Committee Blog: NCIA’s Infused Products Committee Stirs The Testing Batch (Interview)

A year ago, NCIA’s Infused Products Committee (IPC) made the decision to tackle the issue of cannabis testing. It is an issue we feel is at the heart of cannabis legalization and is negatively impacting cannabis businesses across the nation. Although it has been a struggle to get comparable lab results across different labs, IPC believes there is a future where cannabis testing will reach consistency.

We began our process by asking several questions and with the assistance of the NCIA, we crafted a survey that was sent to experts in the field. During our preliminary research, we discovered that most cannabis testing labs view their protocols and procedures as proprietary information.

To gain better insight about the testing sector, we asked Alena Rodriguez, a member of NCIA’s Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to participate in an interview. Alena represents Rm3 Labs, a cannabis testing laboratory in Colorado.

IPC: Are you concerned about the inconsistent and varying test results and the impact it has on consumer safety?

Alena: Yes, I’m concerned. I do not take my job lightly; I know that contaminated cannabis can be harmful and sometimes life threatening. That is why I am involved with state regulators and groups like NCIA’s SAC and Testing Policy Working Group. We aim to educate regulators and stakeholders on the importance of practices such as independent audits, proficiency testing and ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for cannabis testing labs.

IPC: Do you think we are close to having consistent cannabis test results from different laboratories?

Alena: We are well on our way. In Colorado, licensed labs must undergo Proficiency Testing (PT) twice per year. PT is done through an inter-laboratory comparison where participating labs receive the same sample and analyze it using their methodology. Even though our procedures are not standardized to one method, most of the labs arrive at the same result. Unfortunately, not all states require PT yet, but I feel more and more states will adopt these programs.

Along with PT, consistent testing across labs requires the use of high-quality reference materials that are used to validate analytical methods and calibrate instruments. Cannabis testing labs in the United States have limited access to reference standards. Like cannabis, most industries started with limited resources, but over time the science will progress as federal barriers are lifted to make more research and better standards possible. It took decades to develop standardized, consistent methods in other industries, such as in pharmaceuticals and food testing. I don’t see the cannabis industry being any different.

IPC: Should there by penalties if a testing lab consistently provides drastically different results from prior tests of the same product?  

Alena: It depends on the situation. If the lab is knowingly breaking the rules or trying to cheat the system, then absolutely. But, most of the time inconsistent results have causes other than fraud or negligence. This industry produces new products every day and some manufacturers and laboratories don’t “get it right” on the first try. There is a lot of research and development that is involved. Three of the biggest hurdles for consistent testing of cannabis products are 1) the variety of sample types 2) the lack of certified reference materials for uncommon cannabinoids and terpenoids and difficulties in obtaining concentrated standards and 3) inhomogeneity in some infused products or concentrates. Product uniformity is critical and should be confirmed by analytical testing for consumer safety. Variable results across multiple labs may suggest a product lacks uniformity.

IPC: Do you believe testing procedures and protocols are proprietary?

Alena: Yes, third-party cannabis laboratory protocols are just as proprietary as the protocols developed by cultivators, concentrate extractors and infused product makers. Testing labs having proprietary methods is not novel to this industry. If a lab in any other industry (e.g. food, medical, agriculture, environment) develops an alternative method to the standard method, they can use it if they can validate against the reference method.

IPC: Should labs be required to prove their analytical methods are accurate by submitting their practices confidentially to a regulatory body?

Alena: Absolutely! Colorado labs are currently required to send all new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and method validations to the CDPHE prior to implementation. I hope more states adopt this practice, if they aren’t doing so already. As of January 1, 2019, all cannabis testing labs in Colorado will be required to be ISO/IEC 17025 accredited. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is the international gold standard for assessing the competence and quality management systems of testing labs across all industries to ensure consistent, accurate test results. More than a dozen cannabis labs have achieved this accreditation across the country.

IPC: Are you aware that the ASTM Committee D37 reportedly drafted testing procedures?  If published, will cannabis testing labs follow published procedures that are not their own?

Alena: Yes, I’m excited! This is a great step for our industry. I imagine the committee will develop similar protocols to those being used by third-party labs. But as I mentioned before, labs will have the choice to use the published standard methods or their own alternative method, granted it is validated against the reference method. I expect some labs will attempt to validate their methods against the standard methods and some will adopt ASTM’s methods.                                                                        

IPC: Are you aware of testing labs that allow for “tipping” on their order forms?  Does this concern you, and why?

Alena: It concerns me that there are bad actors in the testing sector of the cannabis industry but I’m afraid there are bad actors in every segment of every industry. At Rm3 Labs, we do not participate in or condone unethical behavior such as paying for the results you want. We would never risk falsifying test results because we are aware immunocompromised individuals and children are possibly taking the products we are testing. I would not risk my entire scientific career to give you 5% higher THC potency results or lie about your contaminant testing results. I advise all cannabis testing labs to always act ethically because you are in the business of public safety and your lab is subject to investigation by regulatory agencies at any time.

IPC conducted the above enlightened interview with SAC. While we were inspired by some of the answers, much like our survey attempt this past year, many of our questions remain unanswered. For example, we don’t agree that cannabis cultivators or manufacturers are to blame for receiving inaccurate “clean/approved” test results from labs due to products being inhomogeneous.

That said, it is clear by a couple of the responses that some states, like Colorado, are making substantial progress in oversite and legal requirements for testing laboratories, while other states, like California, are still leaving significant and dangerous gaps.

In our opinion, the industry’s need for consistent and accurate testing results remains at the forefront of the issues facing commercial cannabis today. The ability to send the same sample, from the same batch, under the same conditions, and have it tested by multiple labs, achieving the same results, is paramount to our industry’s future and success. State laws should require it. The industry should demand it. And the consumers most certainly deserve it.

As such, the IPC will continue its mission to drive this conversation forward with both testing labs and operators alike. Only together, can we really solve this crucial issue facing our amazing industry.