According to a press release published on April 3, Keystone State Testing (doing business as Dakota State Testing) became the first laboratory authorized to test cannabis in North Dakota. The lab also obtained their ISO 17025 accreditation for cannabis testing from the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), which is another first achievement for cannabis testing in the state of North Dakota.
Dr. Kelly Greenland, chief science officer at Keystone State Testing, says the North Dakota Department of Health set a high standard for the cannabis lab testing industry in the state. “Keystone State Testing is once again proud to of this monumental achievement and critical milestone in the company’s history to have met the highest levels of standards set forth by both A2LA and the North Dakota Department of Health,” says Greenland. “Keystone chose A2LA as its Accreditation Body due to their reputation in the industry, their diverse clientele, and the quality of their assessors. A2LA’s assessors have spent decades in their respective fields, which helps to ensure that Keystone is providing the best services possible to their clients, regulators and patients.”
Keystone State Testing’s ISO 17025 accreditation scope covers 11 testing methods at their facility in Fargo, North Dakota. Those methods include: Cannabinoid potency analysis, cannabinoid profile, moisture content, residual solvents, water activity, along with microbiological tests like total yeast and mold count, E. coli, Salmonella, total aerobic microbial count, among others.
Cannabis is the most highly regulated crop in California, and the state just added another layer of regulation. This article breaks down the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) recently updated Cannabis Cultivation Policy – Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation (“Policy”) into six key takeaways.1 These guidelines impose new rules on cannabis cultivation activities that have the potential to impact a watercourse (stream, creek, river or lake). Most of these rules apply to cultivation of sun-grown cannabis, which is currently allowed in some form in 12 counties. Compliance with these new requirements will be implemented through the CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Program.
When developing farmland, hillsides should be avoided and erosion must be controlled.
The Policy provides specific rules for growing pot on undisturbed land. To prevent erosion, numerous limitations are placed on earthmoving and activities in sensitive areas, and cultivators are not allowed to grade hillsides that exceed a 50% slope.2
Cultivation prepping activities must minimize grading, dust, soil disturbance, erosion, and impacts on habitat, especially during the winter season.3 No vehicles or heavy equipment may be used within a riparian setback4 or watercourse,5 and cultivators must avoid damaging native riparian vegetation6 and oak woodlands.7 All farm equipment, fuel, and hazardous materials must be carefully stored away from creeks and sensitive habitat.8 The Policy also governs road construction.9
Cultivators should avoid work in or near a surface waterbody.10
If a cultivator’s activities impact a river, stream, or lake, they must consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).11 Cultivators must maintain minimum riparian setbacks for all cannabis activities, including grading and ancillary farm facilities. Before grading land, a biologist must identify any sensitive flora or fauna, and if any is located, consult with CDFW and provide a report to the Regional Board.12 No irrigation runoff, tailwater, chemicals or plant waste can be discharged to a waterbody.13 Diversion facilities for the irrigation of cannabis may not block fish passage, upstream or downstream, and must be fitted with a CDFW-approved fish screen; new facilities are subject to all applicable permits and approvals.
During the dry season, cultivators may not use surface water.
The use of surface water supplies in California requires a valid water right and the use of water for cannabis cultivation is no different.14 Anyone seeking to appropriate “water flowing in a known and defined channel” or from a watercourse must apply to the SWRCB and obtain a permit or license.15 Alternatively, a landowner whose property is adjacent to a watercourse may have a riparian right to divert the water for use on her land. Riparian users do not need permission from the SWRCB to divert water, but they must report water use annually.16
The biggest obstacle that growers face under this Policy is that they cannot divert anysurface water during the dry season—the growing season (April 1 through Oct. 31). It should be noted:
The seasonal prohibition of surface water diversion applies regardless of the nature of the water right or what has been historically used to irrigate other crops.
During the dry period, cultivators may only irrigate using stored water (see no. 5 below) or groundwater.
It remains to be seen whether a legal challenge will be brought against the state for their draconian prohibitions on irrigating cannabis during the six-month growing season. Because this prohibition applies to all watersheds in California, singles out one low-water use crop, and ignores established water rights, it is overly broad and may constitute a constitutional “taking” of property rights.
During the wet season, surface water diversions must be monitored closely.
Cannabis-specific restrictions also apply during the wet season. From Nov. 1 to March 31, cultivators must comply with instream flow requirements and check in with the state daily. All surface water diversions for cannabis are subject to “Numeric and Narrative Instream Flow Requirements,” to protect flows needed for fish migration and spawning. To ensure diversions do not adversely impact fish flows, cultivators must also “maintain a minimum bypass of at least 50% of the streamflow.”17,18
While valid appropriative right holders may divert more than 10 gal./min. for cannabis irrigation during the wet season, riparian right holders are not allowed to exceed that diversion rate.19 All cultivators (including small diverters <10 acre-feet (“AF”)/yr) are required to employ water-saving irrigation methods, install measuring devices to track diversions daily, and maintain records on-site for at least five years.20 Cultivators must inspect and repair their water delivery system for leaks monthly,21 and inspect sprinklers and mainlines weekly to prevent runoff.22
Cannabis cultivators may obtain a new water storage right for use during the dry season.
To address dry season irrigation limitations, cultivators are urged to store water offstream during the wet season, including rainwater, for dry season use. Growers may not rely on onstreamstorage reservoirs, except if they have an existing permitted reservoir in place prior to Oct. 31, 2017.23 Alternatively, small growers (storage is capped at 6.6 AF/yr) may benefit from the new Cannabis SIUR Program, an expedited process for cultivators who divert from a surface water source to develop and install storage offstream. Only diverters with a valid water right that allows for diversion to storage between Nov. 1 and March 31 qualify.
Groundwater is less regulated, but cultivators should avoid drilling or using wells near waterbodies.
Groundwater is generally the recommended water supply for cannabis because, unlike surface water, it may be used during the dry season and is not subject to many of the restrictions listed above. It should be noted however:
Many groundwater basins are now governed by California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), which requires water agencies to halt overdraft and restore balanced levels of groundwater pumping from certain basins. Thus, SGMA may result in future pumping cutbacks or pumping assessments.
In some counties, moratoriums and restrictions on drilling new wells are on the rise.
Under this Policy, the state may step in to restrict groundwater pumping in the dry season in watersheds where there are large numbers of cannabis groundwater, wells located close to streams, and areas of high surface water-groundwater connectivity.24
In short, groundwater pumpers are at risk of cutback if the state deems it necessary to maintain nearby creek flows.Noncompliance can bring lofty fines, revocation of a grower’s cultivation license, or prosecution
Final Takeaways
This cannabis policy presents one of California’s most complex regulatory schemes to date. Before investing in a property, one must understand this Policy and have a robust understanding of the water rights and hydrology associated with the cultivation site. Growers looking to reduce permitting time and costs should invest in relatively flat, historically cultivated land with existing wells and ample groundwater supplies, or alternatively, grow indoors.
This article attempts to synthesize the maze of water supply and water quality regulations that make compliance exceedingly difficult; more detailed information can be found here. Noncompliance can bring lofty fines, revocation of a grower’s cultivation license, or prosecution. Growers are encouraged to contact a hydrologist and water lawyer before making major investments and to designate a water compliance officer to monitor and track all water diversions and water used for irrigation. Growers should also consult with their local jurisdiction regarding water use restrictions and stream setbacks before moving any dirt or planting cannabis.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 4. The Policy defines “Qualified Professional” as a: California-Licensed Professional Geologist, including Certified Hydrogeologist and Certified Engineering Geologist, California-Licensed Geotechnical Engineer, and Professional Hydrologist. (Policy, Definition 72, p. 11.)
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Terms 4 and 10.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 3.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 40.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 33.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 34.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 7.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Terms 15 to 29.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 41.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 3; see also 1602.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 10.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 1, Term No. 326.
Policy, Appendix A, Section 2, Term 69.
Wat. Code §1225; See alsoWat. Code §1201 [providing that the state shall have jurisdiction over, “[a]ll water flowing in any natural channel” except water that is appropriated or being used for beneficial purpose upon land riparian to the channel.”]
Editor’s Note: This is the second piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discussed tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones.
While 280E is the most influential code section for the cannabis industry, structuring never happens in a vacuum. There are many open questions that each business must answer for themselves without court adjudication. We believe that among the riskiest of questions is whether a cannabis business can claim research and development credits.
There is no clear legal authority that either allows these credits or disallows them but certainly utilizing such credits comes at great risk. At the beginning of this article we talked about Congress and the purpose of 280E. Congress’s intention was to make sure that only the minimum required tax deductions were available to Schedule 1 and 2 sellers. A cannabis business receiving a research and development credit would not be with the intension of Congress. While the credits would be computed based on COGS expenditures, at this time we do not believe that a cannabis business should take this credit. Disallowance of COGS would create a constitutional challenge which is why Congress allowed the COGS deduction. Disallowance of Research and Development Credits does not open up the same constitutional issue since the credit is not part of COGS although calculated based on COGS expenditures. 280E states very clearly that credits arising from other code sections are disallowed in the entirety.
More recently the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) opened up new issues for cannabis companies that are still unfolding. Two of the most publicized are Qualified Opportunity Funds and Section 199A, the 20% deduction (Qualified Business Deduction).
The 199A deduction allows eligible pass-through entities to claim an additional deduction of 20% of the income (subject to certain limitations) at the individual level potentially lowering the tax rate from 37% to 29.6%. While the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and others have asked the IRS to clarify if 280E would make a cannabis business ineligible, the final regulations on the subject did not address this issue. There are other significant limitations and hurdles in 199A regulations that any business would have to first pass to be considered for the rate deduction. If a cannabis business meets all other eligibility and limitation criteria, should the pass-through income to their investors be qualified income under 199A? The answer will depend on whether the courts will treat this “deduction” as falling under the general prohibition of 280E.
We believe that there is a reasonable chance that the courts will allow the 199A deduction for cannabis companies. That does not mean, however, that we advise cannabis companies to claim this on their pass-through returns as Qualified Business Income. Much like everything else, it depends on the particular business and the risk profile that management is willing to tolerate. This is one area of tax law that is sure to be challenged in court. The more risk-averse business should pass on claiming this deduction on their returns, but monitor development with an eye to amending at a later date if favorable precedent emerges. If the amounts are large enough, consideration should be given to applying for a Private Letter Ruling, but that also has its own tax risks.
Another new tax incentive that was in the TCJA was Section 1400Z or Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ). The incentive allows for the deferral of capital gains until December of 2026. The use of 1400Z also results in up to a 15% decrease in capital gains tax- and tax-free appreciation if all requirements are met. While the IRS has only released proposed regulations and we anticipate significant changes to them when they are released as final, there was nothing in the proposed regulations limiting cannabis businesses from using Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOF) in their structure. It is interesting to note that the TCJA and proposed regulations did list other types of businesses that could not make investments under 1400Z along with all its benefits. Liquor stores, golf courses and sun tan parlors were among those listed but cannabis growers and dispensaries were not.
As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.Using Opportunity Zones to entice investors sounds like a great opportunity, but there are significant risks. The first risk is that the proposed regulations, while currently proposed, may not be final. There is always a chance that the IRS will take a different position when the final regulations are released and add cannabis to the type of businesses that do not qualify. Another risk, and one that was previously mentioned as part of 199A and other areas of structuring, is that the IRS and the courts can always disagree with the taxpayer’s position. This is a new area of tax law and will eventually be litigated. The loss of the Opportunity Zone benefits can significantly change the return to the investors and lead to other issues.
All of these issues come into play when structuring businesses in this industry. These issues must be evaluated as they pertain to the business needs. This can be very complex and requires a great deal of research for each business opportunity. We have found that professionals operating in this industry like to know about all of their options. The most important thing we can do for the industry is to continue to educate the professionals working in it.
Accountants should be available to assist their clients and their clients’ attorneys with structuring techniques aimed at asset protection and minimizing 280E disallowances. Accountants should also be ready to speak to the questions outlined above and be prepared to explain the risks associated with each choice. As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.
An educational and networking event for cannabis safety and quality solutions: Innovative Publishing and Cannabis Industry Journal are pleased to present the first annual Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo (CQC). The conference will take place October 1-3, 2019, hosted at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center in Schaumburg, Illinois.
The inaugural CQC will consist of two separate tracks: The Cannabis Labs track, focused on all things cannabis lab testing, and the Cannabis Quality track, focusing on quality in cannabis product manufacturing.
Sharing an exhibit hall and meeting spaces right alongside the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo, the CQC allows cannabis professionals to interact with senior level food quality and safety professionals, as well as regulators. Visit with exhibitors to learn about cutting-edge solutions, explore two high-level educational tracks for learning valuable industry trends, and network with industry executives to find solutions to improve quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness in a quickly evolving cannabis marketplace.
The CQC will be hosted at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center in Illinois (just outside of Chicago)
With the cannabis industry in the Midwest growing at a rapid pace, the CQC offers attendees, exhibitors and sponsors unparalleled access to explore these emerging markets, their regulations, opportunities for business growth and best practices from the more established food industry.
For information on speaking opportunities and to submit an abstract, click here to view the Call for Proposals. The CQC will be accepting abstracts for consideration until June 3, 2019. For information on exhibiting, as well as additional sponsorship opportunities, contact RJ Palermo, Sales Director, rj@innovativepublishing.net, (203) 667-2212.
Take advantage of this chance to connect with cannabis industry and food safety professionals in the Greater Chicago Area. Don’t miss this opportunity to network with hundreds of industry stakeholders, get the latest on regulatory developments and see the newest technology disrupting the cannabis space.
Editor’s Note: This is the first piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discusses tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones. Stay tuned for Part two coming next week!
When building a knowledge base in the cannabis industry as a CPA, one’s tax research typically starts with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E. For those that are unfamiliar, 280E is only three lines long. With this in mind, we at Janover realized that we needed to understand the context for this highly influential tax section.
The genesis of 280E dates back to 1981 with a Tax Court case: Jeffrey Edmonson v. Commissioner. The decision in this case was that a seller of cocaine, amphetamines and cannabis could deduct most business expenses, cost of goods sold, packaging, home, phone and automobile expenses relating to the seller’s illegal business.
In 1982, 280E was enacted to reverse the Edmonson decision and deny sellers of Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substances the right to deduct business expenses. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government defined Schedule 1 drugs as drugs that have no currently acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse. Since cannabis is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, cannabis businesses were unable to deduct most business expenses.
To get a better understanding of what the legislators were trying to accomplish, House and Senate reports provided insight into what their goals might have been. Under the Explanation of Provision, the Senate Report reads:
All deductions and credits for amounts paid or incurred in the illegal trafficking in drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act are disallowed. To preclude possible challenges on constitutional grounds, the adjustment to gross receipts with respect to effective costs of goods sold is not affected by this provision of the bill.
As the Senate Report explanation provides, 280E specifically excluded cost of goods sold (COGS) from the disallowance of deductions. This treatment was affirmed by the Tax Court in 2012 in Olive v. Commissioner (139 T.C. 19 2012).
To date, there are not many cases that have dealt with the tax issues of 280E. In a 2007 decision involving Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP), the Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer may deduct expenses allocable to an affiliated business that was separate from the entity “trafficking in a controlled substance.” In CHAMP, the legal caregiving business, which was a separate business, was able to deduct the allocated portion of shared expenses. This set a legal precedent that allowed a taxpayer engaged in the selling of a Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substance to distinguish expenses incurred on behalf of other non-prohibited business lines and deduct these expenses.
In addition to these court cases, tax professionals can rely on IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum CCA 201504011. The IRS Chief Counsel released this memorandum in January 2015 in order to respond to questions the IRS was receiving from practitioners.
Although Chief Counsel Memoranda, in general, may not be cited by taxpayers as precedent, this memorandum is the current and best authority outlining the IRS’s position with respect to the extent to which a cannabis business may deduct business expenses. The memorandum also refers to IRC Section 162, ordinary and necessary business expenses that would be disallowed, as well as separately identifying certain direct and indirect business expenses that would be allowed. Citing methods in Treas. Reg. 1.471, the memorandum states that a cannabis producer may allocate to inventory and COGS direct production costs, including direct material costs (Cannabis seeds or plants), direct labor costs (e.g., planting, cultivating, harvesting, sorting, etc.), and transportation or other costs to acquire of the cannabis. It also indicates certain indirect costs that may be taken as COGS.
As the industry continues to mature, more cases are finding their way to the Tax Court. On June 13, 2018, the Tax Court issued a ruling in Alterman v. Commissioner that specifically disallowed the use of 263A under 280E and applied only Section 471 to determine COGS. While we need to follow the facts and circumstances of each case, the broad language used might very well disallow capitalizing of inventoriable costs for companies subject to 280E.
IRC Section 471 is the general rule for inventory accounting for tax. IRC Section 263A is the uniform capitalization rules for tax. Most businesses need to utilize both 471 and 263A when accounting for inventory and to properly capitalize costs into COGS.This opinion may have lasting effects on the part of the industry trying to create brands associated with their cannabis products.
Many resellers and retailers of cannabis thought they could use 263A to capitalize more costs into inventory decreasing their tax burden. The Chief Counsel Memorandum disagreed and more recently the Tax Court in Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corp v Commissioner sided with the IRS and upheld some of the precedents set in Alterman v. Commissioner. In siding with the IRS, the judge concluded that a taxpayer who is subject to 280E can only deduct costs of goods sold under 471 as the IRC existed when 280E was enacted (in 1982). The taxpayer in the case used two arguments that were not new to the cannabis industry, but to no avail. The first argument was that the business was not trafficking in a controlled substance because the government had abandoned a civil forfeiture action. The second argument that was rejected was that a portion of the business involved branding, marketing and the sales of other non-illegal products. The claimant tried to convince the court that deductions related to these operations should not be subject to the same disallowance of deduction as outlined in 280E.
This second argument is very important for structuring purposes. The court used a significant portion of its opinion to address why the entire business is integrated and completely subjected to 280E. This opinion may have lasting effects on the part of the industry trying to create brands associated with their cannabis products.
This case has even more implications given part of the ruling in which the courts stated that being state licensed in no way effected the Schedule 1 determination at the federal level and, therefore, subjected them to 280E. The judge went so far as to separate the Department of Justice, which enforces the Schedule 1 status of cannabis, and the Department of the Treasury, which has full authority and enforcement rights to treat cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug subject to 280E for income tax purposes. This ruling made it clear that even if the Department of Justice is not pursing criminal charges against state-licensed cannabis businesses the IRS is not precluded from fully enforcing the Internal Revenue Code.
According to a press release published last week, the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) announced the accreditation of GoodCat Analytical, LLC, a cannabis testing laboratory based in Naples, Florida. This marks the first time that A2LA has accredited a cannabis testing lab in the state.
Adam Gouker, A2LA General Manager, says this is a momentous achievement for GoodCat Analytical. “A2LA is excited to expand our cannabis accreditation program into yet another state, promoting the value of independent third-party accreditation to support quality products in the industry,” says Gouker. “We congratulate GCA Laboratories in achieving this milestone for their organization and wish them all the best as they move forward with this new endeavor.”
According to Jimmy Dodsworth, chief science officer at GoodCat Analytical, they had to develop a lot of methods on their own. “I can’t say enough about each of our staff members efforts to develop and validate each analytical method,” says Dodsworth. “The level of quality for these internally developed tests is amazing considering we started from scratch.”
Raymond Keller, owner and president of GoodCat Analytical, says A2LA’s support was an incredibly valuable resource for them. “We also need to acknowledge the tremendous guidance and support from the A2LA staff,” says Keller. “There is no doubt that they had a hand in making our lab the impressive operation it is today and know they will continue to do so moving forward.”
As the cannabis industry grows so does the crucial need for child-resistant (CR) packaging solutions. There’s a long list of federal regulations that are required for any cannabis product to ensure that the package is both difficult for children to open, yet easily accessible for adults. This formula can often be difficult; add design into the mix and your packaging solution just got extremely complex.
However, brand image and appeal does not need to be sacrificed over packaging requirements. With the use of print effects, interactive elements, and captivating colors and designs, companies can create the ideal paperboard packaging for cannabis products while staying within federal regulations.
Let’s start with the packaging requirements first.
Child-resistant packaging can look aesthetically pleasing with the right design
CR Packaging Requirements for Cannabis Products
Depending on the state you do business in, your cannabis product is subject to a variety of child-resistant regulations that will keep children safe from potentially harmful materials. These regulations create packaging that is unappealing and inaccessible to children. Key elements of CR packaging for cannabis include:
Packaging must have resealable features
Packaging must exhibit a clear and detailed information label
Packaging must have an opaque appearance
Packaging must make product unappealing and unattractive to children
CR compliance requires that packaging undergo rigorous tests. The general concept is for the packaging to be difficult for children under 5 to open, while simultaneously being easy for adults to open and close.
These regulations create an immensely safer product for children. However, these same regulations limit the creative opportunities that normal packaging can provide, making most packaging for cannabis unattractive for adults.
CR Regulations & Packaging Challenges
Although CR regulations for cannabis products are vital to keeping children safe, these regulations cause a lot of roadblocks in the creative department.
Follow these tips to create a high-quality, CR-compliant cannabis carton packaging that the market will love.One of the most significant impacts these regulations have made on cannabis companies is the difficulty to align a brand image with these regulations. Every company has a brand image with which they need to align their entire marketing plan, including packaging designs. Add in strict CR regulations, and it becomes extremely difficult to balance the two.
Another key challenge in this process is structural design limitations. Businesses use inventive and innovative structural designs to help differentiate their products in a growing and crowded market. Cannabis products experience a significant disadvantage here. Cannabis companies must incorporate an opaque appearance and resealable features while also attempting to design a packaging structure that is attractive and eye-catching to consumers.
Designing CR-Compliant Cannabis Packaging that is Appealing to Adults
Although CR requirements make it challenging for companies to inject creativity into packaging designs, innovative solutions in the market do exist. These offer the best of both worlds by meeting the necessary CR guidelines, while maximizing branding, structural elements and print effects.
Incorporate Captivating Colors
Since there are no color restrictions for CR packaging, one of the best ways for a brand to express itself is through color. Companies are free to express themselves to tell a brand story utilizing unique colors in their packaging.
Before choosing a color palette, brands should ensure that packaging designs meet overall branding requirements. Consistency across branding, marketing and other avenues, will make any brand more recognizable and memorable. Colors can also set cannabis products apart from the hundreds of other products.
Smart packaging design can be simple with some good printing effects
Get Creative with Structural Design
Although CR regulations seem extremely restricting structurally, there are plenty of ways to still have a structurally appealing cannabis carton packaging while still in compliance with CR regulations. Just remember that cannabis packaging must be resealable and opaque.
In order to capitalize on your structural design process, experiment with different carton structures. Generally, carton packaging is rectangular or square but there’s ample opportunity for a variety of forms. Experimenting with designs, whether a straight carton or cartons with built-in trays, is an important step in finding the best packaging design that protects, promotes and differentiates the product it holds.
Never Overlook Print Effects & Finishes
Print effects and finishes are often an afterthought for cannabis carton packaging. Print effects and specialty finishes can make all the difference when looking for ways to set any cannabis product apart. The perfect finishing can take an average cannabis carton to the next level. Popular print effects include:
EmbossingJust because you have to stay aligned with CR regulations doesn’t mean that packaging should be plain and unattractive.
Embossing is the art of incorporating a raised image, design, or pretty much any textural component in a packaging’s design. The process of embossing allows for artwork and specific elements to stand out against the background of the paperboard material.
Debossing
Debossing, as its name implies, is the opposite of embossing. Instead of creating a raised pattern, debossing creates a pressed imprint. It’s a great way to create a tactile experience and bring something extra to a packaging design while staying compliant with CR regulations.
Embossing and debossing can be used in conjunction with a variety of foil effects and other print finishing processes.
Making Interactive Experiences
The packaging is only as memorable as the process of opening it. Making packaging memorable requires focusing on creating an experience. Elements such as reveal flaps, tear-aways, doors and more are unique ways to add interactivity to a package design. This is great for increasing engagement and brand loyalty within your target market. Who says adults can’t have fun too?
Just because you have to stay aligned with CR regulations doesn’t mean that packaging should be plain and unattractive. Follow these tips to create a high-quality, CR-compliant cannabis carton packaging that the market will love.
Unlike the food industry, the cannabis industry is still in its infancy. Which means there is not a push from retailers demanding cannabis farmers, extractors or manufacturers to get third-party audits. In fact, most grow operations supply into their own dispensaries. So why should a cannabis farmer, extractor or manufacturer get a third-party audit? Third-party audits are crucial to maintaining product safety and quality by providing a third set of eyes to verify what is working and what is not. Besides regulatory requirements and customers requiring your facility to get a third-party audit, there are numerous other benefits to receiving an audit. Some of these benefits include:
Improvement to product safety
Improvement to product quality and consistency
Meeting regulatory compliance
Eliminating potential risks and possible recalls
Marketing advantages over competitors who are not audited by a third-party
Improvement to consumer confidence and an increase to brand loyalty
How to Prepare for a Third-Party Audit
Working for a certification body, I am in the unique position to see numerous sites go through the certification process. In this position I have seen both extremes: Sites that spend 6-8 months and a lot of resources preparing for an audit, as well as sites that wait until the day before to even look at the audit standard. Unfortunately, the latter is almost always going to fail the audit. Here are seven steps for preparing for your next third-party audit.“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”– Benjamin Franklin
Start Preparing Early
Think of your third-party audit as a college exam one month away. You could start studying for the exam now and get a real understanding of the material or you could wait until the day before to start your no-sleep, energy drink-fueled, 24-hour cram session. We all know which preparation method will get a better score on the exam. Now let’s apply that same strategy to your third-party audit. Once you have decided what audit is best for your site and have those specific standards in your hand, the clock starts ticking and you should already be preparing for the audit, whether it is one month or six months away.
Get Management Commitment
It is essential to the entire cannabis safety and quality system to have commitment from top down. Without this, the site will not get the resources (people, equipment, money, time, etc.) they need to pass a third-party audit. Management commitment is so important that it is often seen as its own section in most modern audit standards. It is very easy for third-party auditors to identify when there is a lack of management commitment in a site. Therefore, if you don’t get management commitment, then you are already starting off the audit on a bad note.
Create a To-Do-List
Think of the entire audit checklist or standard as your long to-do list. Some things, like attaining a certificate of analysis (COA) from a supplier, may only need to be done annually. While other things, such as ensuring employees are following Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), will need to be done continuously throughout day to day operations. Go through the audit checklist and separate what needs to be done annually, semiannually, quarterly, monthly and continuously throughout day to day operations. This will give you a list with all of the frequencies of each different requirement.
Teamwork“Teamwork makes the dream work, but a vision becomes a nightmare when the leader has a big dream and a bad team.” – John C. Maxwell
The preparation of an audit should never rest on the shoulders of one person. Yet this is something I tend to see too often in both food and cannabis facilities alike. Your site should establish a cannabis safety and quality team of multidiscipline personnel that have an impact on product safety and quality. Once the team is established, various tasks from the to-do-list can be disbursed among all the members of the team. Collaboration is key to successfully preparing for a third-party audit, especially when the timelines are very stringent.
Training
Training is essential to preparing for your third-party audit. This is what closes the gaps between what the safety and quality department have developed and what your front-line employees are applying. All employees should know what part of the audit standard applies to them. Additionally, employees should be trained on interview questions that the auditor might ask them during the audit. Helping them prepare for these types of questions will help ease their nerves and allow them to answer the questions with self-assurance when it comes time to the actual audit.
Conduct Internal Audits
Conducting internal audits is not only a great way to prepare for your third-party audit, it’s a requirement. You should always use the audit checklist to observe your documents and facility to see where there are gaps. If possible, the person or team conducting the internal audit should never review their own work. Additionally, all issues or non-conformances should be noted, evaluated, corrected and closed out.
Third-Party Pre-Assessment or Mock Audit (Optional)
A third-party pre-assessment or mock audit is the closest thing you can get to an actual audit. This is where a company would come in and evaluate your site to the specific standards and give a formal report over any deficiencies found during the assessment and how to fix them. This is a great way to test your preparedness before the actual audit.
The first thing to understand about the significance of the British barristers now challenging the EU’s classification of hemp extracts as a novel food is that this is like jumping into the middle of an action adventure by coming in at the second act. In other words, you miss the introduction and the first couple of car chases.
That said, this action movie also features a cannabis-flavored plot. Those used to the maddening hair splitting now going on just about everywhere as the industry gains legitimacy, in other words, are familiar with the larger story line.
Here are the “CBD Cliff’s Notes.”
The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.
It is highly significant that a major British cannabis trade organization, the Cannabis Trades Association, hired a leading law firm in London to go sue the EU over its recent decision to lump all CBD extracts into the same “novel” distinction. Up until now, only CBD sourced from cannabis had fallen prey to this strange regulation. Thus, the lawsuit. No Brexit themes involved. Yet. Although that too will play a role in all of this.
What Is This Really About?
If those in the CBD business are honest with themselves, the real reason for this segmented part of the cannabis industry to even exist in the first place is the race, desire and need to actually be allowed to operate in relative regulatory peace. No matter what the battles are on the THC front. CBD has been seen as a result, pretty much since the beginning of the new age of legalization, as the “safer” political and market entry choice by those in regions such as U.S. southern states and the burgeoning, can’t-wait-to-be-off-to-the-races, market in Europe. See the new federal hemp legalization bill in the United States as Exhibit A.
However, in Europe this has run into more than a few problems since the Swiss put “low THC” or “Cannabis Lite” on the map more locally. Starting with the whole discussion about licensing in general. And then, even more confusingly, about what to actually classify the plant. Especially when it is used in food and cosmetics as opposed to “medicine.”
Specifically, where does the cannabis plant in general, let alone its individual components, really fall when it comes to regulated human consumption?
Member states of the European Union
For the time being- read last year when the industry in Spain was facing police busts over CBD cookies on the shelves at health stores- the conventional industry wisdom was that this whole furore was “just” over the use of concentrates, tinctures and other products made from cannabis-sourced CBD. However, given the noise that Austria managed to make over Christmas about the entire “licensing” issue (namely who has the right to produce, sell and package even CBD as a cannabinoid no matter where it is sourced), the EU also moved all CBD products and tinctures- even those made from good old hemp- into the novel food category.
This means in effect, that even CBD extracts produced from the hemp plant (which is actually the majority of such product in Europe) must now be regulated as a “novel food” too. Even though in poor old hemp’s case, it is certainly the case that health food nuts have been consuming the same in Europe long before (and certainly after) standing EU “novel food” regulations were put into place back in the late 90’s.
Thus, the lawsuit, launched from a country unsure of whether it will even be in the EU post-May (either the month or the current PM).
According to the EU at least for now, CBD itself is a “novel food” no matter from where it is sourced. And that, according to not only science but food history is an absolute fallacy.consumer safety, from factory to pharmacy or farm to table, is never far from the discussion
Likely Outcomes
Those who were hoping that CBD would remain unregulated in the EU should think again. It is highly likely that what will happen is that CBD production licensing is in the cards and just about everywhere. Think GMPs but with a consumer-food twist.
While indie producers might groan at the prospect of fees and licensing procedures, remember this is Europe. And consumer safety, from factory to pharmacy or farm to table, is never far from the discussion.
While this lawsuit, in other words, is likely to make the EU think more closely about regulating CBD in general, what is most likely to happen is that entire enchilada will be lumped under a regime to insure that high quality production, particularly of crops bound for consumption, is also extended to anything that ends up in either a food or cosmetic product.
CBD Producers Have To Keep Current On Regs
Given the current murkiness that exists, in other words at this point across Europe, in every country and for every CBD product, exports here from other places are still not a great idea.
There are labeling, licensing and of course, ultimately legislative issues that are all still in flux. And while the outcome of the lawsuit might eventually regulate and standardize things, the idea that a license-free CBD production industry is clearly now dead in the water.
Jason Neely founded Stratos in 2014, when he and a small group of people left the pharmaceutical industry in search of a new endeavor in the cannabis marketplace. The concept was straightforward: Apply pharmaceutical methodologyof production to cannabis products. Back then, Stratos offered a range of THC-infused tabletsin the Colorado market.
Brenda Verghese, vice president of research & development
Brenda Verghese, vice president of research & development, was one of five people on staff when Stratos launched. Now they have about 30 team members. Consumers were looking for a cannabis product that would be consistent and reliable every time, taking the guesswork out of infused products dosage. That’s where Brenda Verghese found her skillset useful.
Transitioning to the pharmaceutical industry right out of college, Verghese started her career as a chemist and worked her way up to the R&D business development sector. “I specializedin formulations and taking a product from concept to commercialization in the pharmaceutical space,” says Verghese. “Jason Neely approached me with the idea of a cannabis company and focusing on making products as effective and consistent as possible, so really bringing pharmaceutical science into the cannabis space. In the matter of 4 years we grew substantially, mainly focusing on the efficacy of products.”
Behind the scenes at packaging and labeling Image credit: Lucy Beaugard
Soon after the success of their THC products became apparent, Stratos launched a CBD line, quickly growing their portfolio to include things like tinctures and topicals as well. According to Verghese, they are hoping that what’s been established on the THC side of their business as far as reproducibility and consistency is something that consumers will also experience on the CBD side. “Quality and consistency have definitely driven our growth,” says Verghese. “That is what consumers appreciate most- the fact that every tablet, tincture or swipe of a topical product is going to be consistent and the same dose every time.” This is what speaks to their background in the pharmaceutical sciences, FDA regulation has taught the Stratos team to create really robust and consistent formulations.
Quality in manufacturing starts at the source for Stratos: their suppliers. They take a hard look at their supply of raw materials and active ingredients, making sure it meets their standards. “The supplier needs to allow us to do an initial audit and periodic audits,” says Verghese. “We require documentation to verify the purity and quality of oil. We also do internal testing upon receipt of the materials, verifying that the COAs [certificates of analysis] match their claims.”
Process validation in action at the Stratos facility (image credit: Lucy Beaugard)
Verghese says maintaining that attention to detail as their company grows is crucial. They implement robust SOPs and in-process quality checks in addition to process testing. They test their products 5-6 times within one production batch. Much of that is thanks to Amy Davison, director of operations and compliance, and her 15 years of experience in quality and regulatory compliance in the pharmaceutical industry.
Product testing alone cannot assess quality for an entire lot or batch of product; therefore, each step of the manufacturing process must be controlled through Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Process validation is an aspect of GMPs used by the pharmaceutical industry to create consistency in a product’s quality, safety and efficacy. There are three main stages to process validation: process design, process qualification and continued process verification. Implementing these stages ensures that quality, including dosing accuracy, is maintained for each manufactured batch of product.
Fast forward to today and Stratos is looking at expanding their CBD products line significantly. While their THC-infused products might have a stronger brand presence in Colorado, the CBD line offers substantial growth potential, given their ability to ship nationwide as well as online ordering. “We are always evaluating different markets and looking for what suits Stratos and our consumer base,”says Verghese.
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.
Dr. Kelly Greenland, chief science officer at Keystone State Testing, says the North Dakota Department of Health set a high standard for the cannabis lab testing industry in the state. “Keystone State Testing is once again proud to of this monumental achievement and critical milestone in the company’s history to have met the highest levels of standards set forth by both A2LA and the North Dakota Department of Health,” says Greenland. “Keystone chose A2LA as its Accreditation Body due to their reputation in the industry, their diverse clientele, and the quality of their assessors. A2LA’s assessors have spent decades in their respective fields, which helps to ensure that Keystone is providing the best services possible to their clients, regulators and patients.”
