Tag Archives: Pesticide

Colorado Rule Changes Increase Costs for Edibles Producers

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Cannabis processors and dispensaries in Colorado were hit with new rule changes over the weekend, going into effect on October 1st. The rule changes affect those producing edibles and dispensaries that sell retail and medical cannabis products.

The universal symbol required on all cannabis products in Colorado
The universal symbol required on all cannabis products in Colorado

As of October 1st, all cannabis edibles must be marked with the universal THC symbol, according to a bulletin posted by the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED). Both medical and retail cannabis products require labeling that includes a potency statement and a contaminant testing statement.

The rules also set “sales equivalency requirements” which essentially means a resident or non-resident at least 21 years of age can purchase up to one ounce of cannabis flower or up to 80 ten-milligram servings of THC or 8 grams of concentrate, according to the MED. The packaging must also include: “Contains Marijuana. Keep out of the reach of children.”

The universal symbol printed on products from Love's Oven.
The universal symbol printed on products from Love’s Oven.

It seems that cannabis edible manufacturers have two clear choices for complying with the new rule requiring the THC symbol: They can use a mold to imprint the symbol on their product or they can use edible ink. Peggy Moore, board chair of the Cannabis Business Alliance and owner of Love’s Oven, a Denver-based manufacturer of cannabis baked goods, uses edible ink to mark each individual serving. The printer uses similar technology and ink used to print on m&m’s, according to Moore. “Baked goods are difficult to find a solution for marking them because they are a porous product, not smooth.” Complying with the new rules almost certainly means added costs for processors and edibles producers.

Moore said she updated all of their labels to include the appropriate information in compliance with the rules. “In terms of regulatory compliance, there have been some disparities for labeling and testing requirements between medical and retail cannabis products, however they are coming into alignment now,” says Moore. “The testing statement rule has been in place for some time on the retail side, but now we are seeing this aligned with both medical and retail markets.” This new rule change could be seen as a baby step in making the different markets’ regulations more consistent.

Automated Solutions for Cannabis Laboratories: Part I

By Danielle Mackowsky
No Comments
rsz_96_well_plate-1-1
Using well plates for dSPE sorbents can help expedite sample clean up.

Sample volume remains to be the primary influence on whether an automated solution is a logical investment for a cannabis testing facility. Due to both the complexity of the material being tested and the extraction approach at hand, it may be difficult to find an automated platform that can fully accommodate your laboratory’s needs. Hamilton Robotics in collaboration with United Chemical Technologies (UCT) has developed a solution that allows for automation of specific sample clean up steps commonly utilized in cannabis pesticide testing schemes. The MPE2 Positive Pressure Extraction/Evaporation Module is a standalone manifold that can also be incorporated into a number of automated liquid handling decks. Used in tandem with dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE) salts/sorbents packed into a 96 well plate, this combination provides laboratories with high throughput extraction convenience with comparable results to traditional dSPE for the analysis of over forty pesticides.

As states continue to expand testing requirements for pesticides, it is vital that your laboratory is equipped with a method that allows versatility for the addition of new compounds without burdening your extraction team. There are a variety of dSPE salt and sorbent blends readily available that have been optimized for cannabis extractions. This allows for the use of a reliable extraction technique that can be adapted for the automation age. Hamilton is widely recognized throughout both clinical and forensic laboratory settings and the MPE2 platform is an excellent first system for laboratories beginning to automate/semi-automate their processes.

MPE2 Positive Pressure Extraction/Evaporation Module
MPE2 Positive Pressure Extraction/Evaporation Module

Following an initial QuEChERS extraction, additional cleanup is typically recommended for extracts that are being analyzed for pesticide content due to the low detection limits often required. dSPE provides the necessary sample clean up to obtain those thresholds, but often burdens a laboratory staff with additional time consuming preparation steps. Traditionally, dSPE salts are packed into 2 mL centrifugation tubes that require a cumbersome supernatant pipetting step followed by additional vortex, spin and transfer steps. By packing the dSPE sorbents into a well plate format, the user is able to completely automate this above described clean up ultimately saving time and adding convenience without jeopardizing any recovery data.

For most compounds, the recovery was greater than 65% for both methods of dSPE. The mean recoveries for traditional dSPE were 98.0%, 99.2% and 97.9% at pesticide concentrations of 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL, respectively. For comparison, the mean recoveries at the same concentrations for well plate dSPE were 85.0%, 88.9% and 89.1%. Therefore, there was typically about a 10-11% absolute difference in recovery between the two methods, which can be corrected for by implementing the use of internal standards. When comparing the recovery differences between the two methods, there are six compounds with noticeably larger discrepancies across all three concentrations, namely: chlorpyrifos, cyprodinil, diazinon, spinetoram, spiromesifen 278 and trifloxystrobin. If these data sets are excluded, then the average absolute differences in recovery between the two methods decrease to 8.8%, 6.4% and 5.8% for concentrations of 50 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL and 200 ng/mL, respectively.rsz_1shutterstock_226135945-1

Overall, laboratories can estimate on saving 40-60 minutes per 96 samples processed using the Hamilton MPE2 in conjunction with a UCT dSPE plate. When a liquid handling robot is also available, this time saving estimation is potentially doubled. Time spent per sample, including the training of laboratory scientists, is an important factor to consider when setting up your laboratory. Automation is in an investment that can greatly reduce a laboratory’s overall labor costs in the long run.

Oregon Cannabis Lab Accreditation Program Gets Help, Problems Addressed

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last week, news of problems facing Oregon’s cannabis laboratory accreditation program surfaced, leading some to speculate about possible delays for the recreational cannabis market. According to The Register-Guard, ORELAP administrator Gary Ward believed the program was “on the precipice of collapse.”

oha_logo_lrgAccording to Jonathan Modie, spokesman for the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), the Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ORELAP) was anticipating over 30 cannabis laboratories applying for accreditation and they doubled their staff from two to four to prepare for the uptick in applications.

In June, the agency had zero labs applying for accreditation but within two months, 37 labs applied. However, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) just provided three additional staff members on Monday to help with the application process, says Modie.

Some believe the issues could mean the state may not have enough accredited labs by October 1st, when the recreational cannabis market is expected to go into full swing. “It is difficult to say exactly how many labs we can accredit by October 1,” says Modie. “We have seven labs today which would bring it to nine labs waiting for assessment, but our goal is to get as many labs assessed and hopefully accredited as soon as possible.”

With the additional staff members, Modie is hopeful this will jumpstart the program. “We really appreciate our collaboration with the DEQ and look forward to boosting our capacity a bit to help us get through this busy time,” says Modie.

Part of the reason some laboratories might have trouble meeting prerequisites is simply because the requirements are very strict. “The process involves submitting a quality manual, standard operating procedures, method validation, submitting proficiency testing data and finally undergoing an ORELAP assessment by our staff, so it is a very rigorous process,” says Modie. “This speaks to our concern for making sure they have the right systems in place so public health is protected.” Modie said there were at least three labs that did not pass the assessment.

Roger Voelker
Roger Voelker, lab director at OG Analytical

Bethany Sherman, chief executive officer of OG Analytical, believes the hardest part of the process involves getting accredited for testing pesticides. OG Analytical, based in Eugene, Oregon, has already received their accreditation, one of the first to do so. “The pesticide testing requires our most expensive instrumentation and the sample preparation for testing pesticides is the most time consuming,” says Sherman. “Not only does it require very specific instrumentation, it also requires a real know-how and expertise to ensure we are cleaning samples appropriately, minimizing background noise and looking at the pesticides in trace quantities.” According to Sherman, laboratories are also left to their own devices to develop methodologies specifically for the cannabis matrix, adding to the difficulties.

Rodger Voelker, Ph.D., lab director at OG Analytical, seems confident that the state will be able to handle it. “It is a relief they were able to get some resources from the DEQ and I think the state will not allow a program with this kind of importance to fall apart,” says Voelker. He believes after this initial phase of putting the program in place, the workload will go down. “It is easier to maintain a program than it is to implement,“ adds Voelker. In his eyes, it is crucial for the program to require rigorous science. “People are forced to reconcile that there is a tremendous amount of controls to be considered to produce legally defensible data and I think it is great that the requirements are so strict.”

The OHA’s job is to essentially safeguard public health and they do not want to leave any stone unturned when it comes to potential contamination, says Modie. “This is not just about getting as many labs accredited as possible, this is about protecting public health.”

Sustainability for the Cannabis Industry, Part II: The New Cannabis Consumer

By Olivia L. Dubreuil, Esq., Brett Giddings
No Comments

Most readers ought to be well aware that the cannabis industry is rapidly growing. The Arcview Group, an Oakland-based investor network, estimates the retail and wholesale cannabis market will reach $22.8 billion by 2020. That number represents a lot of people consuming cannabis in many different ways.

The average cannabis consumer is changing. A new range of social groups is consuming cannabis-based products. From yoga diehards, to middle-aged men and women, veterans that have ‘tried everything else’ and young professionals looking for a different way to relax, the market is broadening.

This new segment of cannabis consumers are often not looking to get high- they are looking for anti-inflammatories, relaxants and ways of dealing with chronic pains and stress. For these health and wellness seekers, the last thing they want is a product dosed with pesticides, insecticides or butane residues. We can expect to see these consumers to follow broader consumption trends- specifically when it comes to a product like cannabis that people are inevitably placing in or on their bodies.

These consumers come with new sets of expectations, similar to those when they buy fruit, vegetables, coffee or chocolate. They are increasingly curious about the contents of the products they purchase- they are a large part of the reason that the sales of organic produce has ‘ballooned’. They are asking questions like: Does the product contain pesticides? Has the product been cultivated in a way that minimizes negative environmental impacts? How do we know that the supply chain quality controls are rigorous enough to ensure no one has tampered with the product? Who is growing and picking this product and how are those people being treated?

When a curious consumer enters a modern American supermarket, they are guided by a range of messages relating to the contents and supply chain that was part of making each product. Organic, non-GMO, pesticide-free, fair trade, free-range and locally produced are some of the common criteria. The more credible labels are supported by codes and procedures in which the whole supply chain is audited, monitored and approved by the certifying body according to certain standards- for example the USDA certifies organic foods.

Being a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, cannabis is probably not going to receive USDA organic certification any time soon. However there are organizations out there that are committed to increasing the availability of cannabis grown with organic practices. Certifying bodies like Certified Kind and the Organic Cannabis Growers Society are gaining popularity among growers who see the market evolving in that direction. At the same time, businesses such as Delicious Fog (an ‘organic-focussed’ delivery service in Santa Clara County) and Harvest (an ‘organic’ dispensary in San Francisco)- are specializing in the sale of these ‘organic’ cannabis products.

Just like any sustainability issue- ensuring your cannabis product comes from a well-managed supply chain cannot be a last minute add-on. Whether a business is small, large, mature or emerging, developing a strategic approach to the diverse spread of sustainability challenges is critical.

As a cannabis business what can you do to appeal to the new cannabis consumer?

UCT-Dspe

Pesticide & Potency Analysis of Street-Grade versus Medicinal Cannabis

By Danielle Mackowsky
2 Comments
UCT-Dspe

In states where cannabis is legalized, some analytical laboratories are tasked with identifying and quantifying pesticide content in plant material. This is a relatively new concept in the study of cannabis as most forensic laboratories that work with seized plant material are only concerned with positively identifying the sample as cannabis. Laboratories of this nature, often associated with police departments, the office of the chief medical examiner or the local department of public health are not required to identify the amount of THC and other cannabinoids in the plant. While data is abundant that compares the average THC content in today’s recreational cannabis to that commonly consumed in the 1960s and 1970s, limited scientific studies can be found that discuss the pesticide content in street-grade cannabis.

cannabis-siezed
Street-grade cannabis that is ground into a fine powder

Using the QuEChERS approach, which is the industry gold-standard in food analysis for pesticides, a comparison study was carried out to analyze the pesticide and cannabinoid content in street-grade cannabis versus medicinal cannabis. For all samples, one gram of plant material was ground into a fine powder prior to hydration with methanol. The sample was then ready to be placed into an extraction tube, along with 10 mL of acetonitrile and one pouch of QuEChERS salts. After a quick vortex, all samples were then shaken for 1 minute using a SPEX Geno/Grinder prior to centrifugation.

Quenchers-analysis
Formation of layers following QuEChERS extraction

For pesticide analysis, a one mL aliquot of the top organic layer was then subjected to additional dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE) clean-up. The blend of dSPE salts was selected to optimize the removal of chlorophyll and other interfering compounds from the plant material without compromising the recovery of any planar pesticides. Shaken and centrifuged under the same conditions as described above, an aliquot of the organic layer was then transferred to an auto-sampler vial and diluted with deionized water. Cannabinoid analysis required serial dilutions between 200 to 2000 times, depending on the individual sample. Both pesticide and cannabinoid separation was carried out on a UCT Selectra® Aqueous C18 HPLC column and guard column coupled to a Thermo Scientific Dionex UltiMate 3000 LC System/ TSQ VantageTM tandem MS.

UCT-Dspe
Supernatant before and after additional dispersive SPE clean-up using UCT’s Chlorofiltr

Pesticide Results

Due to inconsistent regulations among states that have legalized medicinal or recreational cannabis, a wide panel of commonly encountered pesticides was selected for this application. DEET, recognized by the EPA as not evoking health concerns to the general public when applied topically, was found on all medical cannabis samples tested. An average of 28 ng/g of DEET was found on medicinal samples analyzed. Limited research as to possible side effects, if any, of having this pesticide present within volatilized medical-grade product is available. Street-grade cannabis was found to have a variety of pesticides at concentrations higher than what was observed in the medical-grade product.

Potency Results

Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (THCA-A) is the non-psychoactive precursor to THC. Within fresh plant material, up to 90% of available THC is found in this form. Under intense heating such as when cannabis is smoked, THCA-A is progressively decarboxylated to the psychoactive THC form. Due to possible therapeutic qualities of this compound, medical cannabis samples specifically were tested for this analyte in addition to other cannabinoids. On average, 17% of the total weight in each medical cannabis sample came from the presence of THCA-A. In both medical and recreational samples, the percentage of THC contribution ranged from 0.9-1.7.

Summary

A fast and effective method was developed for the determination of pesticide residues and cannabis potency in recreational and medical cannabis samples. Pesticide residues and cannabinoids were extracted using the UCT QuEChERS approach, followed by either additional cleanup using a blend of dSPE sorbents for pesticide analysis, or serial dilutions for cannabinoid potency testing.

durnagofacility

Solutions for Cannabis Cultivation: Integrated Pest Management

By Aaron G. Biros
3 Comments
durnagofacility

Pest problems in cultivating cannabis such as spider mites and powdery mildew are major concerns facing growers on a daily basis. Colorado’s ongoing recalls for cannabis products containing pesticides serve as a reminder that pest problems continue to plague growers. Utilizing integrated pest management (IPM) can help reduce the need to use any pesticides, as well as mitigate the risk of unwanted pests wreaking havoc on a cannabis harvest. urban-gro, a solutions provider for commercial cannabis cultivation, builds IPM plans for large-scale cannabis growers tailored to meet specific needs in regulatory compliance for different states.

durnagofacility
urban-gro helped design this facility in Durango, Colorado.

Biological controls are essential to any proper IPM solution for growers. Beneficial living organisms such as insects, mites, nematodes or entomopathogenic fungi can all be applied as a method for controlling pests. Biological controls like those can reduce the need to use pesticides on cannabis. John Chandler, vice president of cultivation technologies at urban-gro, believes IPM requires a broad, systematic approach to eliminate the need for pesticides. “IPM is a combination of cultural, chemical and biological control,” says Chandler. “We start by evaluating the air flow of the facility, how plants are transported, any exclusion barriers and air filtration.” A robust IPM plan begins in the design phase of a new facility. “We can make key adjustments in floor plans, layouts and mechanical systems to optimize that first line of defense that is critical to mitigating the risk of pest issues.” Incorporating good agricultural practices can also help mitigate those risks.

durangopot
A close-up of a plant entering flowering at the Durango facility

“We help develop standard operating procedures with good agricultural practices in mind, including preventing cross contamination, which is the biggest pest issue facing cannabis growers,” says Chandler. “I encourage clients to set up harvest and vegetative rooms so that the plants are moving in one specific direction between rooms rather than back and forth.” Using positive air pressure with proper ventilation can further prevent cross contamination. Chandler also recommends scrubbing air coming into the building with gaseous hydrogen peroxide to keep filtering air in ventilation.

urban-gro
IPM plans require thinking in terms of systems to find the right balance of biological controls.

According to Mark Doherty, director of sales at urban-gro, their IPM plans are customized to meet different states’ rules and regulations, including each list of approved pesticides. “We work to design a system that meets each individual grower’s needs, while helping them navigate regulations in any given state,” says Doherty. “It is important to make cannabis safe for patients and IPM is critical in building a healthy ecosystem for plants to be grown in a safe, yet cost-effective manner.” Proper use of IPM can reduce the need to use pesticides, which could impact a cultivator’s bottom line, but ultimately protect patients’ wellbeing by providing safe and pesticide-free cannabis.

prosodic
Procidic works on contact and with residual action.

When all else fails and pests still find their way onto cannabis, there is a solution to address major losses. urban-gro distributes a product called Procidic2®, a broad-spectrum bactericide and fungicide compound, manufactured by Greenspire Global. The advanced commercial formula is designed to eliminate pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Procidic2® can be applied as a preventive and a curative. WSDA Organic Program has approved Procidic2® for use in organic agriculture production and handling. According to Steve Knauss, president of Greenspire Global, “Procidic2® works in sync with the plant through two modes of action: First it controls powdery mildew and gray mold on contact, and secondly it is absorbed systemically into the plant to control disease infection such as root rot,” says Knauss.

Implementing a comprehensive IPM system requires making key changes in cultural, biological and chemical controls. In doing so, growers can successfully mitigate the risk of pest problems, thus reducing the need for potentially harmful pesticides.

plantsjacques
Biros' Blog

Ongoing Pesticide Recalls a Sign of Industry Maturity

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
plantsjacques

Regulators in Colorado last week announced another massive recall of cannabis found to contain banned pesticides. 92 batches of cannabis plants, with roughly a dozen plants in each batch, were recalled for using the product, Guardian, on the plants. The culprit was an ingredient in the product called avermectin, a pesticide listed as a ‘bad actor’ by the Pesticide Action Network.

The recall follows dozens of others in Colorado this year, all because tests found pesticides present in cannabis samples. When news spreads of cannabis recalls due to concerns of pesticide contamination, it paints a picture of worrisome problems rampant in the cannabis industry. Alarmists say continued recalls could have disastrous consequences like stalling legalization initiatives or slowing growth in new markets.

In the food industry, recalls are a part of routine business. The FDA created the Reportable Food Registry (RFR) as a way to prevent the shipment of contaminated food products into the supply. In 2015, Chipotle Mexican Grill made news when it sickened dozens with an E.coli outbreak and issued extensive recalls as a result. After that happened, the company reevaluated its practices and improved their food safety program to prevent future outbreaks.

When a recall occurs, it should prompt a surge in inquiries, responses and audits that need to be addressed and reviewed carefully. Ample proactive planning including HACCP, comprehensive risk analysis and validation studies or documents help prevent recalls from occurring in the first place. When recalls do happen, reactive measures should occur immediately with a strategy in place to deal with all of the regulatory compliance, quality, safety and branding ramifications.

When a recall occurs in the food industry, it generally means that there was a foodborne illness outbreak, followed by a reactive measure. That reactive measure, the recall itself, is what prevents foodborne illness outbreaks from growing or becoming an epidemic. Recalls in the food industry show that regulators are concerned about contamination and taking action to safeguard public health. In other words, when a recall occurs, it means that someone is watching.

I think recalls in the cannabis industry are a sign of the marketplace growing up. Recalls can be seen as a good thing, a sign of proper safety measures in place to prevent further contamination. Reporting recalls or failures means that professionals are beginning to pay attention to the safety and quality of processes in place at cannabis production facilities. Looking at the long-term sustainability of the cannabis industry, keeping quality and safety at top of mind will help businesses self-legitimize. Those not striving for the safest practices and the best quality will lose their ability to compete as the market continues to grow. Recalls can tarnish a company’s brand, but they also indicate that the industry has reached a point of legitimacy. Cannabis is now out of the closet and under a microscope.

Aaron_headshot
Biros' Blog

The Cannabis Industry’s Pesticide Problem

By Aaron G. Biros
3 Comments
Aaron_headshot

Colorado regulators recalled roughly 65 batches of cannabis produced by two separate companies last Friday. Pesticide recalls plastered all over the news in the past few months have painted a picture of the cannabis marketplace to the public as unsafe and lacking crucial quality standards. The continued pesticide recalls in Colorado, along with poor safety standards in Washington, show the cannabis industry in an unfavorable light. The recalls include not only cannabis sold recreationally, but also medical cannabis, which should highlight a sense of urgency to deal with such a pervasive issue.

Because patients with weakened immune systems are seeking treatment with cannabis, it is the producer’s obligation to grow cannabis safely and without pesticides. That requires proper quality controls, pesticide use standard operating procedures, very robust lab testing and an overall push to protect consumer safety from both regulators and industry leaders.

The pesticides most commonly found in cannabis products include myclobutanil, a fungicide in Eagle 20, and avermectin, commonly found in Avid pesticides. The Pesticide Action Network lists both compounds as “bad actors” and as developmental or reproductive toxins.

Largely due to federal illegality, there are no EPA-approved pesticides for use in cannabis production, thus a lack of guidelines for states to follow in regulating pesticide use. As a result, states are working to write their own lists of approved pesticides.

Until very recently, Washington had no procedure for recalls of cannabis in place. “The LCB in Washington State has implemented emergency recall rules but more clarity on what types of pesticides are harmful is needed,” says Trek Hollnagel, co-founder of Dope Magazine and a chain of dispensaries in Seattle, WA. It is no secret that the Washington State Liquor Cannabis Board (LCB) poorly regulates cannabis labs.

Reports show immense variation in different labs’ results and rampant laboratory shopping. Dana Luce, co-founder of GOAT Labs, Inc., a cannabis-testing laboratory based in Vancouver, Washington, has been clamoring for a standardized recall procedure. “The state needs to take a much more proactive approach in monitoring laboratories,” says Luce. “Using blind testing or secret shoppers would give them the opportunity to catching those labs playing below board.” Luce also believes that retail outlets should absorb the cost of recalls, which could help prevent laboratory shopping just for higher potency test results.

In Washington, regulators rely on producers to self-report coupled with random inspections; furthermore they do not even require pesticide testing. Without a burden of proof placed on the producer or even the laboratory, it is hardly a regulated market.

Those producing cannabis with pesticides listed above should know they are violating the law. According to Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), “applying pesticides off label is a violation of state and federal law and could result in criminal and civil sanctions…”

In reality, the solution to this problem is not just a quick fix, but a multitude of corrective actions to move the cannabis industry forward. Nic Easley, chief executive officer of 3C, believes it starts with educating cultivators on using pesticides properly and good agricultural practices (GAP). “Many of the pest problems prompting the illegal use of pesticides are due to poor facility design, lack of cleanliness, over-fertilization and other general plant health issues,” says Easley. “All of those issues could be greatly reduced through education in GAP.”

Then comes regulator-industry collaboration, where all parties are constantly learning. “Regulators or independent third-party groups need to be performing on-site inspections, which cultivators need to participate in openly and transparently,” adds Easley. The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) is actively working on this aspect by offering workshops aimed at helping producers get up to speed with worker protection standards.

“Adequate standards need to be applied across the board to labs, and ongoing proficiency testing needs to take place to ensure that a lab’s facility, processes and instruments are fully validated,” says Easley. So the problem is cannabis producers still using pesticides off label and if that continues, so will the recalls. It seems the solution involves industry-regulator collaboration, more robust laboratory systems and calibration methods and educating cultivators on good agricultural practices. Additionally, more state guidance is needed in the form of research for an approved list of pesticides on cannabis and a bigger push for regulation in the form of inspections and laboratory oversight.

amandarigdon
The Practical Chemist

Easy Ways to Generate Scientifically Sound Data

By Amanda Rigdon
1 Comment
amandarigdon

I have been working with the chemical analysis side of the cannabis industry for about six years, and I have seen tremendous scientific growth on the part of cannabis labs over that time. Based on conversations with labs and the presentations and forums held at cannabis analytical conferences, I have seen the cannabis analytical industry move from asking, “how do we do this analysis?” to asking “how do we do this analysis right?” This change of focus represents a milestone in the cannabis industry; it means the industry is growing up. Growing up is not always easy, and that is being reflected now in a new focus on understanding and addressing key issues such as pesticides in cannabis products, and asking important questions about how regulation of cannabis labs will occur.

While sometimes painful, growth is always good. To support this evolution, we are now focusing on the contribution that laboratories make to the safety of the cannabis consumer through the generation of quality data. Much of this focus has been on ensuring scientifically sound data through regulation. But Restek is neither a regulatory nor an accrediting body. Restek is dedicated to helping analytical chemists in all industries and regulatory environments produce scientifically sound data through education, technical support and expert advice regarding instrumentation and supplies. I have the privilege of supporting the cannabis analytical testing industry with this goal in mind, which is why I decided to write a regular column detailing simple ways analytical laboratories can improve the quality of their chromatographic data right now, in ways that are easy to implement and are cost effective.

Anyone with an instrument can perform chromatographic analysis and generate data. Even though results are generated, these results may not be valid. At the cannabis industry’s current state, no burden of proof is placed on the analytical laboratory regarding the validity of its results, and there are few gatekeepers between those results and the consumer who is making decisions based on them. Even though some chromatographic instruments are super fancy and expensive, the fact is that every chromatographic instrument – regardless of whether it costs ten thousand or a million dollars – is designed to spit out a number. It is up to the chemist to ensure that number is valid.

In the first couple of paragraphs of this article, I used terms to describe ‘good’ data like ‘scientifically-sound’ or ‘quality’, but at the end of the day, the definition of ‘good’ data is valid data. If you take the literal meaning, valid data is justifiable, logically correct data. Many of the laboratories I have had the pleasure of working with over the years are genuinely dedicated to the production of valid results, but they also need to minimize costs in order to remain competitive. The good news is that laboratories can generate valid scientific results without breaking the bank.

In each of my future articles, I will focus on one aspect of valid data generation, such as calibration and internal standards, explore it in practical detail and go over how that aspect can be applied to common cannabis analyses. The techniques I will be writing about are applied in many other industries, both regulated and non-regulated, so regardless of where the regulations in your state end up, you can already have a head start on the analytical portion of compliance. That means you have more time to focus on the inevitable paperwork portion of regulatory compliance – lucky you! Stay tuned for my next column on instrument calibration, which is the foundation for producing quality data. I think it will be the start of a really good series and I am looking forward to writing it.

Pesticide Position Paper: Prepared by Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C)

By Adam Koh, Nic Easley
4 Comments

Those that follow the legal cannabis industry are undoubtedly aware of the struggles of Colorado to regulate pesticide use on cannabis. At the time of this writing, there have been 19 recalls of products contaminated by pesticides in as many weeks. Authorities could not in all cases identify exactly how many units of products may have been tainted, but based on the numbers available, roughly 200,000 individual cannabis products, if not more, have been pulled from dispensary shelves. Along with these recalls have come a large amount of coverage and commentary from various news outlets, industry stakeholders, and even those companies who have had products pulled from shelves.

As this is a controversial and contentious subject, it can be difficult to parse and evaluate the various points of view being offered. In what follows, we will outline the issues at hand objectively: first providing a brief overview of federal and state pesticide regulations and how they pertain to cannabis; addressing claims of whether pesticide usage is “safe” or not; and, finally, offering our opinion of how the cannabis industry should address the pesticide conundrum considering the current regulatory environment and the state of our knowledge.

Before diving in, we are also aware that there is controversy around cannabis testing methodologies, and that the reliability of cannabis testing labs in general has been called into question by a number of the companies that have faced recalls. While we cannot comment on the operations of particular labs, we do support the application of consistent standards, proficiency evaluations, and stringent regulatory oversight to testing labs themselves, so that their results can be assured of being beyond reproach.

Still, 3C’s stance is that quality cannot be tested into a product. To have growers continue to produce contaminated cannabis only to see it recalled repeatedly is unsustainable for the industry; indeed, it threatens its very existence, as we discuss below. That is why we focus in this paper on the cultivation of the plant, as correcting problems on the production side is the only way to ultimately resolve the dilemma in which the industry finds itself.

Pesticide Regulation in the US Relative to Cannabis Cultivation

Cannabis’ pesticide problems stem in large part from the fact the pesticide regulation takes place at the federal level, under the auspices of the EPA. All pesticides undergo years of research and development before they can be sold to farmers and employed on crops. That research addresses questions such as where and how a pesticide can be employed, on what crops, in what concentrations, with what frequency, and how long before harvest can a pesticide be applied. Questions of worker safety are also addressed, such as those concerning what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) might be required and how long workers must avoid treated areas (Re­Entry Intervals), among other concerns.

The fruits of such studies are then distilled to the contents of a pesticide’s label, which must be registered with and approved by the EPA before a pesticide can be distributed for sale. Federal and state laws require that pesticides be applied according to label directions, making the label a legal document of sorts. “The label is the law,” is a phrase common among agricultural professionals with which the legal cannabis industry is becoming acquainted.

The sticking point in regard to cannabis is that, due to its federal illegality, no research has been performed on the use of pesticides on cannabis. Due to the lack of research, no pesticides registered currently with the EPA are labeled for use on cannabis. Since all pesticides must be applied according to label specifications, this essentially prohibits pesticide use in cannabis production. However, some labels are written in such a broad manner that the use of those pesticides could not be construed as a breach of the legally­ binding use directions. Additionally, certain pesticides are of such low­toxicity that the EPA has deemed that their registration is not required; these are known as minimum­ risk products under section 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). At this time, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), in an attempt to offer guidance to cannabis growers, is maintaining a list of such products that, either due to broad label language or 25(b) status, may be used on cannabis without that use being a violation of the label.

Are Pesticides Safe for Use on Cannabis?

Since the first plants to be quarantined after discoveries of improper, off­-label pesticide use to the most recent recalls, some of the Colorado cannabis companies caught up in those enforcement actions have made public statements claiming that their products are safe. These statements are dangerously misleading, as they do not take into account the issues laid out above, nor the facts that follow.

Frequently, attempts to justify such claims point out that pesticides are employed on our food and therefore must be okay to apply to cannabis as well. This is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges; or, in this case, comparing apples and oranges to cannabis. Such data cannot be bridged for the simple reason that apples and oranges (and most other agricultural food crops) are not smoked. Smoking remains the primary method of cannabis ingestion, but cannabis products are also vaporized (concentrates), consumed (edibles), applied to the skin (topical creams and patches), and taken sublingually (tinctures, sublingual strips).

As noted, the studies that pesticides must undergo prior to being approved by the EPA involve measuring acceptable residues based on the method of consumption of the final product. Since most food is consumed and digested, few pesticides on the market have undergone pyrolysis studies, which examine how the chemical structures of pesticides degrade when burned. This means that while the fungicide myclobutanil, the active ingredient in Eagle 20EW, may be approved for use on grapes, that approval is meaningless in regard to cannabis, as grapes are not smoked and the relative safety of myclobutanil residues was not tested in regard to such a consumption method.

While studies may eventually reveal that certain pesticides may be used on cannabis without ill effects to the end users, such research has not been performed and no one can say with certainty what the effects of consuming cannabis containing pesticide residues might be. Even the CDA qualifies the list of products that may be used without violating labeling guidelines with the following statement, “These products have not been tested to determine their health effects if used on marijuana that will be consumed and thus the health risks to consumers is unknown.”

Again, no one can currently say what pesticides, if any, can be safely employed on cannabis; anyone claiming definitively that their products are safe despite off­-label pesticide use is making a statement that at this time lacks any scientific basis whatsoever.

Another claim made numerous times by companies defending their off­-label pesticide use is that no one has yet fallen ill from pesticide use on cannabis. While this is true, we must remember that we are in uncharted territory, and no large­scale public health studies have been done to determine what, if any, effects result from consuming cannabis to which pesticides were applied. We hope that no ill effects will surface, but the fact of the matter is that chronic health issues may take years to show themselves and a public health crisis may yet emerge.

Recommendations for the Cannabis Industry

We are advocates for cannabis legalization and want to see this industry grow and develop into one that is beneficial for all involved. We believe that cannabis can continue to be a force for positive change in numerous areas of society, from medicine to criminal justice to agriculture, and beyond. But, in order for it to do so, we must navigate issues such as those around pesticide use in an intelligent and responsible manner.

Our primary recommendation should be preceded by the statement that the use of chemical pesticides of the type triggering Colorado’s recalls is not needed in cannabis production. We make this statement based on years of experience working in, managing, and advising cultivation operations of all types, methodologies, and scales on how to grow successfully without illegal pesticides. Cannabis has survived and flourished throughout human history without pesticides, and will continue to do so if we cultivate it correctly.

As such, we recommend that growers n​ot​ employ any pesticides in a manner that violates label directions, and only use 25(b) products that have undergone pyrolysis testing to ensure that they are not releasing harmful compounds when burned. Furthermore, applications should only be made during the vegetative stage, prior to the emergence of flowers. Overall, if there is any doubt as to whether a product or material is safe, it should not be used until legitimate, peer­-reviewed research has been performed by a reputable institution.

Successful pest control can be achieved via intelligent facility design, robust environmental controls, workflow protocols, and strict cleanliness standards, in addition to preventative applications of appropriate minimum­ risk pesticides. There is no magic bullet that will solve all pest problems, which is why experienced agricultural professionals rely on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), defined as “an ecosystem­-based strategy that focuses on long­term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties.” Overall, the adoption of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) is much needed in the industry, and cannabis growers should look to agricultural operations that promote the four pillars of GAP standards (economic viability, environmental sustainability, social acceptability, and safety and quality of the final product) for guidance in formulating best practices in this new field.

This recommendation is not simply a matter of principle, but one that will preserve your business. In addition to costly and brand­-damaging recalls, we have already seen the first product liability lawsuits filed last year against LivWell by cannabis consumers over off­label pesticide use. Another issue is that of worker safety. Most cannabis cultivation takes place indoors, where pesticide residues can linger in garden areas and on equipment, creating toxic work environments. Unfortunately, based on the widespread nature of pesticide use in the legal cannabis industry, we feel confident in stating that thousands of workers employed in legal cannabis cultivation operations have applied chemical pesticides without proper PPE or safety training. Businesses employing pesticides off­-label will likely find themselves subject to liability claims from workers, as well as consumers, in the relatively near future.

Conclusion

In closing, the bottom line is that applying pesticides off­-label is a violation of state and federal law and could result in criminal and civil sanctions, should regulators and affected parties choose to pursue them.

It must also be noted that off­-label pesticide use threatens the industry as a whole. Point six of the Cole Memorandum states that the federal government will not make the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act a priority as long as the “exacerbation of (…) public health consequences associated with marijuana use” is prevented. The emergence of a public health problem would be a violation of the Cole Memo ­and it could be argued that the current situation unfolding in Denver is already a violation ­ and could trigger federal intervention against states that have legalized cannabis. In this light, the Denver Department of Environmental Health, which is driving the recalls, has not “launched a campaign against legal cannabis,” as a company recently subject to a recall claimed, but is actually acting as a bulwark against a potentially serious Cole Memo violation that could shutter the entire industry.

Based on the current situation, the cannabis industry must come together to denounce and eliminate off­-label pesticide use. In order to ensure the health of patients, consumers, workers, and the industry itself, we must seize this opportunity to grow without chemicals that are currently illegal, potentially very harmful, and ultimately not even necessary.