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.

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.

 

Read the Full Article

Read the Full Article

California: Home to some of the best cannabis in the world. From the Emerald Triangle’s premium flower to solventless hash rosin, the industry has quickly evolved from backyard experiments to an artisanal craft. Before any products can hit the dispensary shelves, they must undergo state-mandated quality and safety testing. Producers have 36 labs to choose from to conduct the analysis, but not all labs are created equal. Some labs have prioritized quality analytics, while others have prioritized profits.

Clearly, there is an incentive for companies selling cannabis concentrate or flower to find the lab that will report the highest THC concentration – higher THC equals more profit. This has left the industry vulnerable to the practice of “lab shopping.” It’s not difficult to find a lab that’s willing to boost numbers to gain more business (or so I’ve been told).  I’ve lost count of the number of times people ask me to bump potency up with the promise of money or “earning the account.” One request we get from producers more than you would believe is to guarantee their flower always tests over 30 percent THC. I value ethics over profits. However, not every lab in the industry does. When I refuse to ensure over 30 percent THC, the grower has no problem calling the next lab on the list.

Lab shopping is not only unethical in that it misleads consumers – it also hinders the industry. I have clients who will test a concentrate sample and get 87 percent THC during R&D, then take it to another lab that will report a 95 percent THC at compliance. This leaves me with two choices: I can start inflating numbers to earn a company’s business or continue to provide precise, quality analytics and potentially miss out on millions of dollars in revenue.

It comes down to scientific as well as personal integrity and ethics. Lab operators should ask themselves why they are in this industry: is it public safety and science, or is it to make money at the public’s expense? As chemists, we don’t spend time and effort earning degrees to fudge potency results for someone to sell their product at top dollar. If consumers knew the rampant nature of THC inflation, they would have zero confidence in results posted by most labs. If people cannot have confidence in potency results, how can they have confidence in the accuracy of safety tests?

The current regulations set for testing pesticides are another massive contributor to lab shopping. The 66 analytes we are required to test for are split into two different categories: 45 belong to Category 2 and have an action limit for the maximum amount allowed before causing a sample to fail. If any amount of the other 21 pesticides (Category 1) are detected, it will result in a failed batch.

The only analytical requirement for Category 1 pesticides by the California Bureau of Cannabis Control is that the laboratory must quantify them above 100 parts per billion (PPB). This is when the quality of a lab (and its analytical scientists) really comes into play. If a lab has done its job and created a method that is as sensitive as possible for consumer safety, it will be the best lab for the public and the worst lab for its clients. For example, one lab might have a limit of detection of 30 PPB, but another has a limit of 75 PPB. A sample with a pesticide concentration at 50 PPB would fail at the first lab and pass at the second. This problem is not new – it has been discussed for years, yet it remains in the regulations. We’ve unknowingly participated in many blind spiked sample studies by clients, where a contaminated sample was sent to multiple labs. The results prove that other labs are missing category 1 and 2 pesticides over action levels or required LOQ.

Misreporting pesticides is harmful to consumers and creates an unequal playing field in the lab industry. Current Category 1 pesticide testing regulations allow cannabis companies to work with a lab with less stringent standards than competitors. Instead, regulators need to assign action limits to all pesticides. California regulators should conduct a blind study to reveal how well cannabis is currently being tested – and how much danger they are exposing residents to under the current system. Until then, consumers will continue to be at risk of buying products that advertise inflated potency values or, worse, fail to meet the safety standards for consumption.

Read the Full Article

Michigan’s legal cannabis market is continuing to thrive and grow.

Just more than a year after recreational cannabis sales began in Michigan, the state’s legal cannabis market has grown by leaps and bounds and shows no signs of slowing down any time soon. In December, Michigan showed the highest growth in sales of any legal cannabis market in the U.S., posting a 146% gain in gross merchandise value over the previous year, according to data from wholesale cannabis marketplace LeafLink.

Jeff Radway, the CEO of premium cannabis purveyor Skymint, says that Michigan’s recreational cannabis market has developed “at the speed of light” since legalization.

“It’s been a fascinating challenge to keep pace with. In December of 2019, Michigan became the tenth state in the U.S. to legalize adult-use cannabis,” Radway wrote in an email to High Times. “Less than a year in, it surpassed Nevada to become the fifth highest-grossing state for cannabis sales and is now on track to surpass $1 billion in sales in 2021. In addition to its fast-growing new recreational market, Michigan’s medical market is ranked #2 in the country, second only to California.”

Medical Marijuana Leads The Way

Michigan’s success is due largely to its existing infrastructure for medical marijuana, which was legalized in 2008. With a well established medical marijuana program in the state prior to recreational legalization, Michigan already had a large customer base that was ready to see the market grow. But David Egerton, laboratory director at Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs, said that some of the credit for Michigan’s success should also go to state regulators. He said that officials with Michigan’s Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) have been much more open to feedback from businesses in the industry than their counterparts in California, where his company began its foray into licensed cannabis laboratory testing.

So far, “the MRA has made more than 40 changes to the initial set of regulations to prioritize public health and safety, update testing regulations, and make it easier for companies to operate and develop new products.”

“Companies within the state are doing their best to adapt to new regulations, and it’s been a breath of fresh air to have the MRA listen and act upon the feedback that licensed operators provide,” Egerton said in a virtual interview.

Pivoting To The Adult-Use Market

While by some measures the legalization of recreational pot has been a resounding success, Egerton notes that the medical marijuana operators that pioneered regulated cannabis in Michigan haven’t fared as well.

“The transition to the adult-use market has up-rooted the small-scale, caregiver focused supply chain in an analogous manner to California in 2016 to 2017, and the ripple effect is still being felt across the industry,” he said. “While some of the caregivers were able to shift to the licensed marketplace, many others have dropped out as multi-state operators have moved in to compete.”

One of the medical providers navigating the path to the regulated adult-use market is Ghostbudster Farms, an operation with six years experience in Michigan’s medical market. Part-owner Chris Michael says that the transition has been a difficult one, particularly because of steep financial requirements.

“You have to show $500,000 in liquid assets for just a cultivation license,” Michael said in a telephone interview, referring to a Class C license which allows up to 1,500 plants.

“If you wanted a processing license, you had to show another $500,000,” and so on. “You’re looking at millions of dollars in just showing in assets and liquid before you can actually even get approved.”

“It wasn’t steered toward the grassroots movement,” Michael added. “This is where it came from and these are the people that originally started this movement. And they started this and it just spiraled out and turned completely corporate.”

Michael says that Michigan has seen an influx of capital from out of state funding operations that he believes see profit as the prime motivator.

“I’m out here doing it for the love of cannabis and the properties of this plant and what it can actually do,” he said. “There’s a lot of people that are here just for the money grab. It’s like that in every industry, but this one specifically a lot more.”

The Future Looks Bright

That isn’t the case with Skymint, which is 85% self-funded. Radway said that he is proud to have built his company from the ground up in his home state of Michigan. He’s optimistic about the future of the state’s regulated cannabis market, and said that companies with a strong brand strategy are likely to continue to grow as Michigan’s cannabis industry sees more players enter the market this year and beyond.

“The dramatic rise in 2020 retail cannabis sales reflects a shift Michigan consumers are making from the illicit market to the regulated marketplace,” he said. “As our legal market continues to mature and evolve, Michigan consumer habits are going to as well, and this is where top-notch branding, customer service, and consumer loyalty programs will prove critical in 2021.”

Read the Full Article