Putzing with Poisons

One has to hand it to the LCB to have come up with such a simple, almost LEAN way of increasing wholesaler revenue by $30 million dollars per year.  All they had to do was lower the safety thresholds for regulated cannabis defined by rule.  Easy peasy. Fail less product, sell more product, collect more taxes.  A Revenoor’s wet dream.

Everyone wins — except, perhaps, consumers of regulated cannabis in Washington state.

Following almost a year of stakeholder input, engagement and lobbying the LCB changed the rules governing QA (safety) testing beginning in September of 2017.  Supported by such organizations as the Cannabis Alliance, these changes were expected to benefit wholesalers to the tune of $30 million annually.  The LCB went so far as to include this estimated dollar benefit in the Small Business Economic Impact Statement they produced in conjunction with the proposed new rule language.

These changes in QA were expected to increase revenue to wholesalers by about 6% per year.  Good deal.  Lots of applause followed.  That would increase revenues to retailers … and THAT would increase revenue to the Revenoors.

The key changes to product safety that were introduced by the LCB include:

• changes in the amount of residual solvents allowed in extracts
• elimination of 3 of the 5 existing microbial assays
• the addition of a new “moisture” test for flower (and new logic necessary to fail for “moisture”)
• the addition of mycotoxin testing for certain product types
• …and a bunch of other changes that I’m ignoring for now

The first 3 changes made product QA failures less likely.  The addition of mycotoxin screens made certain product types more likely to fail (in that they had not been tested for mycotoxins before).  I, personally, find it a bit odd that finished edibles (and drinkables) at retail are not required to be tested for mycotoxins, but what do I know?  It must be a food safety interpretation particular to Olympia.

These changes included increasing some allowed residual solvent levels from 500 ppm to 5000 ppm, dropping all testing for microbial panels for a number of extracts (while occasionally requiring mycotoxin screening), eliminating all screening for aerobic bacteria, yeasts and molds, and coliforms, and changing a bunch of stuff about how samples are collected.

Face it, all weed is good shit when you don’t test for shit.

It is fortunate that cannabis is, itself, a relatively safe product (chronic smoke exposure and increases in fire risk notwithstanding).  It is certainly much safer than the other two things regulated by the Liquor, Cannabis and Nicotine Tax-Collection Board.

However, it is unfortunate that the LCB has instituted a reduction in the standards for product quality and safety in Washington’s regulated cannabis market.  It may be good to the tune of $30 million in annual gains by the industry’s wholesalers.  It is most certainly not for the good of consumers choosing to source cannabis or cannabis-infused products from regulated sources.   As such, it is another rule change that bolsters the unregulated market.

Cannabis consumers of Washington should, one would think, expect more from a system that charges almost 50% in taxes on every consumer purchase.  The LCB should pay more heed to the safety of those consuming regulated cannabis.  Particularly when their mission is to promote public safety (and trust).  Their mission is NOT to increase wholesaler revenue (by being able to sell previously unsaleable product) or to maximize tax revenue (that $30 million of annual wholesale product would likely represent some $100 million of retail sales and, by extension, about $50 million in incremental tax revenue for the Revenoors).

As a reminder to the LCB and those they serve, this is the LCB’s current Mission Statement:

Promote public safety and trust through fair administration and enforcement of liquor, cannabis, tobacco, and vapor laws.

In that spirit, it is surprising that the net result of their new QA rules, comparing reported failure rates in August to those in September during the first month after the new rules went into effect, was that about 72% of the flower which would have failed microbial QA testing in August passed in September.  Also, about 91% of the extracts that would have failed residual solvent testing in August passed in September.

With some seat-of-the pants estimates, that represents about 900,000 grams of skanky* flower that made it’s way to market in September that would have previously failed QA/safety testing and about 80,000 grams of skanky* concentrates that would have failed prior to Sept. 1, 2017.  Those were the good old days, when consumer safety supposedly meant something for cannabis consumers in Washington state.

One has to hand it to the LCB to have come up with such a simple, almost LEAN way of increasing wholesaler revenue by $30 million dollars per year.  All they had to do was lower the safety thresholds for regulated cannabis defined by rule.  Easy peasy. Fail less product, sell more product, collect more taxes.

What I fail to see here is any actual concern for the protection of consumers depending upon the regulated market for their cannabis in Washington state.  Our Governor recently stated on HBO that he felt that Washington “has the best weed in the country”.  To the extent that almost all of it is now passing QA tests that used to catch almost 7% of regulated product, perhaps the Governor is correct.  (note that failed product is relegated to either “remediation” (don’t ask) or extraction and cannot be sold as-is).

It seems, however, a bit disingenuous to rest that assertion on actions by the LCB THAT HE APPOINTED which dramatically lowered the bar for skanky* product to be able to make it to market in his state.

Sorry!  My bad. 

I probably should not call it skanky* product, as the rules now say it’s fine.  The rules say it’s now fine, just as the traceability system went into chronic meltdown and the fall harvest began in earnest (traditionally a time when lots of product failed a couple of the microbial screens that were eliminated in the new rules).

When Testing Technology was first suspended from testing in this market, their QA fail rate had been about  4.0% below the industry average in the three months preceding their suspension.  They were suspended from testing for about 6 months.

When PEAK was suspended from testing in this market, their QA fail rate had been about 2.0% below the industry average in the three months preceding their suspension.  They have now been suspended for over nine months.

The LCB’s rule changes, resulted in a microbial failure rate in September of 1.7%, which is about 4.7% below the industry average for the prior three months.  On this basis, one might assume that the LCB has become even “Friendlier” towards the industry than were Testing Tech (and, possibly, PEAK) in their prime.

In that context, it was surprising to see the LCB apparently targeting Analytical 360 during one of the recent scheduled lab audits conducted by their Pennsylvania-based contractor, RJ-Lee.  Unlike historical audits, RJ-Lee descended on A-360 last month with two armed LCB enforcement officers and one marijuana examiner in tow.  Part of the verbal justification for the apparently hostile tone of the audit was that RJ-Lee had observed suspiciously low failure rates by A-360 in microbial tests.

Please remember that this is the same RJ-Lee that chose to highlight, in their statements relating to the suspension of PEAK’s certification last July, that their examination of the potency data from 1Q’17 showed no evidence of any inflation in the values reported by PEAK (that statement still makes me chuckle).  PEAK’s closure was mainly attributed to deficiencies in their ability to detect nasty and potentially harmful microbial organisms.

Back to RJ-Lee and the LCB’s special weapons and tactics team raiding A-360  last month —- in direct opposition to the stated rationale for the aggressive focus of the audit, A-360 had among the HIGHEST failure rates for regulated product, based on microbial assays, of any of the labs serving the consumers of this market.

Perhaps the fact that A-360 was not in step with the LCB’s efforts to minimize product QA failure rates may have contributed to the LCB’s apparent decision to target and punish yet another upstart lab.  Heck, their overall potency distribution also shows no evidence of inflation.  That’s the kind of bad example an organization that has allowed and enabled much of the product in the market today to be tested by labs whose results do not appear worthy of consumer trust might just want to embrace and nurture.  When every lawn in the neighborhood is overgrown with weeds, mine does not look so bad.

Good labs, like Analytical 360, make the “bad” ones look bad by comparison.

Again, an apparently LEAN solution from the LCB that solves one of their problems (consumer safety be damned).

It is unfortunate, and rather tragic, that the consumers depending on Washington’s regulated market to meet their cannabis needs (and desires) do not appear to be factored into the rule-making of the LCB – or at least not very much so.

Upon reflection,  consumers are factored in to an extent in that $50 million more of their cannabis dollars will go to tax directly attributable to the sale of previously skanky product* in the next year

I don’t know who is keeping the consumers in the regulated market safe these days.  It certainly is not the LCB, nor does it appear to be the DOH.  The Department of Agriculture is trying – but they often seem to have had one of their hands tied while trying to lend expert assistance.  It does not appear to be the industry groups most successful in impacting recent rule-making.  Perhaps it is our Legislators?

Maybe things will change …. Maybe the LCB will begin reinforcing PRAGUE lab behavior in the future … or perhaps they will punt the problem they engineered off to some other Government Agency.

Let us hope that consumers can have faith that the farms that are growing the regulated product that they choose and/or the processors that are processing that regulated product that they choose and/or the retailers that are dispensing the product that they choose are holding the products they produce and/or sell to a higher standard than the abysmal one now defining regulated cannabis in Washington.

The Governor of Washington says we have the best weed in the nation.  I would submit, that with the elimination of testing for coliforms, it might better be called the best “shit” in the nation.

Too bad.  This state has so much potential that is not just being left on the table, but is being actively kicked to the floor.

 

*“Skanky”, as used herein, refers to product that would have failed QA testing prior to Aug 31, but is now readily available in regulated stores across the state in sealed smell-proof packaging that soon will not even require the date of harvest on the label (if, that is, the LCB has their way later this morning when they vote on the equally-unfriendly-to-consumers new packaging & labelling rules that the same stakeholders have been working on now for about a year.  Perhaps these stakeholders can next put their heads together and address the deficit of medicine and medical thought and patients and access points in the regulated medical market of today).  Author’s note … the LCB passed the new “less transparency required” packaging and labelling rules this morning right as I was posting this post …. they are on a roll, that LCB.  They are on a roll, indeed.