As the legal landscape surrounding cannabis continues to evolve, the creation of robust, sensible and consistent safety regulations remains stalled. A patchwork of broadly inconsistent state rules and regulations, along with years of federal inaction and policy stagnation have the potential to create significant risks for consumers. Given the industry’s explosive, multi-billion-dollar growth, consumers have access to an ever-increasing number of products produced by an increasing number of actors, pursuant to widely divergent standards and rules. Given this, the industry would be well-served to take on the responsibility of promulgating a coherent regulatory framework with robust (but sensible) safety regulations. The importance of collaboration among cannabis industry stakeholders cannot be overstated if we are to develop and adopt consistent standards that guarantee product safety at every step of the supply chain.
To mitigate these risks, it is vitally important for the cannabis industry to collaborate in the ongoing development of safety standards. This means understanding and implementing safety measures starting with the cultivation process. Careful consideration should be given to factors such as the use of pesticides and herbicides, soil quality and irrigation methods. Standardized safety testing to ensure uniformity between products for potency, contaminants, heavy metals and microbial organisms is crucial to consumer safety. Accurate and comprehensive labeling is likewise necessary for consumers to be adequately informed.
For as long as consistent state and federal guidelines governing cannabis safety remain elusive, the need for industry self-regulation will be paramount. Cannabis companies must work together to share best practices, establish standard operating procedures and adopt stringent safety measures. By promoting transparency and collaboration, stakeholders can build credibility and consumer trust while fostering a safer and more reputable industry.
As the industry continues to grow, it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to continue prioritizing consumer safety through, among other things, a focus on education and inter-industry collaboration, if we are to continue cultivating a trustworthy and sustainable cannabis market for the future. The path forward will require stakeholders to pursue continuous education, improvement, and collaboration in the development of a holistic safety framework capable of ensuring consumer safety.
The cannabis industry in the United States is booming. In just a few years, it has gone from a small, underground market to a multi-billion-dollar industry. This growth is due in part to the legalization of cannabis in many states, as well as the growing public acceptance of its use for both medical and recreational purposes.
The industry is still in its early stages, but it has the potential to be a major economic driver for the United States. However, the industry’s success has brought with it challenges, such as THC inflation. This is when growers inflate the THC levels of their products in order to sell them for a higher price. This practice has led to widespread lab shopping, as growers send their products to labs that promise to give them the highest THC readings.
THC Inflation and Lab Shopping: A Look Under the Hood
Among cannabis enthusiasts, a prevailing belief circulates, asserting that cannabis products with elevated THC levels inherently possess greater potency and induce more pronounced effects. Nevertheless, this belief rests upon a fallacy, for it erroneously assumes that THC levels alone dictate the overall potency of a cannabis product. Genuinely comprehending the potency and effects of cannabis products requires the consideration of an array of factors. These factors include the presence of other cannabinoids and terpenes, the method by which the substance is consumed, as well as an individual’s metabolic and tolerance peculiarities. For instance, a particular strain of cannabis with low THC content, but elevated levels of other cannabinoids and terpenes, may engender a more intense impact in contrast to a variety exhibiting higher THC levels but diminished quantities of other compounds.
This misguided notion that heightened THC levels correspond to augmented potency has contributed to a surge in the demand for high-THC products. Consequently, producers have resorted to offering incentives to labs that provide inflated THC numbers for their products. Thus, certain labs have engaged in a practice coined as “lab shopping,” whereby they furnish reports that align with the producers’ desired THC levels, rather than accurately reflecting the genuine levels present within the product.
The manipulation of THC levels and the deceitful practice of lab shopping inflict profound damage upon the cannabis industry, eroding the foundation of trust. The fact that growers selectively collaborate solely with labs that yield desired outcomes, generates a mirage of superiority surrounding their products, thus deceiving consumers. Consequently, unsuspecting customers find themselves in possession of goods that fall far short of the promised standards of potency or quality. Moreover, this predicament places labs that remain steadfast in their commitment to integrity and the provision of accurate test results at an unfair disadvantage.
Fighting Back to Eradicate THC Inflation and Lab Shopping in the Cannabis Industry
The relentless surge of THC inflation finds its origins in the glaring absence of standardized testing protocols within the cannabis industry. As each lab embraces diverse methodologies and tools, testing produces disparate outcomes. This dissonance becomes a fertile ground for unscrupulous labs, who seize the opportunity presented by this lack of uniformity to peddle false THC numbers. To compound matters, the scope for manual interference looms large. The solution to this problem is to create a set of standards that everyone in the cannabis industry must follow. It’s important for the industry to come together and establish a common set of rules for testing. This will ensure that all labs consistently follow the same procedures and produce accurate results. In addition, it is important to have different labs take part in proficiency testing to find outlier labs. States should also take quick action to punish labs that provide incorrect or exaggerated THC values in their reports.
A representation of various ways to arrest the budding trend of THC inflation and lab shopping (Figure courtesy CloudLIMS)
It is extremely important to prioritize transparency among labs in order to address the growing concerns regarding the inflation of THC potency. State regulatory bodies can achieve this by conducting frequent audits to detect and correct any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the data. To make this possible, state agencies need to hire skilled data scientists who can thoroughly analyze the data produced by labs. If the industry collectively works towards addressing these issues, it will enhance consumer trust in the regulated market. By eliminating the incentives that drive THC potency inflation, a more trustworthy cannabis industry can take shape and flourish.
Next, it is crucial to educate customers about the false notion that higher THC levels always result in stronger effects. Through effective communication and raising awareness, the industry can address the issue of THC potency and discourage the practice of selectively choosing labs with desired results.
The Importance of Deploying a Cannabis Lab Testing Software
Having a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) is essential to meet the challenging ISO/IEC 17025 requirements. This system plays a critical role in providing an extra level of assurance and trust in the accuracy of lab results. By automating processes, integrating analytical instruments, and adhering to rigorous quality standards, a cannabis lab testing software minimizes the possibility of manual manipulation of test results.
Furthermore, a cannabis lab testing software maintains a sample chain-of-custody (CoC) through the sample life cycle and tracks samples using barcodes. Furthermore, it generates custom reports that include scannable QR codes, which can be instantly shared with customers. By configuring the QR code, it becomes possible to include a link to the original Certificate of Analysis (CoA) produced by a lab. This allows buyers to verify the reported composition on the product label by referring to the authentic test results on the CoA. This approach promotes transparency, trust, and accountability within the cannabis industry.
Cannabis lab testing software to manage and track samples through their lifecycle and maintain a CoC (Figure courtesy CloudLIMS)
A cannabis lab testing software carefully monitors and records all activities, such as staff logins, document modifications, sample records, and test results, with a date and time stamp along with the name of the person who performed those activities. This thorough record-keeping process eliminates any chance of manual tampering with lab data, thereby enhancing the reliability and defensibility of test results. Moreover, the system effectively manages the outcomes of various Quality Control (QC) samples to guarantee accurate test results. By comparing the test results of QC samples with the samples being tested, the system can identify any analytical errors and enable lab managers to fix them, enabling labs to uphold quality standards.
The cannabis industry has experienced swift expansion as a result of cannabis legalization in multiple states across the United States. This has brought about various advantages, such as increased demand for cannabis products and the creation of new employment opportunities and tax revenue. However, the industry has faced challenges such as the issues of THC inflation and lab shopping. Dishonest producers and labs take advantage of the lack of standardized industry practices to deceive regulators and consumers. To address this issue, it is crucial to establish industry-wide testing standards that ensure consistency and accuracy across all labs. State agencies must also take prompt action to penalize labs that provide false THC values. Additionally, educating consumers about the misconceptions surrounding high THC levels and potency is important to combat this detrimental trend in the industry. Implementing cannabis lab testing software can help reduce the potential for human error and guarantee the authenticity and reliability of lab data.
This nascent but fast-growing industry holds remarkable promise for medicine and the economy, which can only be realized if proper safeguards are put in place and malpractices are stopped in their tracks.
By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes No Comments
On March 31, 2021, New York legalized adult-use cannabis with the passage of the Marijuana Regulation & Taxation Act (MRTA). Perhaps the most controversial portion of the Act was Section 493(1)-(3), which established taxes on the potency of cannabis products sold by distributors to retailers. Many cannabis advocates condemn this tariff, arguing that it increases the effective tax rate to such a high level that legal cannabis businesses can no longer compete against the illegal operations. A movement to repeal this tax and substitute a flat tax of 20% is gaining momentum.
Potency Tax Rates & Official Projected Total Tax Percentage
The three potency taxes are:
Edibles (food & beverages): $0.03 per mg of THC
Concentrates (vapes & resins): $0.008 per mg of THC
Flower (loose flower or pre-rolls): $0.005 per mg of THC
The THC tax accrues when cannabis is sold from a distributor to a retailer and is paid to the State by the distributor. If the distributor is also a licensed retailer, such as a microbusiness, the tax accrues at the time of the retail sale.
Along with the state excise tax of 9% and the local excise tax of 4%, the New York Office of Cannabis Management has projected a total tax burden of 20% on an average cannabis purchase.
Potentially Higher Total Tax Percentage
Critics of the potency tax say that it drives the total tax rate much higher than official estimates. In a recent study by the Cannabis Service Team of New York law firm Barclay Damon LLP, tax attorney Jason Klimek (Klimek is also chair of the Tax Committee for the New York State Bar Association’s Cannabis Law Section) provided an analysis showing an effective total tax percentage of 31%-41% on a typical cannabis purchase.
Potency Tax Likely to Result in Higher Tax Rates Down the Line
Rachel Wright will be discussing taxes and more on October 17 at the CQC in New Jersey. Click here to learn more. In addition to possibly burdening legal cannabis businesses with higher taxes, a major problem with a potency tax is that it is product-based, not price-based. This means that, if the retail price of a cannabis product is forced down by market conditions, the potency tax remains the same and effectively becomes a higher percentage of the sales price than it was before.
Because legal cannabis businesses are competing with illegal businesses which pay no taxes, it is likely that legal prices will be forced downward in order for those businesses to compete. This is what has taken place in California, as well as in other states with a strong illicit market. It is much harder for legitimate cannabis operators to remain competitive if they’re saddled with a potency tax. Critics of the potency tax point out that, of the 38 states in which cannabis is legal, only Connecticut has a potency tax.
Increased Costs of Compliance and Other Issues
The potency tax requires producers to pay significant lab expenses for testing of products. Plus, the tax burdens small cannabis producers with higher record-keeping and personnel costs just to manage the process.
Another concern is that today’s testing equipment is not accurate enough to provide a precise measure of THC and thus a precise tax calculation. One recent report by a New York cannabis law firm showed how current testing could result in a variance in taxation of 35% as well as in a retail user consuming 35% more THC than expected:
A lab may have a Measure of Uncertainty (MU) of 3% with a confidence interval of 95%, meaning that there is a 95% chance the true value [of THC] will be within ± 3% of the stated value. Under these hypothetical facts, a farmer that produces 1,000 pounds of cannabis that tests at 20% total THC has a product that may actually range from 17% to 23%. In terms of taxes owed, the difference would be a range of $385,560 to $521,640. Presumably, the farmer would be taxed at whatever percentage is reported on the label, but would be able to choose the percentage on the label, so long as it fell within the MU… This results in at least two problems. The first problem is that the government may be shortchanged in its tax collection. Second, there is a public health concern resulting from underreporting… if a farmer is incentivized to report the lower percentage, that could result in a consumer consuming approximately 35% more THC than expected.
State Legislators Take Action
On March 6, 2023, Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D) and state Senator Jeremy Cooney (D) announced Senate Bill S4831 which would replace the potency tax with an increase in the state excise tax, from 9% to 16%. Combined with the local excise tax of 4%, New York would then have a total “flat tax” of 20%.
Cooney commented, “Replacing the potency tax with an increase in the excise tax will allow licensed operators, including social equity operators, to sell competitively-priced products and be less susceptible to undercutting by illicit market prices without sacrificing revenues.” The bill is currently in the Senate Budget and Revenue Committee.
New York’s potency tax has come to be seen by many as a burden to adult-use cannabis companies. Many believe it results in increased taxation and costs of compliance and leaves the nascent legal adult-use cannabis industry in a less competitive position vis-a-vis those companies that operate illicitly. In addition, the variability of the laboratory measurements used in the calculation of the potency tax opens the door to confusion regarding the correct amount of tax owed to the state and could lead to consumers absorbing significantly higher doses of THC than expected.
Businesses that are in favor of substituting an increased rate of excise tax for the potency tax should contact their state legislative representatives and urge support for Senate Bill S4831.
The success of reputable cannabis and CBD brands has inspired an influx of inexperienced and disreputable competitors in the market. These so-called “bad actors” in CBD advertise products that are not manufactured under current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), which help to ensure that all products are consistently produced and controlled according to specified quality standards. cGMP helps guard against risks of adulteration, cross-contamination and mislabeling to guarantee product quality, safety and efficacy.
Joseph Dowling, Author & CEO of CV Sciences
CBD products without cGMP regulations are often inaccurately labeled and deceiving to consumers. In fact, in a test of over 100 CBD products available online and at retail locations, Johns Hopkins Medicine found significant evidence of inaccurate, misleading labeling of CBD content. The prevalence of such brands not only reduces consumer confidence in CBD but also limits the growth of the sector as a whole. Fortunately, CBD consumers and retailers can easily discriminate between a well-tested, reputable brand and inferior bad actors with a few straightforward, minimum requirements to look out for when selecting a product.
Why are “bad actors” a problem for consumers and the industry?
Bad actors in CBD sell products that are not produced under cGMP conditions and are typically not tested by third-party laboratories to ensure identity, purity, quality, strength and composition. This means they are not verified for contaminants, impurities, label claims and product specifications. This frequently results in misleading advertising with inaccurate levels of cannabinoids or traces of compounds not found on the label, like THC. To combat this, the FDA issues warning letters to actors that market products allegedly containing CBD—many of which are found not to contain the claimed levels of CBD and are not approved for the treatment of any medical condition. Still, bad actors manage to slip through the cracks and deceive consumers.
The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.
Bad actors that put anything in a bottle and make unsubstantiated medical claims hurt the reputable operators that strive to create safe and high-quality products. It is easy for consumers to be drawn to CBD products with big medical claims and lower prices, only to be disappointed when the product does not produce the advertised results. Inaccurately labeled products may contain unexpected levels of cannabinoids, including ingredients that consumers may not intend to ingest, like Delta-9 or Delta-8 THC. Along with unexpected levels of THC, many CBD products available now are not as pure as advertised, with one in four products going untested for contaminants like microbial content, pesticides, or heavy metals.
Further, inaccurate labeling of products and their compounds also prevents consumers from establishing a baseline impact of CBD on their bodies, leaving them vulnerable to inconsistent future experiences. Such a poor experience can turn consumers off to the category as a whole, drawing their trust away from not only the bad actors but also the reliable, reputable brands on the market. The saturation of the market with these disreputable brands delegitimizes a category that has only just begun to break down the stigmas, creating stagnation rather than growth as consumers remain wary of low-quality products.
How can consumers identify bad actors in CBD?
There are several simple ways to identify a bad actor among CBD products and make certain that both consumers and retailers purchase quality, reliable and safe brands in legitimate sales channels. To start, consumers should avoid all CBD products that are marketed with unsubstantiated medical claims. This is a significant area of abuse, as brands that relate any form of CBD product to a disease state, like cancer, should not be trusted. The science to support such medical claims has not been completed, yet, product marketing is years ahead of the evidence to support such claims. Unsupported medical claims could also mislead consumers that may need more serious medical intervention.
Just some of the many CBD products on the market today.
Additionally, consumers must review the packaging, which should include nutrition information in the form of a supplement fact label. The label should include the serving size, number of servings per container, a list of all dietary ingredients in the product and the amount per serving of each ingredient. All labels should include a net quantity of contents, lot number or batch ID, the name and address of the manufacturer, and an expiration or manufacturing date. These signs of a reputable brand are easy to look for and can save consumers from the trouble of selecting the wrong CBD product.
What to look for when selecting a CBD product
With this in mind, products from reputable, tested brands can be identified by a few key factors. Reputable CBD companies are already compliant with the FDA regulations on nutritional supplements, including a nutritional or supplement fact panel on the packaging—just like vitamins. The information in this panel should include all the active cannabinoids in the product, both per serving and package. Clear potency labeling allows consumers to confidently select products that suit their needs and understand the baseline impact of CBD concentration on their bodies, thus helping them to tailor their experience with thoughtful product selection.
Reputable brands also include a convenient QR code on the packaging, linking the product to a certificate of analysis that details the testing results to demonstrate compliance with product standards and label claims. In terms of specific ingredients, consumers should be skeptical of high concentration levels of “flavor of the month” minor cannabinoids, which are often associated with unsubstantiated medical claims. Current scientific research has set its focus on major cannabinoids like CBD and Delta-9 THC, leaving additional research necessary for understanding minor cannabinoids. Minor cannabinoids are typically included in full spectrum products at concentrations found naturally in the cannabis plant, which is a safer approach to consuming CBD until more research is completed.
Consumers should not let the existence of unreliable, untrustworthy brands curtail their confidence in the CBD sector—there are many high-quality, safe and trusted brands on the market. With a knowledgeable and discerning eye, consumers and retailers can easily select top-quality CBD products that millions of consumers have found to improve many aspects of their health and well-being. Looking ahead, clear federal regulations for CBD products that require mandatory product registration, compliance with product labeling, packaging and cGMP will be crucial in weeding out bad actors and will allow compliant companies to gain consumer trust and responsibly grow the CBD category.
By Erik Paulson, Josh Swider, Zachary Eisenberg 5 Comments
Fraud
The THC content you see on a label when you walk into a dispensary? There is a very good chance the number is false.
In every state with regulated cannabis, there is a requirement to label the potency of products so consumers can make informed purchasing and medicating decisions. The regulations usually state that the THC/cannabinoid content on the label must be within a particular relative percent difference of the actual tested results for the product to be salable. In California, that threshold is +/- 10%.
The problem is, with all the focus on THC percentage in flower and concentrate products, enormous pressure has been placed on cultivators and manufacturers to push their numbers up. Higher numbers = higher prices. But unfortunately, improving their growing, extraction and formulation processes only gets companies so far. So, they proceed to ‘lab shop’: giving their business to whichever lab provides them the highest potency.
There are roughly 50 Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) licensed labs in the state, and competition is fierce to maintain market share in a maturing and plateauing industry. Whereas competition used to be healthy and revolved around quality, turnaround time and customer service, now it’s essentially become a numbers game. As a result, many labs have sacrificed their scientific integrity to chase what the clients want: higher THC potency results without contaminant failures. The practice has become so prevalent that labs openly advertise their higher potency values to gain customers without fear of recourse. Here are two examples:
Over a year ago, a few labs fed up with what was happening got together to determine the extent of the potency inflation issue. We proactively purchased and tested over 150 randomly chosen flower samples off dispensary shelves. The results were staggering. Eighty-seven percent of the samples failed their label claims (i.e., were >10% deviant of their labeled values), with over half of the samples >20% deviant of their labeled THC values (i.e., over 2x the legal permitted variance). Additionally, our labs found multiple cases of unreported category 1 pesticides in some of the analyzed samples at multiple times the legal limit – a significant public health concern. The deceit was not limited to small cultivators trying to get by but also some of the industry’s biggest brands.
The same issues and economic conditions are in play for concentrates. Manufacturers of these products also hunt for the highest D9 THC values because wholesale prices for distillate are determined by THC content: <86% for the lowest value, 86-88%, 88-90% and >90%, with a new price point for over 94%. As a result, consumers can walk into a dispensary and find concentrates like the one shown below that report>99% total cannabinoids (>990mg/g) and contains almost 10% additional terpenes. You don’t have to be an analytical chemist to realize those numbers add up to well over 100%, which is physically impossible.
Blame
Everyone can agree that the system is broken, but who is at fault? Should the blame be placed on dispensaries, many of whom use THC % as their only purchasing or marketing metric? Or on cultivators, manufacturers and distributors, who seek the highest results possible rather than the most accurate ones? Or on the labs themselves, who are knowingly reporting inflated results?
Ultimately, the individual businesses are acting in their own self-interest, and many are participating in this practice simply to stay afloat. Dispensaries can’t reasonably be expected to know which results are inflated and which are not. Cultivators and manufacturers feel obligated to use labs that provide them with the highest results; otherwise, they’re putting themselves at a disadvantage relative to their competitors. Likewise, labs that aren’t willing to inflate their numbers have to be ready to watch customers walk out the door to maintain their principles – an existential dilemma for many.
The primary reason why potency inflation has become so prevalent is that there have been no negative repercussions for those that are cheating.
The axiom is true – don’t hate the player, hate the game. Unlike most businesses, testing labs operating with integrity want meaningful regulations and oversight to assure a level playing field. Without them, the economics force a race to the bottom where labs either have to inflate more and more or go out of business. Since 2016, the DCC (formerly BCC) has taken zero meaningful actions to discourage or crackdown on potency inflation— not a single recall of an inflated product or license suspension of an inflating lab— so predictably, the problem has gotten progressively worse over time.
So, to answer the question above – who is at fault for our broken system? The answer is simple: the DCC.
Inaction
In the Fall of 2021, we began engaging with the DCC to address the industry’s potency inflation concerns. The DCC requested we provide them with direct evidence of our accusations, so we collected and shared the flower data mentioned above. The Department tested the same batches off the shelf and confirmed our results. Somehow not a single recall was issued – even for the batches containing category 1 pesticides.
We pushed for more accountability, and DCC Director Nicole Elliott assured us steps were being taken: “The Department is in the process of establishing a number of mechanisms to strengthen compliance with and accountability around the testing methods required of labs and will be sharing more about that in the near future.”
Instead, we got a standardized cannabinoid potency method (mandated by SB 544) that all labs will be required to use. On the surface, a standardized methodology sounds like a good thing to level the playing field by forcing suspect labs into accepting generally accepted best practices. In reality, however, most labs already use the same basic methodology for flower and concentrate cannabinoid profiling and inflate their results using a variety of other mechanisms: selective sampling, using advantageous reference materials, manipulating data, etc. Furthermore, the method mandated is outdated and will flatly not work for various complex matrices such as gummies, topicals, beverages, fruit chews and more. If adopted without changes, it would be a disaster for manufacturers of these products and the labs that test them. Nevertheless, the press release issued by the DCC reads as though they’ve earned a pat on the back and delivered the silver bullet to the potency inflation issue.
Here are a few more meaningful actions the DCC could take that would help combat potency inflation:
Perform routine surveillance sampling and testing of products off of store shelves either at the DCC’s internal lab or by leveraging DCC licensed private labs.
Recall products found to be guilty of extreme levels of potency inflation.
Conduct in-person, unannounced audits of all labs, perhaps focusing on those reporting statistically higher THC results.
Conduct routine round-robin studies where every lab tests the same sample and outliers are identified.
Shutdown labs that are unable or unwilling to remediate their potency inflation issues.
For some less disciplinary suggestions:
Remove incentives for potency inflation, like putting a tax on THC percentage
Set up routine training sessions for labs to address areas of concern and improve communication with the DCC
Fight
Someone might retort – who cares if the number is slightly higher than it should be? No one will notice a little less THC in their product. A few counterpoints:
Consumers are being lied to and paying more for less THC.
Medical cannabis users depend on specific dosages for intended therapeutic effects.
Ethical people who put their entire lives into cultivating quality cannabis, manufacturing quality products and accurately testing cannot compete with those willing to cheat. If things get worse, only the unethical actors will be left.
Labs that inflate potency are more likely to ignore the presence of contaminants, like the category 1 pesticides we found in our surveillance testing.
This single compound, delta-9 THC, is the entire reason why this industry is so highly regulated. If we are not measuring it accurately, why regulate it at all?
We will continue to fight for a future where quality and ethics in the cannabis industry are rewarded rather than penalized. And consumers can have confidence in the quality and safety of the products they purchase. Our labs are willing to generate additional surveillance data, provide further suggestions for improvement in regulations/enforcement, and bring further attention to this problem. But there is a limit to what we can do. In the end, the health and future of our industry are entirely in the hands of the DCC. We hope you will join us in calling on them to enact meaningful and necessary changes that address this problem.
By Kelsey Cagle, Frank L. Dorman, Jessica Westland No Comments
Sample preparation is an essential part of method development and is critical to successful analytical determinations. With cannabis and cannabis products, the analyst is faced with a very challenging matrix and targets that may range from trace level through percent level thus placing considerable demands on the sample preparation techniques.1 The optimal sample preparation, or “extraction”, method for potency analysis of cannabis flower was determined using a methanol extraction coupled with filtration using regenerated cellulose filters.
In the United States (US), Canada, and other countries where medicinal and/or adult recreational cannabis has been legalized, regulatory entities require a panel of chemical tests to ensure quality and safety of the products prior to retail sales2. Cannabis testing can be divided into two different categories: Quality and Safety. Quality testing, which includes potency analysis (also known as cannabinoid testing or cannabinoid content), is performed to analyze the product in accordance with the producer/grower expectations and government regulations. Safety testing is conducted under regulatory guidelines to ensure that consumers are not exposed to toxicants such as pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, residual solvents and microbial contaminates.
Potency testing evaluates the total amount of cannabinoid content, specifically focusing on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). In the US, the biggest push for accurate total THC is to differentiate between hemp (legally grown for industrial or medicinal use), which is defined as cannabis sativa with a THC limit ≤ 0.3 %, and cannabis (Cannabis spp.), which is any cannabis plant with THC measured above 0.3 %3. Potency testing is typically performed by liquid chromatography (LC) with UV detection to determine the quantity of major cannabinoids.
In addition to reporting THC and CBD, their respective precursors are also important for reporting total potency. Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) is the inactive precursor to THC while cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) is the precursor to CBD.4,5
Methods and Materials
Sample Preparation
All samples were homogenized using an immersion blender with a dry material grinder. The nominal sample amounts were 200 mg of flower, 500 mg of edibles, and 250 mg of candy samples.
Potency Extraction Method (1)
Twenty milliliters (mL) of methanol (MeOH) was added to each sample. The samples were mechanically shaken for 10 minutes and centrifuged for 5 minutes.
Potency Extraction Method (2)
Ten mL of water was added to each sample. The samples were mechanically shaken for 10 minutes. 20 mL of acetonitrile (ACN) was then added to each sample and vortexed. An EN QuEChERS extraction salt packet was added to the sample. The samples were placed on a mechanical shaker for 2 minutes and then centrifuged for 5 minutes.
Each extract was split and evaluated with two filtration/cleanup steps: (1) a regenerated cellulose (RC) syringe filter (Agilent Technologies, 4 mm, 0.45 µm); (2) a PFTE syringe filter (Agilent Technologies, 4 mm, 0.45 µm). The final filtered extracts were injected into the ultra-performance liquid chromatograph coupled with a photodiode array detector (UPLC-PDA) for analysis.
Figure 1: Calibration curve for THC potency
Calibration
Standards were obtained for the following cannabinoids at a concentration of 1 mg/mL: cannabidivarin (CBDV), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabigerolic acid (CBGA), cannabinol (CBN), tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC), cannabichromene (CBC), tetrahydrocannabinol acid (THCA). Equal volumes of each standard were mixed with MeOH to make a standard stock solution of 10 ug/mL. Serial dilutions were made from the stock to make concentrations of 5, 1, and 0.5 ug/mL for the calibration curve (Figure 1).
Instrumental Method
All instrument parameters were followed from Agilent Application Note 5991-9285EN.8 A UPLC with a PDA (Waters Corp, Milford, MA) detector was employed for potency analysis. An InfinityLab Poroshell 120 EC-C18, 3.0 x 50 mm, 2.7 um column (Agilent Technologies, Wilmington, DE) was utilized for compound separation. The organic mobile phase composition was 0.05 % (v/v) formic acid in HPLC grade MeOH and the aqueous mobile phase composition was 0.1 % (v/v) formic acid in HPLC grade water. The mobile phase gradient is shown in Table 1. The flow rate was 1 mL/min (9.5 minute total program), injection volume was 5 uL, and column temperature was 50 °C.
Table 1: LC mobile phase gradient for potency samples6
Discussion and Results
Table 2 summarizes the relative standard deviations (% RSD) were found for the THC calibrator (at 1 ug/mL) and one extract of a homogeneous sample (utilizing 7 replicates).
Table 2- %RSD values for the instrument response precision for THC in both the calibrations and the homogeneous extract.
The cannabinoid potency of various cannabis plant and cannabis product samples were determined for the various extraction techniques In the chromatograms THC was observed ~8.08 minutes and CBD was observed ~4.61 minutes (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Chromatogram of the 10ug/mL calibrator for potency/cannabinoid analysis
Total potency for THC & CBD were calculated for each sample using the equations below. Equation 1 was used because it accounts for the presence of THCA as well as the specific weight difference between THC and THCA (since THCA will eventually convert to THC, this needs to be accounted for in the calculations).
Table 3 shows the % THC and the total THC potency values calculated for the same flower samples that went through all four various potency sample preparation techniques as described earlier. Figure 3 also provides LC chromatograms for flower sample 03281913A-2 and edible sample 03281912-1.
Table 3-THC and Total THC potency values for the same cannabis flower sample processed through the combination of extractions and cleanups.Figure 3: Potency/Cannabinoid analysis chromatogram for flower sample 03281913A-2 (red trace) and edible sample 03281912-1 (green trace).
The results indicated that with the “Potency Extraction Method 2” (ACN/QuEChERS extraction) coupled with the RC filter provided a bias of 7.29 % greater for total THC % over the other extraction techniques. Since the other 3 techniques provided total THC values within 2% of each other, the total THC of the sample is more likely ~14%.
Since the sample dilution for the above data set reduced the CBD content, an undiluted sample was run and analyzed. This data is reported in Table 4.
Table 4- CBD and Total CBD potency values for the same cannabis flower sample processed through different sample preparation techniques.
The CBD results indicated that with the “Potency Extraction Method 1” (methanol extraction) coupled with RC filter, allowed for a greater CBD recovery. This may indicate the loss of CBD with an ACN/QuEChERS extraction.
With an average ~14% total THC and 0.06% total CBD for a homogenous cannabis flower sample, the optimal sample preparation extraction was determined to be a methanol extraction coupled with filtration using a regenerated cellulose filter. Since potency continues to remain at the forefront of cannabis regulatory testing it is important to utilize the right sample prep for your cannabis samples.
References
Wang M, Wang YH, Avula B, Radwan MM, Wanas AS, Mehmedic Z, et al. Quantitative Determination of Cannabinoids in Cannabis and Cannabis Products Using Ultra-High-Performance Supercritical Fluid Chromatography and Diode Array/Mass Spectrometric Detection. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2016;62(3):602-11.
Matthew Curtis, Eric Fausett, Wendi A. Hale, Ron Honnold, Jessica Westland, Peter J. Stone, Jeffery S. Hollis, Anthony Macherone. Cannabis Science and Technology, September/October 2019, Volume 2, Issue 5.
Sian Ferguson. https://www.healthline.com/health/hemp-vs-marijuana. August 27, 2020.
Taschwer M, Schmid MG. Determination of the relative percentage distribution of THCA and 9-THC in herbal cannabis seized in Austria- Impact of different storage temperatures on stability. Forensic Science International 2015; 254:167-71.
Storm C, Zumwalt M, Macherone A. Dedicated Cannabinoid Potency Testing Using the Agilent 1220 Infinity II LC System. Agilent Technologies, Inc. Application Note 5991-9285EN
The scent of pine from your Christmas tree. The fragrance of a ripe summer peach at the farmer’s market. The whiff of eucalyptus and lavender that greets you when you enter a spa.
Aroma is a keystone in how we experience the world. In any given environment, aroma can help shape your mood, solidify memories and instantly transport you to another place or time.
I have focused my career on studying the fascinating compounds that are often behind these powerful aromas: terpenes. They form the largest class of natural products (compounds produced by living organisms), found in nearly all living beings. There are around 50,000 currently known terpenes in nature — with potentially thousands yet to be discovered.
Terpene-rich plants you might be most familiar with are lavender, mint, oranges (in the peel), and yes, cannabis. In recent years, terpenes have rightfully become a central discussion in the recreational cannabis world. This is because terpenes — not THC level, not “Indica-Sativa” classification — are a key determinant of cannabis’s effect, both psychoactive and non-psychoactive. But the current lack of prioritization and understanding of the crucial role terpenes play may put the collective quality of U.S. cannabis at risk.
At this crucial inflection point for legal cannabis, on its path to becoming a $70 billion dollar global industry by 2028, we need to ensure that everyone across the cannabis space, from breeders to testers, growers and consumers, understands which traits to prioritize for a cannabis world brimming with diversity and predictable effects.
What the cannabis industry has to lose
What do we lose if the cannabis industry continues to scale without a clear understanding of the compounds that define the uniqueness of each variety?
There is a ripple effect across the ecosystem. For cannabis testing labs, focusing on only twenty of the most dominant terpenes means we are missing out on tapping into potentially over a hundred of less common terpenes in cannabis. For the cannabis consumer, lack of understanding on the breeding and testing side may make it difficult to find cannabis that delivers on its promised effect time and time again. And, most detrimentally for breeders, not understanding the direct correlation between genetics and the formation of terpenes means we will have increasingly fewer terpene profiles and combinations to work with, especially when the industry-dominant focus has been on cannabinoid potency.
Let’s explore some misconceptions related to potency. In recent years, many breeders have prioritized high THC levels over genetic diversity. Consumers often associate high THC levels and that telltale strong “skunky” aroma with a strain’s quality and effect, when in reality, these are poor indicators of potency. (In fact, recent research indicates that this specific cannabis aroma is caused by a family of sulfur compounds.) Terpene profiling is a much more accurate way to determine a variety’s given effect. In focusing too much on increasing THC, breeders miss out on the true potency powerhouse: tapping into the terpene diversity that’s out there.
Terpenes are responsible for giving flowers (including cannabis), fruits and spices their distinctive flavors and aromas. Common terpenes include limonene, linalool, pinene and myrcene.
To illustrate the impact of breeding practices that prioritize crop yield over product quality, I first have a question for you: When was the last time you enjoyed a really good tomato?
If you’re lucky enough to have a great farmer’s market nearby, maybe you purchased an heirloom tomato at peak freshness last August. It was likely fragrant, flavorful and didn’t need much preparation to be enjoyable.
Or maybe you can’t remember the last time you’ve eaten a good tomato, as the last standard grocery store tomato you purchased was watery, tasteless and essentially scentless.
Tomatoes are a prime example of what is unfortunately true for a whole host of traditional crop plants in the U.S. When yield is the goal, flavor and aroma profiles often suffer. The culprit: lack of genetic diversity in the breeding process. The tragedy of the tomato serves as a harbinger for the cannabis industry — and we can draw parallels to what we’ve seen happen to cannabis.
What the cannabis industry should do: Tap into the diversity that’s out there
An important aspect of preventing cannabis from going the way of the tomato is to better understand the genes that generate these different terpene profiles. Different cultivars with varying aromas will hold different collections of genes. We as an industry must learn more about which terpenes correlate with desirable aromas, and then access already existing genetic diversity.
We have just begun to scratch the surface of the potential of terpenes in cannabis. With the right alignment across the industry and a stronger focus on genetics in breeding, we will see the rise of completely unique cannabis varieties. They will smell like lavender, lilac, orange peel or even brand-new aromas that have yet to be discovered. To ensure this future, we need to prioritize the right traits and the right genetics.
The NIST is an organization under the U.S. Department of Commerce that promotes innovation through standards, technology and advancing science. The NIST’s CannaQAP platform works with cannabis labs to help improve competence in analytical science and standardization.
The program requires participating labs to conduct exercises that help inform the NIST about current industry standards and capabilities for hemp and cannabis testing. One of the goals of the program is aiding in the design and characterization of cannabis reference materials.
Kaycha Labs took part in two exercises for the CannaQAP study. Exercise 1 included testing for potency with 17 cannabinoids in hemp oil and Exercise 2 included potency, heavy metals and moisture content testing in plant materials.
Chris Martinez, president of Kaycha Labs, says the program can benefit the entire industry when it comes to regulatory compliance testing. “As a leading cannabis lab company with a network of labs in multiple states, it is imperative we demonstrate that our labs apply compliant and consistent testing methodologies,” says Martinez. “Assuring all industry participants, including State and Federal government regulators, that precise and consistent testing data is the norm will benefit the entire industry.”
Kaycha Labs, while based in Fort Lauderdale, actually has cannabis testing labs in California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee, making them an ideal candidate for CannaQAP.
Exercise 1 has been completed in its entirety and published here. Exercise 2 has completed the participation and data submission legs of the study and NIST is preparing it for publication. On their website, it says that announcements about their upcoming Exercise 3 are coming soon.
Cannabis, we have a problem. Legalizing adult use cannabis in California caused the demand for high-potency cannabis to increase dramatically over the last several years. Today, many dispensary buyers enforce THC minimums for the products that they sell. If smokeable flower products don’t have COAs proving the THC levels are above 20% or more, there is a good chance many dispensaries won’t carry them on their shelves. Unfortunately, these kinds of demands only put undue pressure on the industry and mislead the consumer.
Lab Shopping: Where the Problems Lie
Lab shopping for potency analysis isn’t new, but it has become more prevalent with the increasing demand for high-potency flower over the last couple of years. Sadly, many producers submit valid, certified COAs to the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), which show two to three times the actual potency value.
At InfiniteCAL, we’ve purchased products from dispensary shelves and found significant discrepancies between the analysis we perform and the report submitted to the BCC by the producer. So, how can this happen? Several factors are creating the perfect storm in cannabis testing.
Problems with Potency
Many consumers still don’t understand that THC potency is not the only factor in determining quality cannabis, and they are unwittingly contributing to the demand for testing and analysis fraud. It is alarming for cultivation pioneers and ethical labs to see producers and profit-hungry testing facilities falsifying data to make it more appealing to the unaware consumer.
Basically, what’s happening is growers are contacting labs and asking, “I get 30% THC at this lab; what can you do?” When they see our COA reporting their flower tested lower than anticipated, they will go to another lab to get higher test results. Unfortunately, there are all too many labs that are willing to comply.
I recently saw a compliant COA that claimed that this particular flower was testing at 54% THC. Understanding cannabis genetics, we know this isn’t possible. Another product I reviewed claimed that after diluting an 88% THC distillate with 10-15% terpenes, the final potency test was 92% THC. You cannot cut a product and expect the potency to increase. Finally, a third product we reviewed claimed 98% total cannabinoids (while only looking at seven cannabinoids) with 10% terpenes for a total of 108% of the product.
These labs only make themselves look foolish to professionals, mislead laymen consumers and skirt under the radar of the BCC with basic mathematical errors.
The Pesticide Predicament
Frighteningly, inflating potency numbers isn’t the most nefarious testing fraud happening in the cannabis industry. If a manufacturer has 1000 liters of cannabis oil fail pesticide testing, they could lose millions of dollars – or have it retested by a less scrupulous lab.
Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr
As the industry continues to expand and new labs pop up left and right, cultivators and manufacturers have learned which labs are “easy graders” and which ones aren’t. Certain labs can miss up to ten times the action level of a pesticide and still report it as non-detectable. So, if the producer fails for a pesticide at one lab, they know four others won’t see it.
In fact, I’ve had labs send my clients promotional materials guaranteeing compliant lab results without ever receiving a sample for testing. So now, these companies aren’t just tricking the consumer; they are potentially harming them.
An Easy Fix
Cannabis testing is missing just one critical factor that could quickly fix these problems – checks and balances. The BCC only needs to do one of two things:
Verifying Lab Accuracy
InfiniteCAL also operates in Michigan, where the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) has already implemented a system to ensure labs are maintaining the highest testing standards. The MRA will automatically flag all COAs which test above a certain percentage and require the product to be retested by multiple labs.
Labs are required to keep a back stock of material. So, when test results come back abnormally high from Lab A, then Labs B, C and D are commissioned to retest the material to compare data. If Lab A reports 40% THC, but the other labs all report 18%, then it’s easy to see Lab A has made an error.
Secret Shopping
By simply buying products off the shelves and having them blind-tested by other labs, it would be simple for the BCC to determine if the existing COA is correct. They already have all the data in Metrc, so this would be a quick and easy fix that could potentially solve the problem overnight.
For example, at InfiniteCAL, we once purchased 30 samples of Blue Dream flower from different cultivators ranging in certified COA potencies from 16% to 38%. Genetically, we know the Blue Dream cultivar doesn’t produce high levels of THC. When we tested the samples we purchased, nearly every sample came back in the mid-teens to low 20% range.
Labs Aren’t Supposed to Be Profit Centers
At InfiniteCAL, we’ve contacted labs in California where we’ve uncovered discrepancies to help find and flush out the errors in testing. All too often, we hear the excuses:
“If I fix my problem, I’ll lose my clients.”
“I’m just a businessman who owns a lab; I don’t know chemistry.”
“My chemist messed up; it’s their fault!”
If you own a lab, you are responsible for quality control. We are not here to get rich; we are here to act as public safety agents who ensure these products are safe for the consumer and provide detailed information about what they choose to put in their bodies. Be professional, and remember you’re testing for the consumer, not the producer.
Cannabis infused products manufacturing is quickly becoming a massive new market. With companies producing everything from gummies to lotions, there is a lot of room for growth as consumer data is showing a larger shift away from smokable products to ingestible or infused products.
This is the fourth article in a series where we interview leaders in the national infused products market. In this third piece, we talk with Stephanie Gorecki, vice president of product development at Cresco Labs. Stephanie started with Cresco in 2019 after transitioning from an award-winning career in traditional foods CPG. She now heads up product development where she manages R&D for Cresco, a multi-state operation with tremendous SKU variety.
Next week, we’ll sit down with Lisa McClung and Glenn Armstrong from Coda Signature. Stay tuned for more!
Aaron Green: Stephanie, how did you get involved at Cresco Labs?
Stephanie Gorecki:A few years ago, CBD became the most talked about ingredient in the food industry. CBD-infused food headlines appeared in most of the trade magazines. I have always been curious about working in the cannabis space, and not just with CBD, but THC and other cannabinoids. I researched technical seminars and came across the cannabis infused edibles short course put on by the Institute of Food Technologists.
Stephanie Gorecki, Vice President of Product Development at Cresco Labs
I attended the short course in April of 2019. I realized that to be hands-on with cannabis in the near future, I would need to join an organization that was already in the space. The space was highly regulated which meant that research in the mainstream food and beverage space was limited.
Immediately following that seminar, I began to look for opportunities near where I lived. That’s when I came across the Cresco Labs career opportunity. The Director of Food Science position appeared to be a good match. I applied for the position and went through the interview process. Approximately two months after attending that seminar, I joined Cresco Labs.
Aaron: Awesome! It’s a cool story. In your role, how do you think about developing products that differentiate in the market?
Stephanie: There are many opportunities for brand differentiation in cannabis right now. There is a focus on high bioavailability and water solubility and how that translates to onset times once consumed. Many of these technologies utilize ingredient technologies and systems that I have experience with from my past work in the flavor industry.
Gummies and jellies are a great infusion matrix to start with because of their shelf-life stability. There are a variety of formulation techniques that can be used to deliver on product differentiations. There is an abundance of flavor varieties, colors, processing steps and cannabinoid ratios that can be baked into a formula to make that product line unique.
Here in the cannabis space, SKU variety is essential. It’s exciting to be a part of a company where we develop products that appeal to a variety of customer wants and needs.
Aaron: In that vein, what’s your process then for creating a new product?
Stephanie: I’ll start with how we develop an edible. Most of my background is in this type of product development, but the same process is applied to how we develop and extract vape, topical, flower SKU, or ready-to-smoke type products. We follow a similar stage/gate process utilized by most CPG companies.
Marketing typically presents our product development team with a brief on a new concept based on how they’ve read the needs of the market. There are opportunities for us to come to marketing with ideas for innovation, too. The product development team regularly works in our processing facility, so we as a team are aware of the different capabilities of each state and production line. During the briefing phase, we determine what is needed to be achieved and the parameters that the team would like the new product to deliver on.
For edibles, we begin our development work at The Hatchery. The Hatchery is our non-infused product development space that we utilize outside of our processing facility. In this space, we have several pieces of pilot equipment that allow us to scale and create prototypes that are highly representative of what our finished product will look like. For vapes, flower SKUs and RTS (ready-to-smoke) products, development and processing trials happen within our cultivation center.
All infusions are conducted in our licensed processing center. We also conduct stability testing and analytical testing in-house on our products. Our analytical lab is amazing – we have talented chemists and the ability to run GCMS, HPLC, microbiological testing, and many other analytical tests that are important for ensuring consistency and product uniformity.
Aaron: Can you expand on a point about testing? How do you think about testing at the different points in your manufacturing or production process?
Stephanie: Testing comes in several forms. We focus heavily on analytical testing since that does not involve product consumption. Potency uniformity and consistency is critical for edibles. For infused products, we have one shot at hitting our potency – infusion science is extremely important for us. Our gummies and chocolates cannot be re-worked, so hitting our potency range on the first attempt is important. If we miss the target, the product has to be destroyed.
We have methods developed to conduct in-process potency testing where we can. With the processes and infusion methods that we have implemented, we are rarely outside of our targeted potency ranges.
Aaron: Okay, awesome, then, can you walk me through your experience with one of your most recent product launches?
Stephanie: We recently launched Mindy’s Dark Chocolate Peppermint Bark, a limited time offering for our Mindy’s chocolate line. There’s a series of commercialization trials that we will conduct prior to launch. We use these trials as an opportunity to train our production teams on the new manufacturing instructions and processes.
When it comes to launching products, our technical teams are very hands on with new product introductions. Since we cannot manufacture product in one state and ship it to another state, we have to build processing centers and secure the proper licenses in every state that we’d like to operate in. When we have a new product ready to launch in a new state, our team works with Operations on the tech transfer piece. We’re there on-site during launches to oversee and train on the entire process until our teams are comfortable with manufacturing and packaging the new SKUs.
We monitor launches carefully to ensure product looks as it should before and after leaving our facility for sale in licensed dispensaries across the state. When there are opportunities to optimize a process post-launch, we will do what we can to make the process work as well as possible for the teams producing our products.
Aaron: Okay, so next question is, how do you go about sourcing ingredients for your infused products?
Stephanie: We manufacture our oils and extracts in house, and then source other ingredients externally. We have a supplier quality assurance process for new supplier approval, and we have documentation needs that we need each supplier to be able to deliver on.
Several of our suppliers have invested in research and development of products that will help us to meet our deliverables in the cannabis industry. Our suppliers, at times, have provided applications support in order to help with our speed to market and early phase prototyping. These types of partnerships are essential to us being able to make quick modifications and decisions on ingredients such as flavors and colors.
Aaron: Can you give me an example of a challenge that you run into frequently? This could be a business challenge or a cannabis-related challenge.
“I’m a scientist at heart. I look forward to more spending on cannabis research to show how THC and other cannabinoids can be used to treat a variety of conditions.”Stephanie: A big challenge for us and other multi-state cannabis operators are the variations in compliance regulations state-to-state. We have compliance managers in every state who work to ensure we are meeting all of the state regulations. Our packaging reviews are in-depth because of all the language that needs to be included on our packaging.
Each state needs its own packaging with proper compliance labeling. Some states require a cannabis warning symbol of a certain type. If we sell Mindy’s Gummies in 8 flavors and THC mg SKUs in four states, that is 32 different pieces of artwork that need to be managed and cross-checked for accuracy. We have 32 separate pieces of packaging for this one line of products. We have many lines of products with multiples strains (flower and vapes) and flavors (edibles).
Aaron: You mentioned packaging, do you do all of your packaging in house?
Stephanie: We design our packaging artwork in-house. We have a creative team who works on our product artwork, and then a team of cross-functional members tasked with packaging editing and review. Packaging reviews go through multiple rounds before being released for printing. We source a variety of packaging depending on the needs of the product going into the packaging. For edibles, our packaging has to be opaque. Product cannot be seen through the packaging in most states. This is great for our products that are made with natural colors that may be light sensitive.
All of our packaging needs to be child resistant. This limits the amount of packaging variety that we have, but this is a big opportunity for packaging developers. We want and need more sustainable forms of packaging that are differentiated from other packaging forms currently on the market.
Aaron: What trends are you following in the industry personally?
Stephanie: Cannabis trends that are of interest to me personally are fast-onset and water solubility technology. There have also been many discussions surrounding minor cannabinoids and how those can be blended together to drive customer experience.
There are traditional food trends that also impact how we formulate. Our Mindy’s Edibles line is flavor forward. The flavors are sophisticated. In the Mindy’s line, you won’t find a generic orange or grape flavor. Instead, you’ll find a Lush Black Cherry or Cool Key Lime Kiwi Flavor. This flavor development work starts with Mindy Segal, who is the face and talented James Beard award-winning chef behind our Mindy’s Edibles line of products.
Aaron: Okay, so the last question I have for you is, what are you interested in learning more about?
Stephanie: I’m a scientist at heart. I look forward to more spending on cannabis research to show how THC and other cannabinoids can be used to treat a variety of conditions. People use cannabis for many reasons: to relax, to ease aches or pains, etc. It’s exciting to lead part of our technical team during a period of time where cannabis is rapidly growing and is of great interest and increasing acceptance across our country and in the world.
Aaron: Okay. So that’s it. That’s the end of the interview!
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
For as long as consistent state and federal guidelines governing cannabis safety remain elusive, the need for industry self-regulation will be paramount. Cannabis companies must work together to share best practices, establish standard operating procedures and adopt stringent safety measures. By promoting transparency and collaboration, stakeholders can build credibility and consumer trust while fostering a safer and more reputable industry.
