed in the US and manufactured in China. Which is fairly common throughout the industry. Shenzhen is well known for making products for the vaping industry. We create empty tubes filled in a batch production process. All the flower is grown here in the US. To clarify, we aren’t a plant-touching company. We don’t have a cannabis license. When it comes to THC, we have partnership deals. We work with select cannabis brands which is how we are able to sell in dispensaries. On the other hand, our CBD model is split. We have two brands of our own. Libertine, which is more of a male-focused Gen Z brand. Then we have Oriel, which is more of a wellness brand, catered to women.

Aaron: So how would an aspiring brand get on your platform?

Mike: Good question. Any brand or company who is interested in partnering with Omura can contact us through our website, www.omura.com, on Instagram @Omura or via email: hello@omura.com. We would then assess them to see if they’re a good fit. Currently we’re looking to span quite a large kind of demographic as far as appeal. So, if these prospective partners are in a territory, whether it be California or another state, have good market share and high-quality flower, then we would be very open to having a conversation.

Aaron: That’s the end of the interview — thanks Mike!

Green Mill Supercritical: An Interview with CEO Wes Reynolds

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) extraction is a processing technique whereby CO2 is pressurized under carefully controlled temperatures to enable extraction of terpenes, cannabinoids and other plant molecules.

Green Mill Supercritical is a Pittsburgh-based manufacturing and engineering company focused on cannabis and hemp extraction. The company offers a range of CO2 extraction equipment where users can tune and control their extraction methods.

We spoke with Wes Reynolds, CEO of Green Mill Supercritical. Wes recently joined Green Mill as CEO and investor in the company after a long career at the Coca-Cola Company in senior sales and general management roles.

Aaron Green: Wes, thank you for taking the time to chat today. How did you get involved in Green Mill?

Wes Reynolds: I came out of a 20-year career at Coca-Cola, where I lived and worked around the world. I was a sales and general management guy with Coke, and learned a lot about running businesses and how to drive growth. I left Coke in 2017. After that successful career I wanted to be in the cannabis space. I felt like cannabis was a growing space with a lot of opportunity and a lot of misperceptions out there, particularly around the foundations of what I would call the “evil reputation” of cannabis. I just found that abhorrent and wanted to be part of changing it.

Wes Reynolds, CEO of Green Mill Supercritical

So I ran the Florida operations for Surterra, which is now called Parallel, for a year out of Tampa, and we did a great job of growing that business in Florida. As the president of the Florida operation for Surterra, I saw everything seed-to-shelf for the industry. We had a 300,000-square-foot greenhouse in Central Florida, we had dispensaries, we had all the production, distribution and all the marketing. I was really able to learn the industry top to bottom.

When I left Surterra, I started looking at various investment opportunities and thinking about what I might want to do next. I came across Green Mill out of Pittsburgh, and was really impressed with the technology that they had put together. Having run a company where we used CO2 extraction, I had experiences with systems that didn’t work when they were supposed to or didn’t work the way they were promised, which led to lots of downtime, lots of frustration and lots of babysitting. I was impressed with Green Mill’s engineering approach and decided that I’d like to be involved with them. I originally considered just being an investor, but more and more conversations led to a greater understanding of some basic business administrative needs that they had as well. One thing led to another and I agreed to come on as the CEO, and I’m also an investor.

I’m excited about what we’re doing at Green Mill. I think that bar none, we make the best supercritical CO2 extraction equipment out there. We continue to innovate on that every day. We want to push CO2 beyond known limits, which is our stated goal as a company. We believe in CO2 and we’re living our goal in that we really are pushing it beyond known limits. There are new things we’re uncovering every day where we go, “Oh, my God, I didn’t know we can do that with CO2!” So, that’s kind of fun.

Aaron: Can you tell me just a high-level overview of how CO2 extraction works?

Wes: A supercritical CO2 extraction system is a collection of extraction vessels and fractionation vessels or collection vessels. In our case fractionation because we’re doing multiple collections through a single run. Then you need a system of pumps and valves and tubing, etc. to move the solvent in a supercritical state through the packed biomass, and then move the extracted compounds into a set of collection vessels. It sounds very easy. But the key to supercritical CO2 extraction is controlling temperature, flow rate and pressure. The better you can control temperature, flow rate and pressure, the more precise of an outcome you’re going to get. For example, say you run a three-hour extraction run, and you want to run it at 3500 psi. Well, you know, a competitive system might fluctuate 300 to 400 psi on either side of 3500. Whereas our system currently fluctuates more like five to 10 psi on either side of the 3500. So, there is much more control and precision.

Our whole goal, when we’re talking about pushing CO2 beyond known limits, is how do we continue to chase that holy grail of perfect control of temperature, flow rate and pressure? One of our advances so far is a proprietary pump, for example, that’s a liquid displacement pump that we engineer and build. It ensures a very even and consistent flow, independent of the pressure setting. So, that flow rate doesn’t change in our system compared to what you would see with another system. It sounds like a minor thing, except that at the end of a run, if you expected to get a certain set of molecules, you’re going to get a different set of molecules if your temperature and flow rate and pressure are varying, because what you’re doing is disrupting the density of the CO2 as it flows.

It’s about building a system that is precise in that way, I think, that requires enormously skilled engineering effort and design effort on the front end, and then requires us to have advanced production and manufacturing capabilities in our shop in Pittsburgh. Our customers are clearly impressed with the levels of consistency that they’re getting out of their system.

Aaron: You talked about precision and consistency as two items. Is there anything else that makes Green Mill different?

Wes: I’m a brand guy. I believe in brands. I came out of a 20-year Coca-Cola career.

The way that the cannabis industry is going in total, in my opinion, is the consumer is going to get more and more discerning along the way. Up until this point, everybody thinks “oh, we have THC and CBD and we have intensity.” But the more sophisticated and educated consumers get, the more discerning they’re going to be about what products they want to put in their bodies.

What makes Green Mill different is that we’re building a system that allows the operator of that system to create differentiated products for the marketplace. So, it’s not simply “CBD is CBD.” It’s: what plant did you start with? How can you maintain as many of the characteristics of that plant as possible?

We’re going to create the most sophisticated tool possible to allow the operator to create products that can be differentiated in the marketplace for a discerning consumer at a premium price. That way, you can create a market where there might not have been a market before, instead of just “hey, I’ve got X pounds of biomass that I need to extract. Give me your bluntest instrument and let me extract.”

Green Mill Supercritical’s SFE Pro

We currently make five different systems. First is the SFE Pro. We make a seven and a half liter and a 10-liter version, with two-vessel configurations of each of those. Then we have what we call a Parallel Pro, which has four 10-liter vessels and two pumps, with two streams running parallel to each other and emptying into shared collectors. It doubles the extraction rate, and you don’t expand the footprint very much. But 10-liter vessels are the biggest vessels we use. Because when you go too large with the vessel, you are giving up something in terms of the ability to control temperature, flow rate and pressure. Your efficiency starts to drop with higher vessel volume.

One of the things that makes Green Mill different is our extraction rate. Our Parallel Pro can do 145 pounds a day of biomass. We think that’s a significant amount, given the demand that’s out there for unique products. What we’re advocating for is multiple extraction systems instead of giant permanent installations of extraction systems, that end up limiting your flexibility. Big systems also prevent you from creating redundancies in your operating system. So, when your extraction system goes down, you’re done. Versus in our universe, we would say, you might want to have three or four extraction systems in different locations, running different products. Our price points are such that that’s very doable.

Aaron: How does the breakdown look between your cannabis and hemp clients?

Wes: A lot of that is legislative frankly. It has to do with what the environment is like at the moment. About 60% of our customers are small hemp farmers. And then we have the other 40% in the cannabis space that are medical or adult use producers.

CO2 extraction has a lot of applications beyond cannabis. We have a couple of customers using our system for hops extraction, for example. We see an enormous opportunity out there for non-cannabis botanical extraction, but our primary focus is cannabis. That is what we’re designing this system to do.

We find that small hemp farmers love our system because it is reliable and very automated. We have proprietary software that operates the whole system. You load and run various “recipes,” at least we call them recipes. What you are doing is setting flow rate, setting temperatures, setting pressures, etc., then that proprietary software has an unbelievable ability to control everything through the process. I’ve talked to several different operators who have used other machines, and then found themselves on a Green Mill system and couldn’t believe how easy, but also feature-rich it was.

I talk about it like it’s like an oven, you know, you set the oven at 375 degrees. And a really good oven stays right at 375. You still need to be a good chef to be able to make that perfect cheesecake. But without that oven, your hands are tied, so you are constantly trying to check those, “is it still 375? I don’t know!” With our system, if it says 375, it holds at 375. So we’re pretty excited about that.

And we’re going to continue to innovate. For example, we have a proprietary heat exchanger that we use on our systems. It’s actually 3D printed stainless steel. It’s about a 20-pound piece of steel that’s been printed to have a special tubing shape in the center only possible with 3D printing that allows us to heat CO₂ very quickly.

Aaron: That’s very cool. I’m noticing a lot actually, the innovations in cannabis are creating these adjacent market opportunities in botanicals. So, I think that’s interesting you point that out. You mentioned terpenes are one of the things you collect out of the CO2 extraction. Can you talk about the crude that comes off and how people are either monetizing or formulating that crude?

Wes: Our goal is to produce the “purest crude” possible. So, we want “less crude” crude. I think that we’re at the beginning of this, Aaron. We’re nowhere near the end, which is what I find so exciting, because all of our innovation, all of our continued development and all of our experimentation is designed to keep thinking, how do we push this further and further and further and get a more refined crude.

Green Mill Supercritical’s Parallel Pro

We just welcomed Jesse Turner to our team as Director of R&D, who is a well-known extraction guy in the industry. He came from Charlotte’s Web and Willie’s Reserve, and has been doing independent consulting. He’s just a rock star. He’s already off and running on experimenting with different stuff.

I think that we are just at the beginning of seeing more and more of that opportunity to help people realize, “Oh, my gosh, I did not know you could do this!” Terpenes are a good example. I think we are only scratching the surface of what terpenes can do. I mean, a cannabis plant has 400 plus molecules and we know a good bit about probably 10 or 12 of them. So, what are we going to find out about the other 390? And as we do, the Green Mill system will be ideal for separating those molecules that we don’t know today are valuable. So, I think that’s part of what we’re chasing as well.

Aaron: So where do you see CO2 extraction fitting into the cannabis and hemp supply chain?

Wes: For any product on the market that is not a smokable flower it helps to have an extraction process. There may be some products that come out that we don’t know about yet that are not going to qualify in that category. Whether you are talking about vape cartridges, or lozenges, or gummy bears, or whatever it is, they are going to start with extract. I think what consumers want is zero adulteration of their product. So if you take any botanical product, and if it is GMO-free, does not have any pesticides, maybe it is all organic, etc. — there is real consumer appeal to that. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what consumers want.

We believe that we can continue to push CO2 so that there’s no requirement for introduction of any other materials than just CO2, which is a completely inert gas. It’s got no residual effect whatsoever on the product. If we get where we want to go, then eventually you are talking about a pure botanical experience.

Initial upfront capital is higher than you are going to see with ethanol and butane extraction solutions for the same size equipment, but ongoing operating costs of those are much higher, when you weigh it out over a period of time. I think what we are going to find is that people are going to keep coming to CO2 because they realize there are things they can do with it that they can’t do any other way.

The end consumer is really who we want to keep in mind. I think for a long time, this industry was very demand driven. “I have X acres of cannabis product, whether that’s hemp, sativa, indica, whatever it is, and I need to extract this many pounds a day over this period of time.” And we keep asking the question, well, who’s going to buy that product on the other side? What do you want it to look like when you put it out on the market? As opposed to how much raw plant matter do you have? What’s the demand? And that was a difficult conversation. We’re starting to see more people come around to that conversation now. But I think that’s the question we want to keep answering is how do we create those products that are differentiated in the marketplace and that can pass muster in any regulatory environment? People are going to want to know what’s in their product.

Aaron: What trends are you following in the industry?

Wes: As the CEO, I’m particularly interested in the overall development of the landscape of the industry in terms of who’s playing, who’s winning, what’s happening with legislation, MSOs versus SSOs. I’m also interested in the international environment. We have a good bit of interest from multiple countries that have either ordered Green Mill systems or are talking to us about Green Mill systems, including Canada and Latin American countries, some European countries, Australia and New Zealand.“We’re really committed to educational efforts with a very rigorous scientific foundation, but in language that is approachable and people can understand.”

The trends that I’m particularly interested in are more on the business side of the equation, in terms of how this business is going to shake out particularly from a capitalization perspective, as banking laws continue to change, which is a big deal, and the legislative environment gets a little more predictable and a little more consistent.

Aaron: Okay, last question. So what are you personally interested in learning more about?

Wes: Everything, is the short answer! I constantly run this little challenge of trying to understand enough of the science. I’m not a scientist, I’m a sales guy. That was how I grew up: general management and sales. I’ve made my living over many years being wowed by the pros. Depending on the scientists and the very specialized folks to help provide the right answers to things. I’m fascinated by the chemistry and I’m fascinated by the mechanical engineering challenges of what we do at Green Mill. So, I’m always interested in learning about that.

I think there’s a need, and it is helpful to be able to talk about those things in language that the layperson can understand, as opposed to explaining everything in scientific language. I think what I am trying to do is help people put it into a language that they can get, but that is not simple. Language that is correlative to reality. I think there’s so much misunderstanding about how these things work and what’s happening. We’re really committed to educational efforts with a very rigorous scientific foundation, but in language that is approachable and people can understand.

Aaron: Okay, that’s it. Thank you for your time Wes!

Leaders in Infused Products Manufacturing: Part 2

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Editor’s Note: Part 3 will be an interview with Liz Conway, Regional President of Florida at Parallel. In part 4 we’ll sit down with Stephanie Gorecki, vice president of product development at Cresco Labs. 


Cannabis infused products manufacturing is quickly becoming a massive new market. With companies producing everything from gummies to lotions, there is a lot of room for growth as consumer data is showing a larger shift away from smokable products to ingestible or infused products.

This is the second article in a series where we interview leaders in the national infused products market. You can find the first piece here. In this second piece, we talk with Mike Hennesy, vice president of innovation at Wana Brands. Mike started with Wana in 2014 after moving to Colorado and leveraged his science background to transition into product development and innovation where he has helped develop one of the best-known brands in Colorado.

Next week, we’ll sit down with Liz Conway, Regional President of Florida at Parallel. Stay tuned for more!

Aaron Green: Thank you for taking the time today. Just to start off, can you walk me through how you got involved at Wana Brands?

Mike Hennesy: Thanks Aaron. I got involved in the cannabis industry pretty intentionally. After graduating college in 2012, I was determined to get involved. I moved to Colorado from the east coast. I’m originally from Virginia. I moved out here in 2013 and started with Wana in 2014.

Mike Hennesy, Vice President of innovation at Wana Brands

I got involved in the sales side of the business originally – as the company was just starting to emerge into the legal recreational market – and oversaw growth here at Wana during significant changes in the industry. Over time, my role transitioned into innovation and R&D where I am leaning on my background in science.

I now lead new product development and education as Vice President of Innovation, and I’m also completing a master’s degree in cannabis science and therapeutics.

Aaron: So, what does innovation mean to you?

Mike: Innovation for the cannabis industry is pretty unique and interesting. We are just beginning to unpack the pharmacopeia of the cannabis plant as well as starting to understand our own bodies endocannabinoid system.

Innovation spans from genetics of plants and how they are grown to how you deliver cannabinoids to the body and what different ratios and blends of cannabinoids and terpenes you are actually putting in there. So, innovation is not a one size fits all category for cannabis.

Aaron: Sounds like an interesting role! At Wana Brands, and in your role in innovation, how do you think about differentiating in the market with your products?

Mike: I would describe the way we perceive differentiation as going beyond simple developments, such as product forms or new flavors. We see the future of product development trending towards what active ingredients and in what ratios we are putting into products. For example, what kinds of cannabinoids and terpenes are we using? What kinds of drug delivery systems might we be harnessing? How do we put all of these ingredients and technologies into a product to make it more effective?

A simple way to think about all of this is: how is our product going to work better for the consumer? Because that is really the key here. Tasting great is important, but we are delivering a product that provides an experience. We want to continue to make a better experience and a better way for customers to enhance their life.

Aaron: I think that leads nicely into our next question, which is, when you’re thinking about creating a new product for the consumer, what’s your process for creating a new product?

Mike: We have a very full pipeline of new products, and many of these ideas come from networking and speaking with innovators and following the research and science for inspiration and direction. We take this information and start brainstorming as a team. We have a decade of experience in the cannabis space that provides us with a unique lens on how we apply new research to our product development.

From there, we build a product development pipeline of potential ideas and start to prioritize, looking at the feasibility of each of these ideas and their market readiness. Sometimes we have a great idea for a product, but a lack of consumer knowledge may mean we don’t move forward with launching.

Aaron: Can you expand a bit on what you mean by education and how you guys think about education to the end consumer?

Mike: Since product innovation must move with consumer knowledge and cannabis is so new, education is critical. We have a very robust education platform with topics that range from cannabis 101 to the endocannabinoid system, to lessons on terpenes and CBD, as well as trainings on our products themselves. We have both bud tender-facing and consumer-facing trainings. The consumer trainings are on our website, and bud tender trainings are hosted through dispensaries.

Aaron: Is that training electronic training or written material?

Mike: Both, but the primary platform is online in the form of interactive training courses. We also have printed flip book training material in dispensaries and offer in-person presentations, but with the pandemic, we’ve been heavily leaning on the online training content.

Aaron: Alright. So, we’re going to take a different direction here on questions. From your perspective, at the innovation level, can you walk me through your experience with your most recent product launch?

Mike: Most recently, we launched the line of Wana Quick Fast-Acting Gummies. I am extremely excited and proud of this line. They have absolutely exploded in popularity!

The idea for these products started a few years ago as we were learning cannabinoids are not very bioavailable. This means most of the cannabinoids that you consume from an edible do not end up in the bloodstream. Edibles also have a delayed onset and undergo a conversion of THC in the liver, called first pass metabolism, that gives a heavier sedating high. This slow onset and difference in effects with edibles can be a turn off for some consumers, leading us to the idea of developing a fast acting gummie that works differently.

It was about two years of research looking at technologies developed by pharma and nutraceutical companies to improve bioavailability and bypass first pass metabolism. We started looking into nano-emulsions and encapsulation of cannabinoids that help with bioavailability and reduce the onset time. These technologies envelop the cannabinoids like a disguise that tricks the body into absorbing the oily compounds more easily. The encapsulation bypasses the liver and is absorbed into the bloodstream quickly, so their effect starts within five to fifteen minutes. Since they are not processed in the liver, they deliver delta-9 THC instead of 11-hydroxy-THC, giving an effect I describe as a “smoker’s high.”

We trialed and tweaked many technologies before we landed on one that is truly effective and worked with our line of gummies. With this revolutionary technology inside, we then crafted delicious flavors and a new triangular shape to differentiate them from our classic gummies. Because they take effect so quickly and only last about three hours, we thought the Quick Fast-Acting Gummies were the perfect product to use during happy hour. So, we have Happy Hour inspired flavors like Pina Colada, Strawberry Margarita and Peach Bellini.

We launched in March, and already right now, these SKUs in Colorado are #4, #7 and #11 out of all edibles sold in Colorado. And overall, Wana produces eight out of the ten top SKUs in Colorado. That’s according to BDSA, so a pretty impressive achievement!

Aaron: Okay, great, I’d say so! The next question here goes deeper in the supply chain. How do you go about sourcing for the ingredients?

Mike: I am going to start with the cannabis side of things. As I mentioned earlier, cannabis is unique. It is not just one ingredient. It’s many different compounds like the cannabinoids THC, CBD and others, but also terpenes and other beneficial compounds. To make the most effective edibles we partner with growers that care about their genetics, how they are growing, and how they are extracting to create high quality cannabis extracts.

We also understand terpenes are so important in the entourage effect, and that different terpene blends synergize with cannabinoids to produce different effects. Some can be energizing while others are more relaxing. Wana has innovated the terpenes we use by formulating proprietary blends of thirty terpenes or more that replicate indica, sativa and hybrid strains.

We did this by strain hunting the best cannabis in each class and analyzing the strains to understand their profiles. Then using organic, botanically derived terpenes, we build blends in the ratios they are found in the plant and reintroduce them into our edibles. This means Wana edibles match the terpenes that you will find in cannabis, unlike other products that just use distillates where the terpenes are degraded and lost in extraction. This also means we can replicate these blends with our partners in other states, so when you consume a Wana indica or sativa product you’re going to have the same terpene blends and the same experience and feeling every time.

Beyond cannabis and terpenes, we are extremely selective in all of our ingredients. And in the near future we’re implementing an optimized recipe that is all-natural, with no high-fructose corn syrup, as well as moving towards organic ingredient sourcing.

Aaron: Can you give me an example in your role of a challenge that you run into frequently?

Mike: I think that is the exciting thing about working in R&D and new products: there is always a new challenge. I guess I would say if you are not making mistakes, you are not really trying to push the envelope in product development.

We are working with plant matter, terpenes and encapsulation technologies, things that don’t always taste good, and putting them all into edibles. That means we frequently run into the challenge of figuring out how to put the right ingredients for effect in a product, but still make it taste delicious. We are very selective in what ingredients we use and how we’re introducing them to make sure the product still tastes good. We oftentimes come across a great technology—such as a terpene blend or a quick onset delivery system—that does the job, but is not optimal for a gummie recipe, such as the resulting consistency or taste.“These developments are all heading in the direction of delivering consistent repeatable experiences for consumers, which is what I see as the future of cannabis.”

Aaron: Would it be correct to say that formulation is a common thing you run up against in terms of challenges?

Mike: Yes, especially because a lot of the ingredients and technologies we are working with are new. There isn’t a guidebook for how to incorporate encapsulated cannabinoids into a gummy, for example.

That’s the novel aspect of a lot of this: how do you take a terpene blend that’s designed to mimic the cannabis plant and put it in your gummies? What’s the right way to introduce it so they’re not degraded by heat? Formulating with cannabis is about problem solving, and is the backbone to what we do in R&D

Aaron: We’re getting towards the end of the conversation here. And these questions are more geared towards you individually. So, what trends are you following in the industry right now?

Mike: I’ve got to have my eyes on a lot of things. That’s how you innovate in this industry!

I would say No. 1 is still terpenes. We are already innovating there, but I think we’re just scratching the surface of where we’re going to go. I think terpenes are going to unlock a lot of potential in cannabis products in the future, and Wana is going to be innovating there, leading the pack.

Next is minor cannabinoids. Through decades of an illicit black-market, the genetics have skewed towards high THC strains, but the cannabis genome actually allows for many other cannabinoids to be formed. Through the right cultivation and breeding programs, we are going to see a lot more CBG, CBN, CBC, and even more rare cannabinoids like THCV and others.  These currently rare cannabinoids are going to be important for new product development as we learn more about their therapeutic effects.

Then there is continued innovation on delivery systems and bioavailability, functional ingredient blends and more natural products. These developments are all heading in the direction of delivering consistent repeatable experiences for consumers, which is what I see as the future of cannabis.

Aaron: Awesome. What are you interested in learning more about? This could be cannabis related or business related.

Mike: Well, fortunately, I am working on a master’s degree right now and so I get to learn a lot every day. I am most curious to see where science takes us with the endocannabinoid system. It was pretty much unheard of until a few decades ago, and now we understand that it interacts with almost every other system in the body. It is like missing the elephant in the room when you are talking about human biology. The amount of information that we’re going to unlock about how the ECS interacts and regulates our body is going to continue to revolutionize the industry There’s a lot more to be understood around how different compounds interact with the ECS and affect us, and I think we are going to learn how we can use it to tailor other products for  outcomes such as sleep, pain, anxiety, energy and focus.

Aaron: Just a clarification there. What are you working on for your master’s?

Mike: I’m getting a Master’s in Medical Cannabis Science and Therapeutics from the School of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland. It is the very first master’s level program of its kind, and is taught by doctors and pharmacists, so we discuss cannabis as a drug and how it effects the brain and the body. It has been really exciting and I’m looking forward to continuing learning more about this amazing plant!

Aaron: Okay, that concludes our interview!

Leaders in Extraction & Manufacturing: Part 4

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Cannabis extraction and manufacturing is big business in California with companies expanding brands into additional states as they grow. This is the fourth article in a series where we interview leaders in the California extraction and manufacturing industry from some of the biggest and most well-known brands.

In this week’s article we talk with Michael Schimelpfenig, head of R&D and BHO extraction manager at Bear Extraction House. Michael worked in the cannabis space for about five years prior to landing his role at Bear, having spent several years in the hills of Humboldt County. The interview with Michael was conducted on August 3, 2020.

In next week’s piece, we sit down with Kristen Suchanec, vice president of Production at Island. Stay tuned for more!

Aaron Green: Good morning Michael and thank you for taking the time to chat with me today!

Michael Schimelpfenig: Thanks, excited to be here!

Aaron: I like to start off the conversation with a question that helps our readers get to know you a little better. So, Michael can you tell me how you got involved at Bear Extraction House?

Michael Schimelpfenig, head of R&D and BHO extraction manager at Bear Extraction House.

Michael: You know, I actually landed my role at Bear through a job search on LinkedIn. I had been working in the traditional market for five years and was getting tired of the irregular paychecks and general uncertainty of working in that market. You know, too many helicopter buzzes and all that. I felt like the risk vs reward just wasn’t there. I like Northern California and knew I wanted to find something up in Humboldt County where I had been fortunate to get experience out in the hills. After I applied on LinkedIn, I was contacted in twenty-four hours. I had an interview twenty-four hours after that and the next day I had a job! It’s been a big change going to a legal company. The possibilities are lightyears beyond what you can do in the traditional market. Lots of resources and equipment available that just aren’t there in the traditional market.

Aaron: Fascinating! I spent a week up on Humboldt last year and it is beautiful up there. The next questions will be focused on product development and manufacturing. What is your decision process for starting a new product?

Michael: We get feedback from a lot of different places. Sometimes a new product idea is coming from our CEO, Per. He comes to me with new ideas and asks if we can do something. Often it will start with a general question. Is it possible with the given capabilities? Is it scalable? Some of our new product ideas are based on market input and then others are based on employee input. Sometimes we have pre-existing ideas and just need to sit down to formalize them. Here at Bear we have the capability of making a lot from a little input.

We’re always playing with ideas. We have lively R&D meetings each week where we throw ideas around. Take byproducts from a product development run for example. Maybe it’s not a byproduct, but maybe a separate new product altogether! Sometimes we’ll start off wanting to make something and, in the process, create something unexpected that we are then able to turn into a product. Creating new products is just as important as improving optimizations. Ideas come from all over the place.

We focus these ideas through the R&D committee. Common questions include: How do we develop the product? What are the costs? Is it marketable? We have to view things from an economic standpoint and we wont proceed until we can figure out what the product can be and what we can make money from. Our R&D committee is made up of our COO, Jeff, our lead extractor, our oven room manager and our post-production manager who focuses on product separation. When we kick a new project off It all takes lots of scheduling and coordination.

Aaron: Are you developing new products internally?

Michael: We do 100% in-house product development and manufacturing. We are formalizing and creating a more focused approach to R&D and are bringing in some academics now. They are young minds with backgrounds in organic chemistry and thermodynamics. This is important because it’s the science behind the process that helps to generate the products. We believe the added talent should help to provide some grounding to the R&D. Before we made a lot of products by accident. The ultimate goal is uniform manufacturing and that requires an understanding of molecular processes.

Aaron: Answer the next question however you like. What does being stuck look like for you?“If a product isnt behaving the way we expect, we will do testing to determine cannabinoid and terpene levels to gain better understanding.”

Michael: Well, there are a couple ways to get stuck. Sometimes you can get stuck with a limited product portfolio. A year and a half ago all we made was live resin. Now we have different levels of live resin and six different vape carts. If you are not changing and developing new products, you are stuck.

When the web of production stops going that is definitely what I consider getting stuck. You can get stuck if sourcing material is difficult to find or cost prohibitive. We will pivot and adjust manufacturing material if that happens. We are also exploring best avenues for sourcing high quality trim and working with farmers to specifically grow strains and exotic genetics. But overall, getting stuck happens. Being stuck, on the other hand, is a lack of creativity.

Aaron: If you get stuck is it usually the same place? Or is it different each time?

Michael: We have redundancies for equipment and components. If we are getting stuck in the same place it is usually due to a lack of source material. Sometimes we get material that degrades prior to extraction. It’s a matter of contacting supplier to coordinate with them on the best approach forward. If a product isnt behaving the way we expect, we will do testing to determine cannabinoid and terpene levels to gain better understanding. In the end, sometimes we just have to pivot to other products with things we have.

Aaron: Thanks for that. Now, imagine you have a magic wand that can take care of your issues. What does your magic helper look like?

Michael: My magic helper would be someone to help with reporting. Someone that can take care of METRC indexing and preparing final R&D reports. Like a magic data processor. Someone to handle the minutiae.

Aaron: Whats most frustrating thing you are going through with the business?

Michael: There’s never enough time! We continue to manufacture at full capacity all the time. With that demanding of a schedule it can be difficult to manage time between day-to-day processes and being able to look at bigger picture.

Aaron: Now for our final question: What are you following in the market and what do you want to learn about?

Michael: I’m following the guys out there that are heavy into crystallization. There are some huge THCA diamonds coming from East Coast Gold. I would like to know what their solution is. What is their magic liquid and process? I am a big fan of diamond growth. You can grow extremely pure isolates that way. We grow our own diamonds and have had them tested greater than 99.99% THCA. I think high level purity THCA from diamonds is preferred versus distillate. There is a difference in the smoke between them too. Having a process for making large quantities of diamonds would open us up to sticking our foot in edibles and topicals too. There is control that comes with having a purity level like that. Dosage is difficult without it. I am also interested in improving extract purity and isolating terpenes. I like solvent-less products. It means it came from a high-quality source. I would be just as happy smoking good flower as concentrate derived from the same flower.

Aaron: Alright that concludes our interview! Thank you again for the time today, Michael!

Michael: Thank you.

Leaders in Extraction & Manufacturing: Part 3

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Cannabis extraction and manufacturing is big business in California with companies expanding brands into additional states as they grow. This is the third article in a series where we interview leaders in the California extraction and manufacturing industry from some of the biggest and most well-known brands.

In this weeks article we talk with Joaquin Rodriguez, chief operations officer at GenX Biotech. Joaquin was introduced into the cannabis industry through a close personal relationship and has spent seven years researching and navigating the cannabis market before jumping into his career with GenX Biotech. The interview with Joaquin was conducted on August 4, 2020.

Next week, we’ll interview Michael Schimelpfenig, head of R&D and BHO extraction manager at Bear Extraction House. Stay tuned for more!

Aaron Green: Hi Joaquin! I appreciate you taking the time to chat today. I’m glad we were able to connect!

Joaquin Rodriguez: Absolutely! I’m looking forward to it.

Aaron: Me too! So, I like to start off the interview with a background question so people get a chance to know about you better. How did you get involved with GenX Biotech?

Joaquin Rodriguez, chief operations officer at GenX Biotech

Joaquin: I went to school at Cal Poly for mechanical engineering and spent some time in the oil industry. In 2011 I was introduced to who would be the future founder of GenX Biotech, Shea Alderete. I spent 7 years diving into cannabis industry to better understand the landscape and Prop 215 (Californias Compassionate Use Act of 1996) and then Prop 64. In late 2017, I joined GenX Biotech to spearhead the acquisition of licensing and scale up distillate manufacturing.

Aaron: Awesome. My next questions are focused on product development. What is your decision process for starting a new product at GenX Biotech?

Joaquin: Our founder, Shea Alderete, is an innovator in product development. He specializes in formulations and new formulas for vape products. We are big on gathering empirical data. In any new product we will run a small batch and test first with heavy cannabis users to gauge their reaction to the product. We will then test with light cannabis users and finally new cannabis users so we get the full spectrum of user experiences. Throughout the process, we are gathering empirical data on things like taste and perceived therapeutic effects.

Aaron: Are you personally involved in manufacturing? Tell me about your process.

Joaquin: I am, yes. We specialize in large scale distillate manufacturing to make THC oil and we formulate batches using cannabis-derived terpenes. This what we call Sauce, a full spectrum high-terpene extract obtained from a butane hash oil (BHO) process. This is a separate extraction method from our alcohol extraction process.

Aaron: Very insightful! What is your process for developing new products?

Joaquin: GenX Biotechs core mission is to bridge the gap between cannabis culture and the science behind cannabis. We focus more on therapeutic effects as well as recreational. We keep a pulse on the industry as a whole to see what people are doing and saying as well as new extraction methods. When we capture that data we evolve and adapt and create new formulations based on that preference and test it out. Its a constant game of does this look good? taste good? make you feel good? how is the potency?” Its really a big collaboration with our end users.

We will also collaborate with other brands and manufacturers to stay ahead of the curve, share information that can make us a better company, more power in numbers is what we say. As an example, Wonderbrett is known for their high-quality flower. They have a high-end product and high-end brand recognition. We would, for example, strategize and collaborate together to utilize a unique cannabinoid and terpene profile and test that with our vape products in the market. It’s more of a collaboration than a white label relationship. In this way, Wonderbrett can expand into the extracts space via their brand. We do this with other brands as well where well use their raw material and joint market the brands on the final product.

Aaron: Fantastic. Are you developing new products internally?

Joaquin: We develop all our products 100% internally.

Aaron: Do you ever bring in external product development consultants?

Joaquin: Not for products, however there are certain situations, like hardware development, where we will work with outside groups that specialize in equipment manufacturing to create something specific and one off for us. We are currently working on bringing to the market an FDA-approved inhaler technology device that is a non-combustible metered delivery device that we are really excited about. In addition, we have an incubator program with our LA partners to introduce new brands to the market which is a great asset for consulting brands looking for a home and multistate resources.

Aaron: Very cool, that’s the first I have head of inhalers in the market. For my next question feel free to answer however you like. What does being stuck look like for you?

Joaquin: Getting stuck can happen in a few different areas. With respect to manufacturing, the main bottleneck issues are consistent quality of the raw biomass materials. Mother nature does not duplicate the same results exactly every time and fluctuations can affect the cost and quality of raw goods. Other things like wear and tear on manufacturing equipment are not normally an issue as everything is stainless steel and pretty stable. But things like valves, gaskets and grommets tend to wear down with consistent use. When those fail, a whole operation can be shut down. We keep a stockpile of those on hand to make sure we stay in production.

“I support the leaders that help increase the overall knowledge for consumer and patents to know the difference between a quality product and a boof product.”Aaron: If you get stuck is it usually the same place? Or is it different each time?

Joaquin: Like I said, if we get stuck its usually in the sourcing of raw materials. Cultivators can have a bad crop or weather might affect their crop. It almost always comes down to the relationship with your cultivators. They fuel the industry and are the back bone of the whole supply chain. If they have any issues it affects everyone down line.

Aaron: Do you ever hire outside consultants when you get stuck?

Joaquin: Not really. We rely on our experience and years of operating and going through our own failures to navigate any issues with manufacturing. Collectively we work together to pivot and adapt to the ever-changing legal cannabis landscape. We do on occasion outsource to a 3rd party to help acquire raw goods. On the other hand, we separately consult for other people and groups looking to build out labs!

Aaron: That’s an excellent position to be in! For the next question imagine there’s a magic wand. What does your magic helper look like?

Joaquin: Someone that can come in and help with taxation. Triple taxation is tough. There’s the cultivation tax, manufacturing tax, state tax and local taxes. Long Beach recently lowered their local tax from six to one percent, so that is encouraging, but there needs to be a fair taxation for this industry to really thrive.

Aaron: Whats the most frustrating thing you are going through with the business?“I’m really excited for the continued education and deregulation of cannabis and its medical applications.”

Joaquin: I think that would be sales downline. With Prop 215 and the transition to prop 64, legal outlets have been heavily truncated. There are now approximately 600 legal retail outlets down from a high of about 4500 prior to prop 64. The competition landscape is really high and its hard to get product on the shelves without proper capital to keep the brand going. It is advantageous to partner with an established distro in order to get involved with their downline and run lean and mean.

Aaron: Now for our final question. What are you following in the market and what do you want to learn about?

Joaquin: I’m really excited for the continued education and deregulation of cannabis and its medical applications. It never should have been illegal to begin with, but with government corruption and greed it was targeted and use for multiple agendas. I support the leaders that help increase the overall knowledge for consumer and patents to know the difference between a quality product and a boof product. You have seen the results of the vape scare and there’s a good reason for it. Most people don’t want to pay the high ticket for legally compliant product so they turn to the illegal side where no regulation or testing is conducted to ensure they are getting safe, quality products.

In addition, the demand is so strong that illegal producers are able to put whatever they want in their products and sell them as if they are legit, provided they have the knock-off packaging, and those operators further harm those people because the state they are selling in hasn’t adapted to the times and has prohibited the availability of legal cannabis. Their inaction and support of the continued “war on cannabis” makes them just as guilty in the results of those people who have fallen ill or been hospitalized.

There have been lots of new studies published that are slowly making their way into social media and reaching consumers so that is encouraging. Another important element is the education of bud tenders because they are the face of the brand when the customer or patient is at a legal dispensary so they need to be educated on what makes for a quality product and how it can help or achieve a desired result for a customer or patient.

Aaron: Well, that concludes the interview Joaquin. Thanks for taking the time today to talk. This is all awesome feedback for the industry. Thanks so much for these helpful insights into product development in the cannabis industry.

Joaquin: Thanks, glad to help!

The Future of Vape Litigation: Temperature Control

By Michael Preciado
No Comments

The e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak of 2019 caught the attention of many, and has brought with it the scrutiny of both regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys eager to act as “civil prosecutors.” As Tolkien would say, the Eye of Sauron has now turned its gaze towards the cannabis vapor industry.

With the misinformation and negative publicity that the EVALI outbreak brought to the industry, vaporizer device manufacturers should expect more lawsuits to be filed against them through 2020 and beyond. The cannabis vapor industry should also expect the theories of defect alleged against their products to become more sophisticated as more plaintiffs’ attorneys enter the arena.

One theory of defect you should expect plaintiff’s attorneys to pursue in 2020 is what I generally refer to as “temperature control litigation.”

These pre-filled cartridges are compatible with just about any battery because of the universal 5/10 thread connectors.

Here is the problem:

Typical additives in cannabis oil, while once thought to be safe, can degrade at higher temperatures into toxic chemicals. For example, the Vape Crisis of 2019 was largely attributed to a cannabis oil additive known as vitamin E acetate. While typically regarded as safe for use in nutritional supplements or hand creams, when used in cannabis oil, investigators believe vitamin E acetate can degrade into a toxic chemical when vaped—and is responsible for causing mass pulmonary illness for thousands of consumers.

Researchers do not fully understand how this process occurs, but chemists from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland found in a recent study that the key is understanding how temperatures affect chemicals when vaping. Through a process known as pyrolysis, the study found that vitamin E acetate can possibly degrade into ketene when vaped at higher temperatures—depending on the type of coil resistance, voltage and temperature configuration used in a vaporizer device. (Ketene has a high pulmonary toxicity, and can be lethal at high concentrations, while low concentrations can cause central nervous system impairment.) Similar studies have also shown that additives like Propylene Glycol (PG), Vegetable Glycerin (VG), and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) can degrade into toxic chemicals at high temperatures—which has led Colorado to ban the use of PEG for inhalable cannabis products altogether.

More shocking, is that such temperature control issues are not limited to additives. It is very common for experienced users to experiment with low to high temperatures when vaping cannabis; it is believed that vaping cannabis at low temperatures (325-350°F) results in a mild high, while vaping cannabis at higher temperatures (400-430°F) results in a more euphoric feeling and intense high. But when cannabis is vaped at even higher temperatures (450°F +), industry experts do not really know if or how cannabinoids and terpenes degrade, which combinations of cannabinoids and terpenes affect degradation and what the health risks could be. It’s anyone’s guess.

Cheap batteries with the universal 5/10 thread can heat the product at inconsistent temperatures, raising safety and quality concerns

These temperature control issues are further complicated due to the universal 5/10 thread. Most consumers purchase cannabis oil through pre-filled “carts” (cartridges)—that are compatible with 90% of vaporizer batteries on the market because of universal 5/10 thread connectors. But vaporizer batteries can operate anywhere from sub-300 degrees to 800 degrees and above. Coupled with varying battery voltages, ceramic coil quality and oil quality, vaporizer batteries can produce a wide range of operating temperatures. Consequently, it is possible users could connect a cart to a vaporizer battery (set at too high a temperature configuration) and risk pyrolysis, change the chemicals inside their cannabis cart, and cause unknown harm to themselves.

Unquestionably, all of the above will result in lawsuits. Companies that manufacture cannabis oil will be sued for failing to conduct emissions testing to properly evaluate safe temperature settings for use of their carts. Vaporizer device manufacturers will be sued for failing to publish warnings, instructions and adequate owner’s manuals regarding the same. And the rallying cry against the cannabis vapor industry will be damaging. Plaintiff’s attorneys will accuse the industry of choosing profits over safety: “The cannabis vapor industry knew cannabis oils could turn into toxic chemicals when heated at high temperatures, but instead of conducting long-term emissions testing to evaluate those concerns, the industry chose profits over safety. As long as the industry made money, no one cared what dangers arose from elevated temperatures—and consumers paid the price.”

With the above as background, it is critical for the cannabis vapor industry to get serious about product testing. The industry needs to know if and why certain cannabinoids, terpenes and additives can turn into toxic chemicals when they are vaporized at high temperatures—and how the industry can guard against such dangers. And to cover their bases, the industry needs to publish proper warnings and owner’s manuals for all products. The time to act is now.

HACCP

HACCP for Cannabis: A Guide for Developing a Plan

By Radojka Barycki
1 Comment
HACCP

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is a systematic approach that evaluates hazards that may potentially be present in food products that can harm the consumer. The process used to manufacture the product is evaluated from raw material procurement, receiving and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product1. The documented process is what is known as HACCP plan. Although HACCP was designed to evaluate hazards in foods, it can be used to assess or evaluate hazards that may potentially be present in cannabis consumable products (edibles and vaping) that can cause harm to the consumer.

HACCP plan development requires a systematic approach that covers 5 preliminary steps and 7 principles. A systematic approach means that each step must be followed as outlined. Skipping a step will result in a HACCP plan that most likely will be ineffective to control potential hazards in the product.

The 5 preliminary steps are:

  1. Establish a HACCP team
  2. Describe the product
  3. Establish the intended use of the product
  4. Develop a flow diagram
  5. Verify the flow diagram

The 7 Principles are:HACCP

  1. Conduct a hazard analysis
  2. Identify the critical control points (CCPs)
  3. Establish critical limits (CL)
  4. Establish monitoring procedures
  5. Establish corrective actions
  6. Establish verification procedures
  7. Establish records and record keeping procedures1,2

It is important to mention that HACCP plans are supported by programs and procedures that establish the minimum operational and sanitary conditions to manufacture safe products. These programs and procedures are known as pre-requisite programs (PRP) or preventative controls1,2.

Figure 1. Flow Diagram

A multidisciplinary team must be established in order to ensure that all inputs of the product manufacturing process are considered during the hazards analysis discussions. The description of the product and its intended use provides detail information on ingredients, primary packaging material, methods of distribution, chemical characteristics, labeling and if any consumer might be vulnerable to the consumption of the product. A verified flow diagram is an accurate representation of the different steps followed during the product manufacturing process and will be used to conduct a hazard analysis. An inaccurate flow diagram will set the stage for an inadequate HACCP plan. Therefore, it is important that the HACCP team members verify the flow diagram. Figure 1 is a flow diagram for a fictional infused apple juice manufacturing plan that I will be using as an example.

The hazard analysis is the backbone of the HACCP plan. There are two elements that must be considered when conducting the hazard analysis:

  • Identification of the hazard associated with the ingredient(s) and/or the product manufacturing steps. These hazards have been categorized as: Biological, chemical (including radiological) and physical. Biological, chemical and physical hazards should be considered for each ingredient, primary packaging and process step. Also, it is important that the team is specific as to what hazard they are referring to. I often find that biological hazards are identified as “pathogens” for example. The team has to be specific on which pathogen is of concern. For example, if you are processing apple juice, the pathogens of concern are pathogenic coli and Salmonella sp. However, if you are processing carrot juice, you need to add Clostridium botulinum as a biological hazard also. If the choice of method to eliminate the hazards is pasteurization for example, the processing temperature-time combinations will differ greatly when manufacturing the apple juice vs. the carrot juice as C. botulinum is an organism that can sporulate and, therefore, is harder to kill.
  • Characterization of the hazard. This implies determining the significance of the potential hazard based on the severity of the consequence if it is consumed and the likelihood of occurrence in the ingredient or process step. Only steps in the process that has significant hazards should be considered further.
Table 1. Ingredient Hazard Analysis

In my professional experience, the hazard analysis is one of the most difficult steps to achieve because it requires the expertise of the multidisciplinary team and a lot of discussion to get to the conclusion of which hazard is significant. I find that a lot of teams get overwhelmed during this process because they consider that everything in the process may represent a hazard. So, when I am working with clients or providing training, I remind everyone that, in the bigger scheme of things, we can get stricken by a lighting in the middle of a thunderstorm. However, what will increase our chances would be whether we are close or not to a body of water for example. If I am swimming in the middle of a lake, I increase my chances to get stricken by the lighting. In comparison, if I am just sitting in my living room drinking a cup of coffee during the thunderstorm, the likelihood of being stricken by a lighting is a lot less. The same rationale should be applied when conducting the hazard analysis for manufactured products. You may have a hazard that will cause illness or death (high on the severity chart) but you also may have a program that mitigates the likelihood of introducing or having the hazard. The program will reduce the significance of the hazard to a level that may not need a critical control point to minimize or eliminate it.

Table 2. Process Hazard Analysis (1)

Clear as mud, right? So, how would this look like on the infused apple juice example? Table 1 shows the hazard analysis for the ingredients. Tables 2 and 3 show the hazard analysis for the part of the process. In addition, I have identified the CCPs: Patulin testing and pasteurization. There is a tool called the CCP decision tree that is often used to determine the CCPs in the process.

Once we have the CCPs, we need to establish the critical limits to ensure that the hazard is controlled. These limits must be validated. In the case of Patulin, the FDA has done several studies and has established 50 ppm as the maximum limit. In the case of pasteurization, a validation study can be conducted in the juice by a 3rd party laboratory. These studies typically are called thermal death studies (TDS) and provide the temperature and time combination to achieve the reduction of the pathogen(s) of concern to an acceptable level that they do not cause harm. In juice, the regulatory requirement is a 5-log reduction. So, let’s say that the TDS conducted in the infused apple juice determined that 165°F for 5 seconds is the critical limit for pasteurization. Note that the 5 seconds will be provided by the flow of the product through the holding tube of the pasteurizer. This is measured based on flow in gallons per minute.

Table 3. Process Hazard Analysis (2)

Monitoring is essential to ensure that the critical limits are met. A monitoring plan that outlines what, how, when and who is responsible for the monitoring is required.

Ideally, the system should not fail. However, in a manufacturing environment, failures can happen. Therefore, it is important to pre-establish steps that will be taken to ensure that the product is not out of the control of the facility in the event of a deviation from the HACCP plan. These steps are called corrective actions and must be verified once they are completed. Corrective actions procedures must address the control of the product, investigation of the event, corrective actions taken so the deviation doesn’t reoccur and product disposition.

Table 4. HACCP Plan Summary

Verification activities ensure that the HACCP plan is being followed as written. Typically, verification is done by reviewing the records associated with the plan. These records include but are not limited to monitoring records, calibration records, corrective action records, and preventive maintenance records for equipment associated with the CCPs. Record review must be done within 7 working days of the record being produced.

Finally, establishing records and record keeping procedures is the last step on developing HACCP plans. Records must be kept in a dry and secure location.

Table 4 show the summary of the HACCP plan for the infused apple juice example.

For more information on how to develop a HACCP plan for your facility, read the resources below:

  1. HACCP Principles and Application Guidelines – The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF)
  2. ASTM D8250-19: Standard Practice for Applying a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) Systems for Cannabis Consumable Products

New Zealand Proceeds With Medical Cannabis Program

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

For those looking for relief from bad news in general, whether it is about the pandemic, the economic meltdown or the impact of both on the cannabis industry, there is a glimmer of hope from the Kiwis this month.

On April 1, New Zealand’s Medical Cannabis Agency opened its application process for cultivation and manufacturing. Beyond sounding the starting gun for the race to local production and imports, the new rules also create a licensing framework that is aligned with international GMP (pharmaceutical grade) quality standards now becoming the norm globally for medicinally bound product.

It is good news for the industry, but it is good for a lot of other people too.

Doctors will be able to prescribe the drug more normally and for more conditions. And patents will have more access.

That said, this will also be a strictly “pharmacized” market for now with an emphasis on dose-controlled products like pills, oils and creams. Edibles are forbidden. And while dried flower will be allowed, smoking is strictly banned.

The license fees for cannabis start-ups are ridiculously low for those used to North American and even European pricing (all in for $7,409). But, even here, it is not a business for those without deep pockets and the right connections. The GMP certification required before such approvals are issued does not come cheap.

What Is Behind the Change?

This is not an overnight edict, obviously. And the wheels have been turning here since late 2018 when palliative patients were given limited access (basically a defence against criminal prosecution for possession). The medical cannabis scheme became law in December last year, allowing doctors to prescribe in limited situations.It remains to be seen if recreational will follow just six months later here.

In opening the licensing process, New Zealand’s health agency is keeping its word about rolling out the program on time. But unlike other jurisdictions, this first step in April is also part of a rolling agenda that will probably see more cannabis reform coming to Kiwis before the end of the year. This would be a lightning quick transition indeed for a country that as of November 2018, became the last country in the world to make hemp seed fully legal for human consumption.

Cannabis was completely outlawed in 1965. That said, it is estimated that about half a million New Zealanders still use the drug either medically or recreationally every year.

But reform is in the air. Lawmakers and policy makers have been looking at other recreational models for at least the last 12 months, including sending observers to Portugal last year to observe how this famously “open” European country has dealt with the issue.

Greater Reform A Possibility In September

This is not going to be all she wrote in New Zealand this year for cannabis reform. Legalizing the personal use of cannabis is being floated as a referendum on the same day as the 2020 General Election (September 19). The referendum may not pass, although support for the measure seems to be steadily rising. Currently about 59% of New Zealanders support medical use reform. A new poll seems to also show (as of March 31), that 54% of Kiwis might  support personal recreational use.

No matter what happens, however, New Zealanders are just the next nation-state to admit that prohibition has roundly failed. 83% of New Zealanders believe that illicit cannabis is widely available anyway.

Regardless of the success of recreational reform, at least this fall, the medical market is likely to expand and the topic of greater reform is clearly in the air.

As always, no matter the geography, medical use comes first. It remains to be seen if recreational will follow just six months later here. Unless of course the general election itself is delayed because of the trailing end of the pandemic.