Cannabis MSB I Most Trusted Cannabis News Source I Est. 2013

BEARD BROS PHARMS

Full News Story

How to Solve Potency Inflation

Was standardized testing the answer to stopping potency inflation?

So if standardized testing isn’t the answer, what are we to do?

Remove or reduce the importance of THC value when assessing quality in cannabis flower:

  1. No labeling or categorization of cannabis flower regarding its THC content whatsoever. 
    Consumers have the opportunity to observe and smell the flower, and can make their purchasing decisions based on those observations. Studies have shown that not only are our noses very proficient at distinguishing between different strains based on aroma alone, but also that there is a positive correlation between pleasant aroma of cannabis and a pleasant experience for each individual. The same study said that there was no correlation between particular terpene profiles or THC content to the pleasant experience.
  2. Categorize flower based on most abundant terpenes/cannabinoid ratios instead of THC
    Although the study referenced above did not find that a particular terpene or THC content led to a pleasant experience, terpene profiles and cannabinoid ratios are still two useful metrics in determining what type of experience you can have.
  3. Categorize flower by THC content, but rather than specific amounts, segregate into low-THC and high-THC categories.
    Some users may prefer lower THC strains, while others may opt for higher THC strains. The two categories could be split by some arbitrary THC percentage, say 20%. This option, while it is the least deviation from our current system, is also the most ripe for continued abuse when it comes to testing potency (if there is a price difference between the low and high THC categories, producers/labs will try to push more of their samples to have numbers just above that threshold). As a result, we would not recommend this option, but it’s a minor improvement from the current situation.

More effective and accountable surveillance testing of products on the shelf:

  1. State regulators have their own internal labs – This is the more straightforward, but also more expensive option. Regulators can acquire samples that have been tested for compliance (and therefore have an original result from the third-party lab to compare to), and bring them back to their reference lab, where they can perform their own testing protocol and provide a non-biased result. 
  2. State regulators use the licensed third-party labs – This is the less expensive option, but also requires more coordination. The regulators direct one or a few labs to pick up samples and bring them back to their own lab, where they perform the test and provide the results to the state. Typically, this scenario involves more than one lab, to avoid any confusion about which lab is providing the correct answer. 
  1. Off Shelf – Regulators or other labs can be directed to enter dispensaries, where they will each pick up the same product with the same batch number. The dispensaries should be notified ahead of time so that they can set aside enough product for pickups.
  2. Off Backstock – Each lab is required to keep excess untested material from all compliance batches in their inventory for a determined period of time. Shortly after compliance results are released, the regulators or labs are informed to obtain the sample from the inventory of the original testing lab.

Recalls

  • While the lab that produced the discrepancy is the direct perpetrator, recalls are actions that are placed on producers to provide a disincentive for them to work with labs that they know are committing or willing to commit fraud. 
  • States need to develop a clear and public protocol for dealing with errant results. At the moment, many states may be performing surveillance testing, but may not have a clear protocol for what happens when their audits produce a result that is clearly different from the original testing result. Considerations should be given to the degree of deviation and how many offenses the lab has. For example, a result that is 40% off triggers an automatic recall, while an error that is 15% off and is the lab’s first offense simply triggers further surveillance testing on other products that brand tests for.
  • Recalls should always include the name of the labs and COAs for both the original and surveillance test result. This is in keeping with the clear and public protocol for recalls, and it gives producers an idea of the risks provided with working with certain labs as well as providing further disincentive to the labs to commit fraud.

Further investigation and disciplinary action on labs

  • Any action taken in response to an errant result, such as a recall, needs to include concurrent action on the lab producing the result. A recall is a serious financial consequence on the producer, and they shouldn’t be the only ones shouldering the repercussions. The action on the lab starts with the inclusion of the lab’s name and COA in the recall, and can also include citations to provide a financial consequence on the lab. 
  • But while fines and public exposure may be appropriate and effective deterrents for the lab to prevent them from performing future fraudulent actions, what if the errant result was clear, but was not egregious enough to warrant a recall or other public action? Any clear sign of fraudulent or negligent behavior by the lab as a result of the surveillance testing (whether it is a particularly egregious result that produced a recall, or smaller but consistent biases in a lab’s testing) has to initiate an investigation as to the source of the deviation/s. This includes things like root cause analyses and corrective action plans on the lab’s part, and further surveillance testing and audits by the regulators. 
  • The actions have to be progressive though, which means continuance of the same behavior can lead to more serious actions, up to and including suspensions and revocations of licenses. The threat of these actions occurring should be the ultimate deterrence against fraudulent behavior.

About The Authors

Josh Swider is the founder and CEO at Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs his passion for analytical chemistry and consumer safety he has made his mission ensure only safe; quality cannabis products are allowed to be sold to consumers.

Erik Paulson is the Lab Director for Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs in San Diego, California. As a former high school educator turned analytical chemist, he has a passion for educating both cannabis industry professionals and consumers on the ethical challenges the cannabis industry faces.

READ MORE CANNABIS NEWS
Archives
Sign Up For The Friday Sesh
RECENT POSTS
SUBMIT YOUR NEWS