The Washington State Liquor and Hashish Board (“Board”, “LCB”) voted in March to undertake new final rules efficient April 2, 2022 that require all hashish flower and intermediate hashish merchandise to be examined for pesticide contamination. The LCB Chair David Postman acknowledged within the Board’s release that “testing for pesticides and heavy metals provides a deeper layer of confidence for shoppers that these [cannabis] merchandise are freed from chemical or organic residuals”.
The Board’s client security concern is certainly a respectable one as leisure use hashish producers had been beforehand not required to test for pesticides in any respect. In keeping with Confidence Analytics, Inc., a WA licensed hashish testing laboratory, in a white paper launched in February, the difficulty of pesticide contamination in hashish merchandise within the state is critical. That is notably true within the case of hashish concentrate-related merchandise that, when examined on an “off the shelf” foundation in 2018, had pesticide failure price as excessive as 40%.
The newly adopted rules will impression many elements of the leisure hashish market however for functions of this put up essentially the most important are:
- Pesticide testing is now required for hashish flower and all intermediate hashish merchandise which are used within the creation of finish merchandise like hashish extract and concentrates; and
- heaps, batches, and (“theoretically” in response to the LCB) harvests that fail pesticide pattern testing might not be remediated and people who fail have to be destroyed.
Surprisingly, whereas it seems that the new regulations enable for producers and processors to pay for retesting of failed samples, our understanding from the LCB is that solely failed pattern checks for Pyrethrins (a naturally occurring pesticide present in over 2,000 registered pesticide merchandise) will probably be allowed to be retested. Crops from all different failed pattern checks have to be destroyed with none alternative for retesting or remediation. Moreover, the LCB has not issued steerage on the implication {that a} failed lot or batch can be thought of to have on the harvest it got here from, although it did say that theoretically failed pattern checks may lead to a complete harvest needing to be destroyed, relying on the check outcomes. Neither was the LCB forthcoming in the way it deliberate to implement the pesticide testing necessities.
Within the absence of regulatory steerage, market members are certain to vary their practices and contracts to verify they aren’t those left and not using a chair when the music stops. It’s exhausting to think about these new guidelines not leading to downstream testing compliance necessities by retailers to processors and producers. Processors particularly, could also be at best threat. However as a result of producers alone have direct management over pesticide use and avoidance procedures pre-harvest, the burden of compliance will possible be shifted to them.
The one manner for retailers and processors to make sure they aren’t the get together left holding the (tainted) bag is to contractually require producers to show post-harvest testing compliance earlier than accepting supply of product. Processors and retailers may require indemnification from producers, even when they certify a criticism product. There could also be implications for testing labs as properly, although if they’re sensible, they may present solely very restricted recourse for inaccurate testing. The underside line is that so as to guarantee acceptance by processors and retailers, producers might want to decide a value environment friendly and dependable system of pre and post-harvest pesticide testing. All of that is prone to have important contractual, financial, and regulatory penalties for the whole market.
Including to what’s possible an unsure and probably pricey implementation interval are critical infrastructure issues with respect to producers and processors missing entry to enough pesticide testing from licensed labs throughout the state. Confidence Analytics additionally acknowledged in its white paper that presently, “solely 5 out of the eleven Washington state licensed laboratories have the technological functionality, and WSLCB authorization, for pesticide testing.” The pesticide action level rule lists 59 pesticide compounds and their acceptable thresholds, however few labs within the state have the know-how or accreditation to check for all 59. The LCB did touch upon the infrastructure challenge and is hopeful that drawback will probably be brief time period.
All market members are prone to be impacted to some extent by these new guidelines and the LCB’s presently unknown enforcement insurance policies. Making issues worse, the flexibility, or lack thereof, to entry dependable and environment friendly testing services raises important compliance and enforcement points for producers, processors, and retailers.
We will probably be monitoring developments on this challenge and intend to observe this put up with proposed greatest practices for compliance and enforcement with these new laws.