By Herb Growell
If you’re a Cannabis grower or a retailer, you want high THC numbers.
If
you’re a Cannabis testing lab, you make more money from inflated THC
potency. It’s clear to both groups that when shopping for legal
Cannabis, prospective consumers will inevitably turn to the label on the
package, and zero in on the stated THC content. Higher THC numbers mean
more money for the growers as well. Unfortunately, these tests have
shown to be full of persistent inaccuracies. This means that our THC
numbers are a still a bit muddled.
While
other legal Cannabis states are having similar issues, some of our
issues are unique, and Alaskan Cannabis testing is still in flux as a
result. However, there are some recent events to report on. The news
that Steep Hill Alaska’s labs are closing down, at least temporarily,
would seem to strike a blow against our state’s medical users, who
probably have the most at stake when considering how to bring our
state’s disparate THC numbers closer together.
What
isn’t clear is why the numbers vary so much, and what exactly Alaska’s
Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office (AMCO)’s new "MCB (Marijuana
Control Board) Testing/Working Group” is doing to resolve this
confusion. Talking with Steep Hill partner Brian Coyle, the main
disparity comes down to differing testing methodologies, which can
manifest significantly different results, between Cannabis-infused
edibles, and Cannabis flowers.
This
is in addition to Alaska’s unique THC-A issue, which Matt Hickman
discussed in last November’s “THC testing: Can Alaska potency numbers be
trusted?” story. Our legislators created a THC-A controversy when, as
pointed out by Mark Malagodi, PhD, partner at Anchorage’s other main
Cannabis testing lab, Canntest, in that same article: “The way total THC
is reported (in Alaska) is an enormous misconception, it’s very
unfortunate and it started with the way the board wrote the regulations,
allowing THC to be added with THC-A to create a total THC rating,” he
said. “My understanding is that no other state allows that.”
According
to Coyle, the consequences of this issue alone is a results discrepancy
of over 8%, in favor of the testing lab using Alaska’s seemingly
out-of-consensus THC-A rating protocols. The issue with edibles results
in discrepancies in potency ratings as well, but the difference in this
instance is because the lab that’s better able to sort through other
ingredients in the edible to get to the cannabinoids (including THC),
will be the lab with the higher THC rating results.
The
way these discrepancies manifested between Steep Hill and Canntest
meant that Canntest was rating flowers as having higher THC content than
Steep Hill was, while this dynamic was reversed for edibles, with Steep
Hill being the lab that offered the higher THC rating.
the obvious temporary fix would be to
require the name of the lab,
to be printed right next to their
THC numbers on the label
To this Medical Cannabis consumer, the obvious temporary fix would be to require the name of the testing lab, to be printed right next to their THC numbers on the label. That way, consumers can make a more informed decision while the AMCO group figures out how to best address this controversy. Hopefully, they are at least acknowledging these differences. Because if they aren’t, then how on earth could they effectively resolve, or even address them?
In
Washington State, their Liquor & Cannabis Board (WSLCB) addressed a
similar controversy by proposing that growers submit three Cannabis
flowers, or “buds” to labs, which would then test each bud and average
the results into one THC number. The problem with this approach is the
main issue with THC testing: Cannabis growers have also noticed these
discrepancies.
Indeed,
Washington growers have elected to send 84% of their crops to labs
rated the most “business friendly”, who have coincidentally reported
higher THC levels on a consistent basis, and failed fewer crops –– or
none at all –– for contaminants like pesticides, and mold. This means
that the “objective” labs, offering arguably more accurate results, are
flailing.
The
result of Washington’s THC-ratings kerfuffle is that their top Cannabis
lab, Peak Analytics, after being found guilty of “consistent and large
scale inaccuracies” in an audit, was suspended in July 2017. This audit
was conducted by the RJ Lee Group, and industrial forensics &
scientific lab from Pittsburgh, who recommended the suspension pending a
fix of deficiencies.
Back in Alaska…
According
to AMCO’s Director, Erika McConnell Monday evening, “AMCO has
contracted with DEC’s Environmental Health Lab to perform a lab audit of
CannTest and Steep Hill, relating to the inconsistent results. That
effort should be completed in the next few weeks.”
To
be clear, Steep Hill’s closure resulted from an impossible-to-foresee
situation resulting from their landlord’s mortgage-holder’s bias against
the Cannabis Industry, which is because of Cannabis’ uncertain federal
Scheduling, and entirely unrelated to testing accuracy.
In
addition to the (hopefully temporary) closure of Steep Hill, in other
news is there’s a new Cannabis testing lab in the Mat-Su Valley. New
Frontier Research in Wasilla opened their doors a couple of months ago,
and are steadily getting up to speed as they gain market share.
Hopefully
Steep Hill’s Anchorage investors can attract a new Alaskan-based
business partner. According to their Facebook page, Fairbanks could use a
local Cannabis testing lab. Alaska’s Cannabis industry as a whole would
surely like to have these labs be more geographically distributed
around the state. Southeastern Alaska could probably use one as well.
Because
The New Frontier opened their doors shortly before Steep Hill was
ordered to close, Alaska still has two Cannabis testing labs. The New
The Frontier doesn’t perform all of Alaska’s state-required tests yet,
but they are working hard to get up to speed on being certified for
terpenes and residual solvents, and will have their CE certification
soon. CE indicates conformity with health, safety, and environmental
protection standards for products sold within Europe (EEA) and
elsewhere. Their distinctive CE “marking” is voluntary in Alaska.
All
three of our Alaskan Cannabis testing labs are part of AMCO’s MCB
Testing/Working Group, which is planning on releasing a report with
recommendations to the full Marijuana Control Board (MCB), likely in the
summer of 2018, according to their press release:
“The working group will discuss a variety of testing issues, including:
- Standardization of sample preparation methodology
- Sample selection
- Amount of product to be tested
- Proficiency testing
- Required tests for various products”
According
to AMCO’s Director, Erika McConnell, “Because protecting public safety,
health, and welfare is one of our agency’s goals, we value this
opportunity to have experts work together through some of the testing
issues that have arisen. This working group will provide important
information for the Marijuana Control Board to consider.” While the
MCB’s Testing/Working Group was originally scheduled to meet every two
weeks since the end of 2017, because of scheduling conflicts they have
only met a total of four times to date.
Many
Alaskan Cannabis consumers, both recreational and medical, are looking
forward to the results of AMCO’s lab audit, and to the prospect of more
accurate Cannabis labeling.
Irie for Life,
Herb is a long-time Cannabis enthusiast, advocate, evangelist and self-medicating
patient, helping to spread light wherever there is darkness.
If you seek more information like supporting videos and web links to background sources for the
above information please visit us online, or Herb at upliftingvapor.blogspot.com