Alaska Cannabis testing still in flux

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