Tag Archives: policies

Best Practices for Training New Hires and Documenting Operations

By Dede Perkins
No Comments

Let’s just say it. There is an undeniable chaos in the cannabis industry. It doesn’t matter if you’re a big or small operator, it’s likely that you don’t have a documented system for creating and managing ever-changing SOPs or for consistently training all employees on the most current versions of those SOPs. This chaos is often the result of rapid growth, mergers and acquisitions, and the ever-present turnover in our industry. When department leadership changes, and it often does, established policies and procedures are often left behind. In some cases, this is a positive sign of growth. As a company outgrows SOPs and as it develops more sophisticated ways to cultivate, extract, process, manufacture, package and sell cannabis and cannabis products, inevitably, the old ways of doing business need to be replaced. For those operators who have prioritized operational excellence, whether they want to position their company for new investment, merger or acquisition, or just want to create a consistent and standardized, branded product, it’s critical to get control of SOPs, training and documentation.

Food processing and sanitation
By standardizing and documenting safety procedures, manufacturers mitigate the risk of cannabis-specific concerns

As with most big goals, to obtain operational excellence, you need to break the goal into manageable steps. Assuming you have accessible quality policies and procedures in place, properly training employees when they first start work and on an ongoing basis as policies and procedures change is the number one key to successful operations. When employees know how to do their job and understand what is expected of them, they are positioned for success. When employees are successful, it follows that the company will also be successful. Documenting operations is a second important step in obtaining operational excellence. While training and documentation appear to be different, in best-practice organizations, they are inextricably linked.

One Set of SOPs

Those of us who have been in the cannabis industry for a while have experienced firsthand or heard stories of facility staff working off of two sets of SOPs. There’s the set of SOPs that are printed or digitally available for the regulators, let’s call them the “ideal” set, and then there are the SOPs that actually get implemented on a day-to-day basis. While this is common, it’s risky and undermines the foundation of operational excellence. Employees often know there are two sets of SOPs. Whether they express it or not, many are uncomfortable with the intentional or unintentional deception. When regulators arrive, will they have to bend the truth or even lie about daily operations? Taking the time to establish and implement one set of approved SOPs that is compliant with both external regulations and internal standards is good for employee morale, productivity and ultimately, profits.

What’s the best way to get control of a facility’s SOPs? Again, break it into manageable steps:

  • First, task someone with reviewing all SOPs that are floating around. Determine if any are non-compliant, which ones need to be tossed and which ones need to be revised so they work for the company as well as outside regulatory authorities.
  • At a minimum, establish a two-person team to draft, review, publish and distribute the final SOPs. Ensure that at least one member of the team has management level authority. Assign that employee the responsibility of reviewing the SOPs before “publication” and distribution.
  • Archive, delete, or actually throw away outdated or non-compliant SOPs
  • Revise or create new best-practice SOPs that are in compliance with external regulations and internal standards
  • Establish a system to update SOPs when external regulations and internal standards change
  • Use a naming convention that distinguishes draft SOPs from final SOPs, for example, “Post-Harvest Procedure, FINAL”
  • Inform employees that they will be retrained on the new SOPs and that approved SOPs will always have the word “Final” in the title
  • Store the final SOPs in an easily accessible location and give employees access, not only during training, but on an ongoing basis

Centralized Repository for Final SOPs

Storing final, approved SOPs in one easily accessible, centralized location and giving employees access sounds simple, but again, this is the cannabis industry, so this often doesn’t happen. Many of us have or are currently working for an organization that stores SOPs in multiple places. Each department may have its own way of updating, disseminating and storing SOPs. Some SOPs are stored in a printed binder stuffed in a drawer or left on a bottom shelf. Others are stored digitally. Some use both systems, which creates confusion. Who knows if the digital versions or the printed versions are the most current? Surely someone knows, but often the front-line staff do not.“Once you’ve established a single set of compliant SOPs and have stored them in one accessible location, it’s time to train your employees.”

Establishing a centralized repository for final, approved SOPs is the foundation of operational excellence. It lets employees know that operations are organized and controlled, and it reassures regulatory authorities and external stakeholders—think insurers, bankers, investors—that the company prioritizes compliance and organization. And external stakeholders who believe that an organization is proactive and well-run tend to be more forgiving when the inevitable missteps occur. Companies that are organized, have effective training systems, regularly conduct internal audits to identify potential issues and take identifiable action steps when necessary to remediate issues, receive fewer deficiency notices, violations and fines than their less organized competitors.

Train Employees

Many states require cannabis operators to provide a specific number of training hours prior to an employee beginning work, and a specific number of continuing and refresher training hours annually. Once you’ve established a single set of compliant SOPs and have stored them in one accessible location, it’s time to train your employees. To do so, set clear expectations and decide who is responsible for what. Is the HR manager responsible for initial onboarding and training? Are department managers responsible for ongoing and annual training? Create a training responsibility chart that works best for your company; write it down and share with all stakeholders.

Documenting all key areas of operation on a recurring basis will help you keep track of a large facility and workforce

The next step is to figure out how to train your employees. Individuals have different learning styles, so ideally, you’ll offer multiple ways for them to master the requirements of their position. Assign written materials and if possible, attach short videos showing the best way to complete a task. Follow up with a quiz to determine comprehension and a conversation with a department lead or manager to answer questions and review the key take-aways. Ideally, the department manager or lead employee will work with the employee until they are competent and comfortable taking on new assigned tasks and responsibilities.

Sum It Up 

Operational excellence begins with:

  • Knowledge of and access to current external rules and regulations and internal standards
  • One set of approved and easily accessible policies and SOPs that comply with both external and internal standards
  • An initial training system with clearly assigned roles, responsibilities, and goals
  • An ongoing training system with clearly assigned roles, responsibilities, and goals
  • Systems to:
    • Test knowledge before employees begin unsupervised work
    • Stay up-to-date with all changes to external rules and regulations and internal standards
    • Control policy and SOP revision process
    • Inform all stakeholders when policies and SOPs change
    • Test that employees understand new standards
    • Document all key areas of operation on a recurring basis
    • Address deficiencies and evaluate whether SOP revisions are warranted
    • Document and implement necessary remediation when necessary

For those of you rolling your eyes and thinking you don’t have time for this, ask yourself, “Can you afford not to?”

For those of you committed to operational excellence and doing what it takes to get there, congratulations on being a visionary leader. Your efforts will pay dividends for your own company and will help the cannabis industry grow into a well-respected, profitable industry that improves lives.

Defining Hemp: Classifications, Policies & Markets, Part 2

By Darwin Millard
2 Comments

In Part 1 of this series we answered the question: What is “hemp”; and addressed some of the consequences of defining “hemp” as a thing. In Part 2, I will explore this topic in more detail and provide some commonsense definitions for several traditional hemp products based on a classification approach rather than separating “cannabis” from “hemp”.

Classifications, Specifications, and Test Methods – Establishing Market Protections for Hemp Products Through Standardization

Does making a distinction between “hemp” and “cannabis” make it easier to protect the interests of the seed and fiber markets?

On the face of it, this question seems obvious. Yes, it does.

Up to this point in history, the bifurcation of the cannabis plant into resin types and non-resin types has served to provide protections for the seed and fiber markets by making it easier for producers to operate, since the resins (the scary cannabinoids, namely d9-THC) were not involved. Today, however, the line in the sand, has been washed away, and “hemp” no longer only refers to non-resin producing varieties of the cannabis plant.

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

As more and more hemp marketplaces come online with varying limits for d9-THC the need for standardization becomes even more pressing. Without standardization, each marketplace will have its own requirements, forcing businesses looking to sell their products in multiple jurisdictions to comply with each region’s mandates and adds a significant level of burden to their operations.

Providing an internationally harmonized definition for hemp is an important first step but allowing the d9-THC limit to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction has some unintended (or intended) consequences (#NewReeferMadness). These discrepancies between legal marketplaces will inevitably lead to the establishment of global trade regions; where, if your product cannot meet the definition of “hemp” in that region, then you could effectively be barred from participating in it.

A process which has already started. Harmonizing around 0.3% is great for the US, Canada, and European Union, but what about other stakeholders outside of these markets?

And, at what point does the conflict of hemp from one region with a d9-THC content of 0.3% and hemp from another region with a d9-THC content of 1% being sold into the same market become a problem?

Perhaps a better long-term solution for protecting the market interests of “hemp product” stakeholders would be to establish specifications, such as identity metrics, total cannabinoid content, especially d9-THC, and other quality attributes which have to be verified using test methods for a product to be classified as “hemp”. This system of standards (classifications, specifications, and test methods) would allow for more innovation and make it significantly easier for cannabis raw materials that meet these specifications to find a use rather than being sent to the landfill. Bolstering advancements and opening the door for more market acceptance of the cannabis plant, its parts, and products.

An Alternative Approach to Defining Hemp

Below are some proposed definitions related to common terminology used in the hemp marketplace based on the concept that there are no hemp plants, there are only cannabis plants that can be classified as hemp, and hemp products are simply cannabis products that meet certain specifications to allow them to be classified and represented as hemp.

  • Hemp, n—commercial name given to a cannabis plant, its parts, and products derived therefrom with a total d9-THC content no more than the maximum allowable limit for the item in question. (Maybe not the best definition, but it makes it clear that not only does the limit for d9-THC vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction it varies from product type to product type as well.)
  • Hemp flower, n—commercial name for the inflorescence of a cannabis plant that can be classified as hemp.
  • Hemp seed, n—commercial name for the seeds of a cannabis plant which are intended to be used to grow another cannabis plant that can be classified as hemp.
  • Hempseed, n—commercial name for the seeds of a cannabis plant which are intended to be used as food or as an ingredient in food.
  • Hemp seed oil, n—commercial name for the oils expressed from the seeds of a cannabis plant.
  • Hemp seed cake, n—commercial name for the solid material byproduct generated during the expression of the oil from the seeds of a cannabis plant.
  • Hemp flour/meal/dietary-fiber, n—commercial name for the powdered seed cake of a cannabis plant intended to be used as a food or as an ingredient in food with a protein content no more than 35% by weight.
  • Hemp protein powder, n—commercial name for the powdered seed cake of a cannabis plant intended to be used as a food or as an ingredient in food with a protein content between 35% and 80% by weight.
  • Hemp protein isolate, n—commercial name for the powdered seed cake of a cannabis plant intended to be used as a food or as an ingredient in food with a protein content above 80% by weight.
  • Hemp fiber, n—commercial name for the cellulosic-based natural fibers of a cannabis plant.
  • Hemp shives, n—commercial name for the hurd of a cannabis plant which have been processed to defined specifications.
  • Hempcrete, n—commercial name for a solid amalgamation of various aggregates and binders, typically comprised of the hurd (shives) of a cannabis plant and lime.

The d9-THC limits for each product were purposefully omitted because these specifications still need to be defined for each product type. Leaving the d9-THC limit up to each authority having jurisdiction, however, is not the answer. It is fine if you comply with a lower d9-THC limit and want to sell into a market with a higher d9-THC limit, but what do you do if you are above the limit for the market you want to sell into? For now, you lose out on potential revenue.

Hemp-derived CBD extract

I am not advocating that everyone starts selling “hemp” as “cannabis,” or vice versa, far from it. I am advocating for a more commonsense and inclusive approach to the marketplace though. One that would allow for the commercialization of materials that would normally be going to waste.

To me it is simply logical. There are no hemp plants, there are only cannabis plants that can be classified as hemp. There are no hemp products, there are only cannabis products that can be classified as hemp. In order for a cannabis product to be marketed, labeled, and sold as a hemp product, i.e. to be classified as a hemp, it would need to meet a set of specifications and be verified using a set of test methods first. But fundamentally the product would be a cannabis product being certified as “hemp”. And that is the shift in thinking that I am trying to get across.

Exclusionary Actions – Disenfranchising Stakeholders

The cannabis plant is an amazing plant and to fully capitalize on the potential of this crop we have to start allowing for the commercialization of cannabis raw materials that are not controlled by the UN Single Conventions, i.e. the seeds, stalks, roots, and leaves when not accompanied by the fruiting tops or the resin glands. Not to do so disenfranchises a significant number of stakeholders from participating in established legal avenues of trade for these goods. A concept proposed and endorsed the ASTM D37 in the published standard D8245-19: Guide for Disposal of Resin-Containing Cannabis Raw Materials and Downstream Products.

If you are stakeholder in the hemp marketplace, you may feel threatened by the idea of the market getting flooded with material, but how are the demands of the so called “green economy” going to be met without access to more supply? Organic hemp seed for food production is scarce but there is plenty of conventional hemp seed for the current demand, but what happens when hempmilk is positioned to displace soymilk in every major grocery store? To feed the growth of the human population and allow for a transition to a truly “green economy,” we need to ensure that the policies that we are putting in place are not excluding those looking to participate in the industry and disenfranchising stakeholders from burgeoning marketplaces, nor alienating a segment of the marketplace simply because their plant cannot be classified as “hemp”.

Until next time…

Live long and process.

Defining Hemp: Classifications, Policies & Markets, Part 1

By Darwin Millard
2 Comments

What is “hemp”?

The word “hemp” has many meanings. Historically the term has been used as the common name for the Cannabis sativa L. plant. Just like other plants, the cannabis plant has two names, a common name, hemp, and a scientific name, Cannabis sativa L. After the ratification of the UN Single Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, in 1961 and 1972 respectively, the term started to be used to distinguish between resin producing varieties of the cannabis plant and non-resin producing varieties of the cannabis plant. Nowadays the term is generally used to refer to cannabis plants with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (d9-THC), a controlled substance, content equal to or less than the maximum allowable limit defined by each marketplace.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), just one of hundreds of cannabinoids found in cannabis.

In the United States and Canada, the limit is defined as 0.3% on a dry weight bases, and until November 2020, in the European Union, the limit was defined as 0.2%. After years of effort the “hemp” industry in Europe was successfully able to get the limit raised to 0.3% to be in line with the United States and Canada – creating the largest global trade region for hemp products. But there exist several marketplaces around the world where, either through the consequences of geographic location or more progressive regulations, the d9-THC content in the plant can be substantially higher than 0.3% and still considered “hemp” by the local authority.

To address these variances, ASTM International’s Technical Committee D37 on Cannabis has been working on a harmonized definition of hemp, or industrial hemp, depending on the authority having jurisdiction, through the efforts of its Subcommittee D37.07 on Industrial Hemp. The following is a proposed working definition:

hemp, n—a Cannabis sativa L. plant, or any part of that plant, in which the concentration of total delta-9 THC in the fruiting tops is equal to or less than the regulated maximum level as established by an authority having jurisdiction.

Discussion: The term “Industrial Hemp” is synonymous with “Hemp”.

Note: Total delta-9 THC is calculated as Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9 THC) + (0.877 x Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid).

This definition goes a long way to harmonize the various definitions of hemp from around the world, but it also defines “hemp” as a thing rather than as a classification for a type of cannabis plant or cannabis product. This is a concept rooted in the regulatory consequences of the UN Single Conventions, and one I strongly disagree with.

The definition also leaves the total d9-THC limit open-ended rather than establishing a specified limit. An issue I will address further in this series.

Can “hemp products” only come from “hemp plants”?

If you are an invested stakeholder in the traditional “hemp” marketplace, you would say, yes.

But are there such things as “hemp plants” or are there only cannabis plants that can be classified as “hemp”? (The definition for hemp clearly states that it is a cannabis plant…)

A field of hemp plants, (Cannabis sativa L.)

There is no distinction between the cannabinoids, seeds, and fibers derived from a cannabis plant that can be classified as “hemp” and those derived from a cannabis plant that cannot. The only difference is the word: “cannabis,” and the slew of negative connotations that come along with it. (Negative connotations that continue to be propagated subconsciously, or consciously, whenever someone says the “hemp plant” has 50,000+ uses, and counting, and will save the world because it’s so green and awesome, but not the “cannabis plant”, no that’s evil and bad, stay away! #NewReeferMadness)

The declaration that “hemp products” only come from “hemp plants” has some major implications. “Hemp seeds” can only come from “hemp plants”. “Hemp seed oils” can only come from “hemp seeds”. “Hemp fibers” can only come from “hemp plants”. Etc.

What does that really mean? What are the real-world impacts of this line of thinking?

Flat out it means that if you are growing a cannabis plant with a d9-THC content above the limit for that plant or its parts to be classified as “hemp”, then the entire crop is subjected to the same rules as d9-THC itself and considered a controlled substance. This means that literal tons of usable material with no resin content whatsoever are destroyed annually rather than being utilized in a commercial application simply because a part or parts of the plant they came from did not meet the d9-THC limit.

Some of the many products on the market today derived from hemp

It is well known that d9-THC content is concentrated in the glandular trichomes (resin glands) which are themselves concentrated to the fruiting tops of the plant. Once the leaves, seeds, stalks, stems, roots, etc. have been separated from the fruiting tops and/or the resin glands, then as long as these materials meet the authority having jurisdiction’s specifications for “hemp” there should be no reason why these materials could not be marketed and sold as “hemp”.

There are several reasons why a classification approach to “hemp plants” and “hemp products” makes more long-term sense than a bifurcation of the “cannabis” and “hemp” marketplaces, namely from a sustainability aspect, but also to aid in eliminating the frankly unwarranted stigma associated with the cannabis plant. #NewReeferMadness

That said, say you are a producer making shives from the stalks of cannabis plants that can be classified as “hemp” and then all of a sudden, the market opens up and tons of material from cannabis plants that cannot be classified as “hemp,” that was being sent to the landfill, become available for making shives. Would you be happy about this development? Or would you fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening?

In this segment, we looked at the history of the term “hemp” and some of the consequences from drawing a line in the sand between “cannabis” and “hemp”. I dive deeper into this topic and provide some commonsense definitions for several traditional hemp products in Part 2 of Defining Hemp: Classifications, Policies & Markets.

photo of outdoor grow operation

The 2020 Global Cannabis Regulatory Roundup

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment
photo of outdoor grow operation

As a strange year heads to a final, painful finish, there have been some major (and some less so) changes afoot in the global world of cannabis regulation. These developments have also undoubtedly been influenced by recent events, such as the recent elections in the United States, state votes for adult use reform in the U.S. and the overall global temperature towards reform. And while all are broadly positive, they have not actually accomplished very much altogether.

Here is a brief overview of the same.

The UN Vote On Cannabis
Despite a wide celebration in the cannabis press, along with proclamations of an unprecedented victory by large Canadian companies who are more interested in keeping their stock prices high than anything else, the December 2 vote on cannabis was actually fairly indecisive.

Following the WHO recommendations to reschedule cannabis, the UN voted in favor of the symbolic move. Despite removing cannabinoids from Schedule IV globally, a regulatory label designed for highly addictive, prescription drugs (like Valium), the actual results on the ground for the average company and patient will be inconclusive.

The first issue is that the UN did not remove cannabinoids themselves, or the plant, from Schedule I designation. This essentially means that countries and regions will be on the front lines to create more local, sovereign policies. This is not likely to change for at least the next several years (more likely decade) as the globe comes to terms with not just a reality post-COVID-19, but one which is very much pro-cannabis.

In the meantime, however, the ruling will make it easier for research to be conducted, for patient access (for the long term), and more difficult for insurers to turn down in jurisdictions where the supposed “danger” of cannabis has been used as an excuse to deny coverage. See Germany as a perfect example of the same.

It is also a boon for the CBD business, no matter where it is. Between this decision and the recent victory in Europe about whether CBD is a narcotic or not (see below), this is another nail in the coffin for those who want to use semantic excuses to restrain the obvious global desire for cannabinoids, with or without THC.

The U.S. Vote On The MORE Act

While undoubtedly a “victory” in the overall cannabis debate, the MORE Act actually means less rather than more. It will not become law as the Senate version of the bill is unlikely to even get to the floor of the chamber before the end of the session – which ends at the end of this year.

The House voted 228 to 164 to pass the MORE Act.

That said, the vote is significant in that it is a test of the current trends and views towards big issues within the overall discussion, beginning with decriminalization and a reform of current criminal and social justice issues inherent in the same. The Biden Administration, while plagued with a multitude of issues, beginning with the pandemic and its immediate aftershocks, will not be able to push both off the radar. Given the intersection of minority rights’ issues, the growing legality of the drug and acceptance thereof, as well as the growing non-partisan position on cannabis use of both the medical and adult use kind, and the economy, expect issues like banking to also have a hope of reform in the next several years.

Cannabis may be taking a back seat to COVID, in other words, but as the legalization of the industry is bound up, inextricably, in economic issues now front and center for every economy, it will be in the headlines a great deal. This makes it an unavoidable issue for the majority of the next four years and on a federal level.

Prognosis in other words? It’s a good next federal step that is safe, but far from enough.

The European Commission (EC) Has Finally Seen The Light On CBD

One of the most immediately positive and impactful decisions of the last month was absolutely the EC decision on whether CBD is a narcotic or not.

This combined with the UN rescheduling, will actually be the huge boost the CBD industry has been waiting for here, with one big and still major overhanging caveat – namely whether the plant is a “novel” one or not. It is unlikely as the situation continues to cook, that Cannabis Sativa L, when it hits a court of law, will ever be actually found as such. It has inhabited the region and been used by its residents for thousands of years.

However, beyond this, important regulatory guidance will need to fall somewhere on the matter of processing and extraction. It is in fact in the processing and extraction part of the debate that this discussion about Novel Food actually means something, beyond the political jockeying and hay made so far.

Beyond this of course, the marketing of CBD now allowed by this decision, will absolutely move the topic of cannabinoids front and center in the overall public sphere. That linked with sovereign experiments on adult use markets of the THC kind (see Holland, Luxembourg and Denmark as well as Portugal and Spain right after that), is far from a null sum game.

Legal Challenges Of Note

The European Court of Human Rights

Against this changing regulatory schemata, court cases and legal decisions remain very important as they also add flavor to how regulations are interpreted and followed. The most important court case in Europe right now is the one now waiting to be decided in the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg regarding the human rights implications of accessing the plant.

Beyond that, in Germany, recent case law at a regional social benefits court (LSG) has begun to establish that the cannabis discussion is ultimately between doctors and their patients. While this still does not solve the problem of doctor reluctance to prescribe the drug, barriers are indeed coming down thanks to legal challenges.

Bottom line, the industry has been handed a nice whiff of confidence, but there is a still high and thorny bramble remaining to get through – and it will not happen overnight, or indeed even over the next several years.

NCIA Publishes Environmental Sustainability Recommendations

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

Earlier this week, the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) published its recommendations for improving environmental sustainability in the cannabis industry. The report, titled Environmental Sustainability in the Cannabis Industry: Impacts, Best Management Practices, and Policy Considerations, was developed by their Policy Council along with experts in the field of environmental sustainability.

The 58-page report is quite comprehensive and covers things like land use, soil health, water, energy, air quality, waste and the negative effects of an unregulated market. While the report goes into great detail on specific environmental policy considerations, like recycling, water usage, energy efficiency and more, it makes a handful of overarching policy recommendations that impact environmental sustainability on a much more macro level.

The report mentions developing a platform for sharing information in the national cannabis industry. The idea here is that information sharing on a national scale for things like energy use can be used as a communication tool for regulators as well as a tool for companies to collaborate and share ideas.

The second more overarching policy recommendation the NCIA makes in this report is “to incorporate environmental best practices and regulatory requirements into existing marijuana licensing and testing processes.” This would help streamline and unify regulations already in place and keeps sustainability in the discussion from the very start.

The last major policy recommendation they make is for incentive programs. They say that governments should incentivize cannabis businesses to operate more sustainably and “prioritize funds provided to businesses where barriers exist to entering the market, such as small- or minority-owned businesses.” The report adds that this could essentially kill two birds with one stone by promoting environmental sustainability and diversity at the same time.

Kaitlin Urso is the lead author of the report and executive project and engagement manager for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. She says that these policy recommendations were designed to benefit everyone. “A successful, socially responsible cannabis industry will require best practices for environmental sustainability. This paper is a vital first step in that effort,” says Urso. “This is important, ongoing work that will benefit everyone. The NCIA’s paper on environmental sustainability is going to inform how we approach important questions related to the future of the cannabis industry.”

To read the report in its entirety, click here.

Why You Should Consider Parametric Insurance to Protect Your Outdoor Cannabis Crop

By Evan Stait
No Comments

In May 2019, there were 4,400 reports of tornadoes, hail and high winds across the U.S. That’s the highest number of similar weather incidents on record since 2011. This increasing number of weather incidents has a huge effect on the cannabis industry, which has turned more frequently to outdoor cultivation since legalization.

While outdoor cultivation can develop the flavor of the cannabis crop, much like wine, it also brings with it some unique challenges. Each component of the weather – wind, rain, temperature – plays a role in whether a crop succeeds or fails. While conditions one year may easily lead to a bumper crop, the conditions the following year may not be as favorable. And as the weather becomes more volatile due to climate change, growers are ever more at risk, especially when they aren’t insured.

Evan Stait, author and commercial account executive for HUB International

Unfortunately, traditional crop insurance isn’t available for outdoor cannabis cultivators, primarily because of a lack of data on yield performances – and the impact the weather has on yields. Insurance companies don’t create policies until they have the data to back the policy. But meanwhile, the growers are assuming all the risk.

Enter parametric insurance. Parametric insurance is a program that pays out after a certain parameter is met. In the case of cannabis growers, the parameters are weather-related. The policy is triggered when the weather varies from the average – if there is too much rain during a specific period of time, for example, or an occurrence of large hail. Because the policy is related to average weather, it has to be tailored to the specific growing region – which means the parameters for Colorado won’t be the same as a policy for Maine.

For cannabis crops, coverage can be created for the following parameters:

  • Rain (recorded in inches of rainfall over a period of time)
  • Wind (recorded in miles per hour)
  • Early freezing (using recorded temperatures)
  • Hail (measures intensity and size of the hail)
  • Drought (for non-irrigated plots)

Once a parameter has been set, the policy starts to pay out at the strike point, or the average measurement specified in the policy. Coverage continues to pay out until the exhaust point, or the entire limit of the coverage is paid out. It works well because it’s straightforward: The further away from the average, the more the likelihood of catastrophic loss.

Parametric insurance isn’t for everyone. It’s a program designed to fill gaps that exist within the traditional insurance system. Nor is it designed to stand alone. But it can protect outdoor cannabis cultivators from weather risks that are truly beyond their control, especially given the hardening property insurance market.

In addition, it works for two simple reasons:

  1. Simplicity: Recorded weather events leave no room for ambiguity or dispute. You don’t even need an adjuster to guide the claims process. The official weather data proves what happened.
  2. Correlation: There is a high degree of correlation between measurable weather events and potential damage to outdoor crops.

Parametric coverage is not widely available. Many insurance professionals may not even know of it. But with the property insurance market hardening and a growing need to protect you and your cannabis business from weather-related disaster, parametric coverage may be your best bet. Make sure you speak to a broker who knows about it.

Cannabis Industry Journal

Cannabis Property Coverage: Understanding Risk Management & Communication

By Bradley Rutt
No Comments
Cannabis Industry Journal

For cannabis companies, property coverage can cost as much as seven to 10 times what traditional manufacturing and retail outlets pay. That is, of course, because of the inherent hazards involved in manufacturing and selling cannabis, in a difficult insurance market.

For landlords and building owners, taking in a cannabis tenant can be tricky as well. Because of the higher theft and manufacturing risks, many underwriters are unwilling to offer coverage. And, failure by a landlord to disclose a cannabis tenant is likely to result in a denied claim. Keeping property coverage in check by implementing risk management best practices and working to expand coverage and reduce premium costs can propel a cannabis business even further.  

Moreover, some landlords and building owners will require businesses to maintain occurrence-based liability coverage, which is harder to secure when running a cannabis operation. An occurrence-based liability policy is one that covers the renter for an accident occurring during the policy period, regardless of when a claim is made.

Instead, some insurance companies will only cover cannabis business’ high risks with a claims-made policy, or one in which claims must be made during the policy period only. Landlords will often stipulate their requirement for an occurrence-based policy in their lease. That means that cannabis businesses with a claims-made policy could unknowingly be in violation of their lease.

These issues and others have allowed landlords to command premium rent from cannabis business owners who find obtaining the right property coverage difficult.

To calm the rising tide of rent and property coverage costs, cannabis business owners and operators can engage in the following risk management considerations.

 Risk Management Considerations for Facilities with a Cannabis Operation 

Carriers are more likely to provide a policy to cannabis businesses that are doing what they can to minimize their risk. Here are six ways cannabis businesses can reduce their costs, minimize exclusions and obtain broader property coverage.

  1. If you are a retailer, have a plan to prevent or respond in the event of a robbery.
  2. Install and know how to use vaults and safes properly.
  3. Install central station alarms, cameras and other safeguards. Have them tied to your phone for easy access.
  4. Depending on the nature of the operations, install and regularly test fire sprinklers on site to make sure they are in working order.
  5. Consider hiring a third party, properly-insured, armed guard to safeguard your storefront on a regular basis.
  6. Institute industry-known best practices for high-risk manufacturing processes, like oil extraction.

Insurance Considerations for Facilities with a Cannabis Operation 

Risk management is critical to controlling risk, and insurance considerations can help your cannabis business obtain broader coverage and reduce premium costs.

  1. Communicate with your insurance broker.If you’re a landlord and you want to rent to a cannabis tenant, have a conversation with your insurance carrier at least 30 days before the lease begins. Even if you do, there’s a good chance that your carrier will issue a notice of cancellation (NOC) because they don’t want to engage with cannabis risk. On the other hand, if you don’t disclose the new tenant risk, should a claim be filed, it will could be denied, and the non-disclosure could cost you your policy.
  2. Engage a broker/carrier that specializes in cannabis.In such a volatile market, it is important to work with a broker and carrier that specialize in cannabis. This will enable hidden exclusions to be removed and help you procure the best policy and pricing possible for your organization.
  3. Tell your insurance “story.”Let the carrier understand your business and its risks by telling them your “story.” Tell them what your business does well, including current risk management practices and how you’ve been able to reduce claims. This will go a long way toward potentially minimizing premium costs and exclusions and obtaining broader coverage.
  4. Get another set of eyes. Most carriers will require a lengthy application from cannabis businesses in which the carrier may require the business to comply with certain requirements like having an approved safe or vault room. Your business will be held to the requirements stipulated in the application should you sign and submit it. Ask your broker or a reliable attorney to review the contract for anything you may have missed. Some carriers will incorporate the submitted application into the policy. Any changes between policy inception and a claim could cause coverage issues.

The fast-growing nature of the cannabis industry has ushered in a new set of challenges for business owners and operators. Keeping property coverage in check by implementing risk management best practices and working to expand coverage and reduce premium costs can propel a cannabis business even further.

A Joint Problem: How Cannabis Testing Policies Affect Applicants’ Attraction Toward an Organization

By Prachi
No Comments

Employees with substance abuse issues could cause problems for their employers. Recent legalization of cannabis has prompted organization to re-evaluate their drug testing policies in anticipation of increased usage among employees and potential hires (Rotermann, 2020). Cannabis use has increased from 14.9% to 16.8% post-legalization in Canada. Policies that enable routine cannabis-testing of employees, though beneficial in some cases, might negatively affect the perceptions of individuals toward the organizations that hold these policies. Specifically, job applicants may perceive the administration of such policies as unfair. I investigated the influence of cannabis testing policy and its perceived fairness on job applicants’ perception of organizational attractiveness and their intention to apply to a job vacancy.

A recruitment notice was presented to potential participants, which included a link to the survey. After reading and signing the consent form, participants were randomly assigned one of the three drug testing conditions (severe, moderate, none). Severe drug testing policies include testing pre-employment, randomly during the employment period, and in response to suspicious behavior. Moderate drug testing policies include administering drug testing pre-employment and in cases of suspicion. None is the control (i.e., no testing policy in place). The corresponding vignette was presented, followed by the survey questionnaire (measures on organizational attractiveness, intention to apply, perceived fairness, and perceived stigma), demographic questions, and questions on cannabis usage.

Cannabis user’s perceived fairness of cannabis testing was higher within organizations with no compared to severe testing situations (Figure 1). However, for individuals who do not ingest cannabis, the perceived fairness was higher for organizations with severe compared to no cannabis testing policy. This suggests that cannabis users deem cannabis testing as unfair regardless of the type of policy. This supports previous research findings on recreational use of cannabis and job seekers’ perception of drug testing (Paronto et al., 2002). Based on Gilliland’s (1993) model of organizational justice and perceived fairness, there are 10 procedural rules categorized into three categories: formal characteristics of selection system, explanations offered during the selection process, and interpersonal treatments that help form the applicants’ perceived fairness. In the current study, the no-cannabis testing job advertisement was seen as valid (one of Gilliland’s procedural rules is selection information) and honest (one of Gilliland’s procedural rules is honesty) by the cannabis users; however, moderate and severe testing was not seen in the same light, which might explain why we see decreased perceived fairness for cannabis testing. Those two procedural rules violate reasonableness leading to decreased perception of organizational fairness among cannabis users for cannabis testing.

The current study also supported past research by confirming that the individuals who ingest cannabis demonstrated increased levels of organizational attractiveness and intention to apply to organizations that had none compared to severe cannabis testing policies. If the organization is testing for cannabis use pre-employment or randomly, in addition to post-accident/suspicious behavior (i.e., severe policy), cannabis users’ level of organization attractiveness and intention to apply is much lower. This could be due to the fact that cannabis has been legalized in Canada and 11 states in the US  (Leafly, 2020). Individuals might feel that severe testing is an invasion of their privacy given that they are not doing anything illegal. Furthermore, job applicants perceived drug-testing as harassment toward individuals and claimed it represents a repressive work environment. Given that, this feeling could prevent an applicant from applying or considering the available job.

Implications: This study has important implications for employers and organizations in general. Even though it is important to have cannabis testing policies in place, it is equally important to consider the impact of cannabis testing on the potential talent pool. Such perceptions of drug testing may lead talented applicants to self-select out of the job pool. This would lead to a decreased number of applicants for a job available to the employer. Therefore, knowing the attitudes and intentions of individuals who ingest cannabis toward moderate and severe testing policies will provide employers with solid research-based evidence from which to design programs and policies surrounding cannabis testing.

Gaps in Standard Property Insurance Can be an Unknown Hazard for Cannabis Businesses

By Susan Preston, T.J. Frost
1 Comment

Basic business liability coverage is not enough for those cultivating, selling and distributing cannabis. General liability, property and even commercial renter’s insurance policies all exclude aspects of cannabis operations, leading to significant gaps in coverage.

Unfortunately, many cannabis operations purchase traditional property policies, assuming they’re insured. Then, when a claim comes to light, they find out they’re not covered.Consider the following common exclusions that could lead to a costly business interruption – or worse

Although the production, sales and distribution of cannabis is legal in many U.S. states, it is still illegal federally. This disparity can cause confusion when it comes to insurance compliance. Cannabis companies will want to secure industry specific coverage for risks associated with property, business interruption, and auto as well as general liability.

Consider the following common exclusions that could lead to a costly business interruption – or worse – a shutdown of operations when not properly insured:

  • Property coverage does not cover crops. Cannabis crops require specific coverage for different growth stages, including seedling, living plant and fully harvested. The insurance industry has designed policies specifically for indoor crop coverage for cannabis operations. There is some market availability for normal insured perils such as fire and theft, to name a few. Work with your broker to review your property policy and any potential exclusions related to cannabis operations. There is currently not much availability for insurance for outdoor crop.
  • Auto policies exclude cannabis transport. Some states require separate permits for transportation. Review coverage options with a knowledgeable broker before moving forward with driver hiring. Implement driver training sessions on a regular basis, conduct background checks and review MVRs prior to hiring company drivers. Teach drivers how to handle accidents on the scene, including informing law enforcement of the cannabis cargo. Remember that transporting cannabis across state lines (even when legal in both states) is still illegal due to federal law.
  • Equipment damage and/or breakdown coverage may be excluded from property policies. Consider the expenses and potential loss of revenue due to mechanical or electrical breakdown of any type of equipment due to power surges, burnout, malfunctions and user error. Having the right equipment breakdown insurance will help you quickly get back into full operation, with minimal costs. Conduct an onsite risk assessment of your equipment to get a comprehensive picture of your risk exposure, and review current insurance policies to identify key exclusions. 

Organizations looking for cannabis business insurance are best off working with a qualified broker who is knowledgeable in the cannabis space.As the cannabis industry continues to expand, more and more insurance options have become available. And yet as with any fast-paced industry, not every option that appears legitimate is a good risk for your cannabis business.

Be a contentious insurance consumer. Review the policy closely for exclusions and coverage features so you understand the premium rates and limits of the policy.  Discuss with your broker the history of the carrier as to paying claims in a timely fashion.

Organizations looking for cannabis business insurance are best off working with a qualified broker who is knowledgeable in the cannabis space.

Cannabis Legalization in Massachusetts: An Interview with Steven Hoffman, Chairman of the Cannabis Control Commission

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

On February 13 at the upcoming Seed To Sale Show in Boston, MA, Steven Hoffman, Chairman of the Cannabis Control Commission of Massachusetts, will deliver a keynote discussion. Hoffman will sit down with National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Executive Director Aaron Smith to discuss the first few months of recreational legalization, challenges and the path forward for the state. We caught up with Hoffman to hear about some of the biggest obstacles and successes when it came to standing up a regulated adult-use cannabis market.

On November 8, 2016, voters in Massachusetts ushered in a new era for the East Coast, when they passed a ballot initiative to legalize adult-use cannabis. Almost immediately after that, the Massachusetts Legislature put a hold on implementation in order to study the issues and revise the legislation, which was ultimately signed in July of 2017. That September, Steven Hoffman and his colleagues at the Cannabis Control Commission were appointed to figure out how the state should regulate the market, enforce its regulations and roll out the new adult-use program.

Steven Hoffman, Chairman of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission

The Commission was tasked with creating something brand new, without a roadmap in place and developing rules around some very contentious issues. “I think the biggest obstacle was that we were doing something unprecedented,” says Hoffman. “Every state is different demographically and the laws differ state to state, and we got a lot of help from other states sharing their experiences with us, but we were still going down an uncharted path for Massachusetts.”

Hoffman told us the very first thing they needed to do in 2017 was conduct listening sessions in which the commissioners listened to citizens for recommendations and heard people’s thoughts on cannabis legalization. “We did that immediately. We needed to conduct a process that was transparent, thoughtful and inclusive,” says Hoffman. “We then, in public, debated policies around adult-use marijuana regarding licensing processes, criteria and enforcement.”

They debated policies in a public forum for four days and came back the following week to embed their decisions in draft regulations that were submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2017. Then, they had 10 more public hearings, made some modifications to the rules, and promulgated a final version of the adult-use regulations in March 2018, keeping everything as transparent and inclusive as possible. “I don’t think anyone has been critical of that process behind it,” says Hoffman.

Certain pieces of the regulations stand out as particularly inclusive and progressive for Massachusetts’ cannabis program. For example, certain mandates encourage diversity and support communities affected by the drug war. Hoffman says the Commission couldn’t take credit for those completely because their objectives are explicit in the legislation, however, the agency still made sure the state followed through. “The mandate said the industry should look like the state of Massachusetts in terms of our diversity,” says Hoffman. That includes creating a diverse industry with respect to ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ, veteran and disabled participation. Additionally, he added, “it was a very explicit set of requirements that those communities who were disproportionally harmed by the drug war are full participants in the new industry we set up. Those were both legislative mandates, so we take them very seriously and I wouldn’t have taken this appointment if I didn’t think it was absolutely essential.”

You can expect to hear more from Hoffman on this and other matters related to implementing cannabis regulations at the upcoming Seed To Sale Show in Boston, MA, February 12-13, 2019. On November 20, 2018, the first adult-use dispensaries in the state opened their doors for business and began selling cannabis. Hoffman says he is most proud of their rollout of the program as well as the transparency and inclusiveness through which they conducted the process. “I think this is a very controversial issue; the voters approved this issue by 53-47%,” says Hoffman. “No matter what we do, we won’t make everyone happy, but we’ve done everything possible to allow people to participate and feel like they’ve been listened to. We made our decisions publicly and transparently.”

Beyond that, the Commission wanted to take their time to make sure things were done the right way the first time. “From day one, we decided we were going to do this right rather than meet an arbitrary timeline,” says Hoffman. “It’s gradual, it’s maybe slower than some people would like, but our rollout has been well-received and relatively smooth. I think a gradual and thoughtful process, not focused on a deadline, went very well. Hopefully we have given other states a model when they plan their own rollout.”

Hoffman wouldn’t comment on whether or not he would encourage other states down a similar path, but he did say they could probably learn a thing or two from them. “I expect other states will do what we did,” says Hoffman. “They will talk to other states ahead of them like us and hopefully will benefit from learning from our experiences. I don’t know what the laws will look like but I expect other states need to make it work for them specifically.”

You can expect to hear more from Hoffman on this and other matters related to implementing cannabis regulations at the upcoming Seed To Sale Show in Boston, MA, February 12-13, 2019. Make sure to check out his keynote discussion with Aaron Smith on Wednesday, February 13 at 10:30am.