Tag Archives: manufacturing

By Dr. Ginette M. Collazo

If you are in the business of growing cannabis, you should be aware of the common reasons for production losses, how to address root causes and how to prevent future occurrences in a sustainable way. Human error is the number one root cause identified in investigations for defects in the cultivation business. Sadly, little is known about the nature of these errors, mainly because our quest for the truth ends where it should begin, once we know it was a human error or is “someone’s fault.”

Yes, human error usually explains the reason for the occurrence, but the reason for that error remains unexplained and consequently the corrective and preventive actions fail to address the underlying conditions for that failure. This, in turn, translates into ineffective action plans that result in creating non-value added activities, wasting resources and money as well as product.

Human error can occur when workers are in direct contact with the plant

So after investigating thousands of human error events and establishing systems to improve human reliability in manufacturing facilities, it became even clearer to me, the need to have good, human-engineered standard operating procedures (SOPs).

In the cannabis growing process, there are different types of mistakes that, when analyzed, all can be addressed in the same manner. For example, some common errors that we see are either overwatering or nutrient burn, which can occur when the plant is overfed. The same is true in the opposite scenario; underfeeding or under watering lead to problems as well. If your process is not automated, the reason for these failures was most likely human error. Now, why did the person make that mistake? Was there a procedure in place? Was the employee trained? Is there a specific process with steps, sub-steps, quantities and measures? Were tools available to be able to do the task correctly? There is so much that can be done about these questions if we had clear, well-written and simple, but specific instructions. The benefits greatly outweigh the effort required.

Also, besides providing step-by-step instructions to avoid commission errors (to perform incorrectly as opposed to omit some step), there are other types of errors that can be avoided with SOPs.

Decision making like detecting nutrient deficiencies can lead to human error.

Decision-making is another reason why we sometimes get different results than the ones expected. If during your process there are critical, knowledge-based decisions, workers need to be able to get all the information to detect as well as correct situations. Some decisions are, for example, when (detection) and how (steps) should I remove bud rot? Is there a critical step in the process (caution) to avoid other plants from becoming affected? Any information on the what, how, when, where and why reduces the likelihood of a decision error, later described as obvious.

When we face manufacturing challenges like nutrient deficiency in a particular stage, mold, fungus, gnats or even pollination of females, we want to do whatever we can to prevent it from happening again. So consider that from avoiding to detecting errors, procedures are a critical factor when improving human performance.

Here are some guidelines when writing procedures to prevent human error.

Use them. Enforce the use of procedures at all times. As humans, we overestimate our abilities and tend to see procedures as an affront to our skills.
Make sure it is a helpful procedure and users are involved in the process. People that participate in writing rules are more likely to follow them.
Make sure they are available for their use.
All critical activities should have a procedure.
The procedure needs to be clear, have a good format, clear graphics, appropriate level of detail and specific presentation of limits.
Make sure that facts, sequence and other requirements are correct and all possible conditions are considered e.g. “what if analysis”.

Human error won’t be eradicated unless we are able to really identify what is causing humans to err. If eliminating or “fixing” the actual individual eliminates or potentially reduces the probabilities of making that mistake again, then addressing the employee would be effective. But if there is a chance that the next in line will be able to make the same mistakes, consider evaluating human factors and not the human. Take a closer look and your process, system and ultimately your procedures.

November 16, 2016

Operational Inefficiencies in Commercial Cannabis Cultivation

By Drew Plebani

2 Comments

From the perspective of sustainable cannabis cultivation models, it seems clear that outside of the particular cultivation methodology adopted, that operational efficiency and the implementation of lean manufacturing principles will be necessary for successful and truly “sustainable” businesses, in the current, ever growing, cannabis space.

Implementing lean manufacturing principles as an integral part of the cannabis cultivation facility just makes sense- it is a manufacturing operation after all. From a lean perspective, doing away with the non-value-added costs in the supply chain and production model are quite important.

Let’s look at this case study as evidence for the necessity of operational efficiency:

A 300-light flowering, indoor cultivation facility in Colorado.

The system was purchased with ongoing pest/disease issues, recent updates to Colorado’s approved pesticide list, had prompted the implementation of an updated integrated pest management (IPM) program, which had been moderately successful in developing an albeit short-term solution to keeping ongoing root aphids, powdery mildew, and botrytis, to name a few, at bay.

This existing facility was producing roughly 60 pounds of trimmed cannabis per week, equivalent to almost $6M annual gross, however they were losing a percentage of their yields to product that did not pass Colorado’s contaminant testing requirements.

It is important to note that any deviation from the existing manufacturing schedule and system would create a change to the potential productivity of the system, for better or worse.

At the most basic level, one would hope that a new operator taking over an existing facility would analyze the system and implement incremental or perhaps major changes to create more efficient and profitable outcomes. That being said, currently the average grower likely doesn’t have much understanding of the lean manufacturing process. That will undoubtedly change.

When we look at basic manufacturing facility operations, on an annual gross potential basis, each daily task not completed on the existing manufacturing timeline is, at least, a 0.3% (1/365) loss in potential productivity. In monetary terms, for this particular facility, each 0.3% equates to a potential $18,000 in lost productivity.

The information that follows is taken from observations during the first week of this facility ownership transition and below is a generalized outline representing just one aspect of the operational inefficiencies (created or existing) that were observed :

Plant group A put into flowering 4 days behind schedule (4 days x 0.3%) =1.2%
Plant group B transplanted 3 days behind =0.9%
Plant group C transplanted 7 days behind =2.1%
Plant group D (clones) taken 7 days behind =2.1%
IPM applications not completed for 7+ days

That equals a 6.3% loss in potential annual productivity, which translates into a rough estimate of up to $378,000 in lost revenue.

Changes to the nutrient program in the midst of the plant’s life cycle had created nutrient deficient plants in all stages of vegetative and flowering growth, coupled with changes to the existing IPM program, all add to the potential losses incurred. Deviations in the plant nutrition program and IPM scheduling are hard to quantify mid-cycle, but will certainly be quantifiable when the hard numbers come home to roost.

These inefficiencies, once compounded, could potentially equal more than a 20% loss in potential productivity during the subsequent 3.5 month plant cycle. The current 60 pounds-per-week would likely be reduced for the next 2 months, down to roughly 50 pounds, or even much less, per-week. This could become a loss upwards of $500,000 in annual potential revenue in the first quarter of operation alone.

These seemingly small and incremental delays in the plant production cycle are all greatly compounded. The end result is that each subsequent cycle of plants is slightly smaller due to delays in transplanting and less days at maximized vegetative growth, etc. Undoubtedly, the cumulative effect of these operational inefficiencies creates a significant drop in the existing level of productivity, with the end result being a significant, undesired loss of revenue.

The sum of the lessons learned from this cultivation facility, is this: a sustainable operation, in the most pragmatic sense, is an efficient one both in terms of productivity and in terms of the carbon footprint and waste generated. The more streamlined and successful the operations are, the greater likelihood of success. Perhaps all of this is to say don’t forget about all the little parts that make up the whole, and strive to create a work environment/corporate culture that empowers your employees, your managers and all involved to participate and contribute to the process of improving the operations for mutual benefit.

Lessons learned from the aerospace manufacturing industry: Even the smallest zip tie on a spaceship matters! Some food for thought: If it’s truly beneficial it should stick around… If it is beneficial and it’s not sticking around, then there are limiting factors in the system that need to be addressed.

August 22, 2016

Hemp-Derived CBD Oil: Maintaining Quality in the Manufacturing Process

By Aaron G. Biros

3 Comments

Hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products are quickly becoming a burgeoning industry. Consumers can purchase the products in all fifty states and can receive the therapeutic effects of certain cannabinoids without any psychoactivity. Commonly used to help treat inflammation, pain, seizures and anxiety, CBD comprises a sizable portion of the cannabis market that patients and consumers are flocking to.

Founded by Paul Benhaim in 2013, Colorado-based Elixinol is reaching this market with a line of hemp-derived CBD oils and capsules. The company has grown rapidly and now has agreements with exclusive distributors in Japan, Puerto Rico, The United Kingdom and South Africa.

According to Chris Husong, sales and marketing director at Elixinol, achieving superior quality is central to the company’s growth strategy. “We are thinking about the long-term play here,” says Husong. Achieving the highest quality possible starts with sourcing from industrial hemp farms in Northern Europe, according to Husong. Through good manufacturing practices (GMPs), the company pays close attention to every detail involved in producing the hemp-derived CBD oil.

Safety and transparency are two core tenants in the company’s goal to strive for quality products. “We use third-party independent labs for our testing including one in Northern Europe where we source from in addition to Proverde Labs when it reaches us in Colorado,” says Husong. They test their products for over 300 chemicals (including pesticides, residual solvents and heavy metals) as well as for microbiological contamination and a unique terpene profile using GC-MS/GC-FID.

Co-founder Paul Benhaim at their extraction and testing facility in Europe.

In addition to stringent manufacturing safety procedures and testing, tracking is a huge part of meeting quality standards. Each product batch also has a lot number. While batch numbers are a requirement in GMPs, lot numbers mean that they are well equipped in the event of a product recall. After the product is packaged, they perform additional spot-checks periodically.

Contract manufacturing and white-labeling products is a large part of their business, so the company needs to meet rigorous quality standards for their partners as well. “We provide our oil to a variety of associates, but we are always looking for new partners on the cutting edge, innovating with new products that we can help with,” says Husong. Very often, this means doing a full plant extraction for different uses. Utilizing a full-spectrum plant extraction helps maintain a well-balanced cannabinoid profile with many of the original terpenes found in the plant.

Japan's first lady, Akie Abe, purchasing Elixinol's hemp-derived CBD oil. — Akie Abe, first lady of Japan, purchasing Elixinol’s hemp-derived CBD oil.

What makes their product so appealing to consumers is not just the quality, but also the method of delivery into the bloodstream and very precise dosing. “Our liposome products have a relatively new technology that allows the oil to be absorbed into your system via fatty acids, which lets you absorb the compounds much faster, requiring less of it and more consistency,” adds Husong. In addition to their fast-acting delivery mechanism, they produce capsules dosed to precisely fifteen milligrams and a delivery system they call ‘Xpen,’ which draws the oil in an oral applicator to a precise dose of fifteen milligrams every time.

After the manufacturing process, the company pays close attention to detail in their packaging and distribution. “The packaging is built to maintain that quality in the manufacturing process and to extend the shelf life of our products,” says Husong. The technology that goes into their packaging involves using Miron Violet glass, which is anti-fungal and prevents external light from deteriorating the oil inside.

This growing sector in the cannabis market is representative of a greater trend: the commodification of hemp and cannabis. When businesses like Elixinol scale up production of goods such as CBD oil, a lens focused on consistency and quality can not only improve business operations but also raise the standard across the entire industry.

April 19, 2016

Wellness Watch

Strain-Specific Labeling Edibles

By Dr. Emily Earlenbaugh, PhD.

No Comments

As the marketplace for cannabis products continues to evolve, we are seeing more and more strain-specific edible products hitting the shelves. Still, the majority of products remain strain-ambiguous, simply mentioning that the products contain cannabis and perhaps whether they are indica or sativa blends. While there are compelling reasons to go strain-specific, there are also serious challenges to doing it well.

The most compelling argument for strain-specific edibles is that your patients are more likely to get what they want (and thus more likely to come back for more). Many strain sensitive patients avoid almost all edibles because of a few bad experiences. Without knowing what strain you are consuming, you are left to gamble with your experience. Rather than take the risk, many patients choose to make edibles at home.

When talking to patients, I hear countless stories of bad experiences, along with the desire for more strain-specific edibles. Of course, creating strain-specific products is harder than it sounds. For one thing, it is difficult to source a consistent supply of large amounts of a single strain. This requires either an incredibly well run cultivation operation in-house, or strong, stable relationships with growers that are willing to grow a particular strain consistently.

In addition, labeling becomes more complex when you are strain-specific. Instead of one product, with one package and one label, you need to have individual labels for each strain. If you are using multiple strains, you need multiple labels. For small edibles manufacturers, things can get complicated. They usually need to source cannabis strains from the local market and may not be able to get a lot of consistency. This means plenty of small batches of single strains, rather than a consistent supply of a few set strains, and requires smaller batches of packaging, raising the cost of your inputs. So for many, the solution is to make one label and shift the strains depending on what’s in stock without notifying the consumer. Another method is to blend whatever strains you can find into one type of mixed strain product. While this offers an easy method for producers, it can have negative effects on the patient.

Those continually shifting blends of hybrid, indica or sativa edible products typically contain cannabis trim from many different strains. As we know, strains produce a large variety of effects, from sedative to energizing, relaxing to panic inducing. Mixing many carefully designed strains together can create all kinds of strange effects. It can be akin to mixing medications; it is hard to say what the result of the mix of chemicals will be. This can leave strain-sensitive patients feeling like each edible experience is a roll of the dice, wondering, “Will this help me or hurt me?” A number of patients have told me they gave up on edibles all together.

For those looking to use strain-specific labeling, but feeling held back by issues with sourcing and packaging consistency, try making one product package (that is strain ambiguous) with space for a strain specific sticker. Printing stickers on demand will cost less, then you can label the strains you currently have access to. Giving your patients access to strain information allows them to make an informed choice about what they are taking. Consumer education can draw in a customer base that is already primed to like your product and increases the chances that they will ultimately become satisfied, repeat customers.

April 12, 2016

DEA To Consider Rescheduling Cannabis, Could Mean Policy Shift

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

In a letter sent to lawmakers last week, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced plans to make a decision on rescheduling cannabis by mid-2016. The announcement could represent the culmination of a shift in the federal government’s attitude toward cannabis legalization.

Currently, cannabis is a Schedule I narcotic, meaning the government views it as lacking medical benefits and have a high potential for abuse. The rescheduling of cannabis has the potential to open the floodgates for research, including much needed clinical trials.

Derek Peterson, chief executive officer at Terra Tech, a cannabis-focused agriculture company, believes this bodes well for the growth potential of the cannabis industry. “From the perspective of quality and safety standards, I find it unlikely that rescheduling it would negatively impact the degree to which cannabis is examined,” says Peterson. “It’s unnecessarily high position on the DEA drug schedule does nothing but limit the industry’s potential for growth, stall any meaningful pharmaceutical testing and increase law enforcement’s ability to prosecute non-violent drug offenders,” adds Peterson.

The rescheduling could also potentially allow for the prescribing of cannabis for patients. Stephen Goldner, founder of Pinnacle Labs and president of Regulatory Affairs Associates, is hopeful this will lead to a greater shift in public attitude towards cannabis. “The DEA’s announcement is a clear message to all States and possibly even to United Nations policy makers: even the DEA is willing to reconsider cannabis,” says Goldner. “Since the DEA is reconsidering cannabis, state politicians and local police departments can also be flexible and move away from prohibition, towards the regulation of cannabis.”

The rescheduling of cannabis could have a tremendous impact on the growth of the cannabis industry, including more clinical trials, medical research and physician participation. It could also open the door for more federal agency involvement, as the Schedule I status inhibits any EPA research on cannabis pesticide use or FDA guidance on food and drug good manufacturing practices. When reached for comment, the FDA’s press office said they could not speculate on any involvement in the matter.

February 23, 2016

Ask the Expert: Straight Talk on Safety, Defense and Security, Part II

By Aaron G. Biros, Bruce E. Lesniak, Lezli Engelking

1 Comment

In this week’s Straight Talk on Safety, Defense and Security, we answer a reader’s question about traceability in quality processes and offer some practical advice for building a safety and security strategy. Travis Lodolinsky from Gleason Technology submitted this week’s question. For a response, we sit down with Lezli Engelking, founder of the Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS), to help answer your questions. If you have questions about safety, defense and security in cannabis, please ask them in the comments section below and we will address them in the next edition of Straight Talk on Safety, Defense and Security.

T. Lodolinsky: How are safety processes being tracked in the industry to ensure regulations and quality assurance are being uniformly enforced throughout?

Lezli Engelking: In related industries, such as herbal products or pharmaceuticals, the FDA has created guidelines, or current good manufacturing processes (CGMP) that control for the quality, consistency and safety of the products being produced. Businesses must be certified by independent third parties to demonstrate they are following CGMP to protect public health and consumer safety. CGMP is a proactive approach to quality assurance. A basic tenant of CGMP is that quality cannot be tested into a product after it is made; quality must be built into the product during all stages of the manufacturing process. One common misconception is that CGMP only covers the process of manufacturing itself. CGMP actually covers all aspects of the production process including materials, premises, equipment, storage, staff training and hygiene, how complaints are handled and record keeping.

Because cannabis is federally illegal in the US, the FDA has not developed cannabis-specific CGMP guidelines, so lawmakers do not have the benefit of having those guidelines available to base regulations on. So to answer your question, state cannabis regulations do not track processes and procedures used by cannabis businesses to control for safety or quality because they do not have the federal guidelines. Instead, most state cannabis regulations currently take a reactive approach to safety, mandating only for testing of the final product. While testing is an extremely important and valuable part of any quality management program, just analytics is not enough.

This is precisely why FOCUS was created and how they assist business owners and regulators, while fulfilling the mission of protecting public health, consumer safety and safeguarding the environment. The FOCUS standards are a cannabis-specific system of guidelines (cannabis-specific current good manufacturing practices) to ensure products are consistently produced according to quality standards. FOCUS provides detailed guidance and independent, third party auditing services for all key aspects of the cannabis industry including cultivation, extraction, infusion, retail, laboratory, security, packaging, labeling and sustainability.

CannabisIndustryJournal: What advice can you offer to cannabis businesses for product safety, defense and security prior to standardization?

Bruce E. Lesniak: Businesses that make products infused with cannabis (I call these businesses “plus one” companies because they produce products that include one more ingredient than traditional food products), require a carefully written master plan that specifically addresses the unique qualities, sensitivities and critical areas of the business. When building a comprehensive plan I address three questions:

Why (identify the why, this is your preventative, overarching strategy)?
How (addresses the “why question” with products, services and training)?
What (what is your reactive strategy that addresses actions and activities to be performed in the event of a breech)?

First and foremost, consumer-facing businesses must safeguard their products to the public. One product recall or illness related incident could spell disaster. Build your plan correctly the first time. Contact an industry expert to review your facility and help build and implement your plan. This will save you money by quickly exposing vulnerabilities and providing corrective measures specific to your business needs and requirements. Even though product safety and defense are closely related to security and should share a complementary strategy, product safety and defense are unique (due to standards and regulations), and should be treated as such.

Banks not accepting industry money complicates normal business operations and security planning, causing retail operations to handle and store large sums of cash. I asked industry expert and security professional, Tony Gallo of Sapphire Protection LLC, what is the single most important piece of security equipment you are currently providing for the retail and dispensary owner? “Design an air tight policy of handling money,” says Gallo. “Remove money often from cash registers and place it into the best safe for your application!”

Spend time familiarizing yourself with all things product safety and defense (there are volumes written on food safety and food defense, thus the “plus one” reference). This a great starting point and protecting the consumer protects your business. When it comes to designing your security application, consult an expert! Take into account that the cannabis industry is unique due to its “plus one” ingredient. Therefore you need to build your security systems, applications and policies to systematically protect your employees, facility, suppliers, transportation, manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, supply chain and brand.

February 11, 2016

Avoiding Recalls: Preparing for the What-Ifs

By Maureen McNamara

8 Comments

Recalls are a necessary part of our lives, and they occur quite often. There are hundreds of food recalls performed each year. Now we are experiencing recalls in the cannabis industry. It is important to keep in mind that the primary objective of performing a recall is to protect consumer safety.

Welcome to a whole new game!

The Scoop:

A recall occurs to remove defective or potentially harmful products from the marketplace.

Recalls can be expensive and stigmatizing. Companies involved are usually highly motivated to remedy the issue and recover as quickly as possible. It is in the producer’s best interest to do everything in their power to maintain and regain patient & customer confidence and brand trust as soon as possible.

In the United States, food recalls are typically generated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Food manufacturers regularly perform mock recalls and, when needed, perform voluntary recalls of possibly contaminated product. Recently, listeria has become a major concern for contamination in the food industry and as a result, many companies are preparing themselves for prevention strategies.

As cannabis is still federally illegal, the FDA does not perform cannabis recalls. As a result, we are seeing local health departments and the state departments of agriculture getting involved in cannabis recalls. Recent recalls are voluntary and are related to potentially dangerous pesticide residue on flower, concentrates and infused products. Colorado has come into the spotlight recently for businesses performing a number of voluntary recalls, in the interest of protecting consumer safety. This January, a recall included “individual units of marijuana concentrates that are used for vaporizing” testing positive for Imidacloprid, Myclobutanil, Etoxazole and/or Avermectin, which are all pesticides determined by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as not usable on cannabis.

How do we know there is a problem?

A manufacturer discovers a problem
Inspectors reveal a potential issue
A product fails a test carried out by a licensed laboratory
A state health department may be alerted to an issue

Preparing for the “What- Ifs”

What is your crisis management strategy?
How will your team communicate the issue with regulators?
What is the protocol to recover or destroy recalled product?
What is the communication plan with purveyors & consumers?
What new structures will be in place to prevent future issues?

How do we avoid a Recall?

Manufacturers and cultivators endeavor to prevent issues in the first place. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans are used to ensure quality and safety during the production process. Mistakes can occur. It is ultimately the manufacturer’s responsibility to remove any possibly contaminated product from the market quickly and before potential damage is incurred.

As we pioneer the cannabis industry, it is important to be as proactive as possible at every step of the supply chain, from seed to the sale of cannabis: Cultivating, trimming, curing, extracting, infusing, producing, packaging, shipping, receiving, storing and selling are all points where safety measures should be in place.

Prevention Rules!

How is your team doing with the following?

GAP, GMP & HACCP plans to ensure quality product
Testing, TESTING, Testing- to confirm safety of your goods
Requiring strict & tested operating procedures from your suppliers
Internal quality reviews
Training and Accountability

Our desire is that you do not ever need to recover from a crisis, but mistakes happen. They create a learning opportunity for us to make a higher quality product, to strengthen our procedures and to show our consumers that we are committed to excellence.

October 19, 2015

Manufacturing Edibles With Integrity

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

Without federal guidance on food products containing marijuana (a result of the plant remaining a Schedule I narcotic), state regulators and manufacturers are fighting to keep the market safe for consumers. Manufacturers of marijuana edibles are not only trying to ensure consumer safety, but are also attempting to advance industry and legalization efforts nationwide.

Recent investigations in Colorado revealed that certain marijuana edibles, along with some extracts, tested positive for illegal pesticides. Many cannabis businesses are looking to the industry leaders in edibles manufacturing for advice. Marijuana edibles are a food product, so they must first enlist standard food sanitation procedures and then comply with state regulations for cannabis to ensure safety. Some of the product consumers are patients with weakened immune systems, thus highlighting the need for consistent and accurate dosing in products.

Maureen McNamara, founder of Cannabis Trainers, recently sat on a panel with Bob Eschino, co-founder of incredibles and Krystal Kiathara, CEO of Yummi Karma at the Cannabis World Congress and Business Expo, hosted by the International Cannabis Association in Los Angeles. The panelists discussed the need for integrity in manufacturing edibles.

The regulations are not quite there yet and states are adjusting legislation to help promote safety. “It is our job to educate legislators and make sure that our products are accurate and consistent,” said Bob Eschino, co-founder of incredibles.

Maureen McNamara says there are four criteria for producing edibles with integrity: Compliance, training, research and product testing.

“Starting with the foundation of compliance, utilizing strategies involving HACCP plans and FDA guidance, the first pillar is training,” says McNamara. “Food safety training is essential to ensure your team is aware and making a wholesome product.” She also stressed the importance of shelf-life testing and R&D before the product goes onto shelves.

Because food laboratories often will not test products that contain cannabis, many companies work with food scientists and in-house testing. “Moving forward, we need to ensure that we achieve consistent results from the various testing labs,” said McNamara. “But to make edibles with integrity, laboratory testing is paramount.”

August 3, 2015

Hemp-Infused Beverages: FDA Compliance and the Cannabis Industry

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

With cannabis-infused edibles gaining a bigger market share in 2014 (See the marijuana edibles regulatory update here), it comes as no surprise that cannabis-infused beverages are growing in popularity. Some of these beverage manufacturers operate in a very interesting legal environment because of the differentiation between compounds found in hemp and marijuana, two different varieties of cannabis.

“Under federal legislation, there is an exemption for hemp and as long as we process our CBD (Cannabidiol) molecules from the hemp plant, we are allowed to sell our products federally,” says Chris Bunka, CEO of Lexaria, a company that makes a hemp-infused tea.

A number of scientific research studies have suggested that the compound CBD has medical properties that can help mitigate symptoms like inflammation, anxiety, chronic pain, and much more.

Because of the federal exemption for hemp, Lexaria can enjoy interstate commerce and other freedoms that manufacturers using marijuana flowers do not, such as access to banking services. Dried marijuana flowers contain the psychoactive compound, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This compound is responsible for the regulatory and legal schism between the states that have legalized marijuana and the federal government, which still considers it to be a Schedule I narcotic.

Much unlike a number of marijuana edibles manufacturers operating in states where marijuana is currently legal, hemp-infused beverage manufacturers operate in full FDA compliance.

Michael Christopher, founder of Loft Tea, is working with a laboratory and bottler that are both 100% FDA compliant. “We definitely operate up to and abide by all FDA best practices with our laboratory and as far as producing and handling material we use best manufacturing practices and processes,” says Christopher.

“We have to partner with a bottler and laboratory who have the reputation to build trust with our brand as an industry leader in safety and quality,” says Christopher. “Until the FDA gives us complete guidelines on cannabis-infused products, we will continue to operate above and beyond best manufacturing practices with our infusions.”

Because these manufacturers view their hemp tea as a health and wellness product, it is only a matter of time before we see these types of products lining the shelves of health-food stores nationally. However, before this happens, an FDA regulatory framework specific to hemp-infused products is needed to address this growing industry.

“The hemp infusion industry has a lot of opportunity when presented in the right framework,” Christopher says. “There is still education needed in the marketplace to get it to the point where it will be on the shelves in stores like Whole Foods.”

Until that time comes, expect to see a steady growth of interest and inquiry from consumers, manufacturers, and regulators alike in the cannabis industry, whether federally legal or not.