Hello, welcome to those who are just joining us. I'm gonna go ahead and get started. My name is Cassidy West, and I'm the Policy and roles manager for the LCB. That's been working on this project since the legislation was passed last year. This is the fourth workshop in a series of workshops, where we're reviewing different sections of the rules to to implement the legislation. So, the workshop Oh, I'm just gonna pause for a second. Hi, welcome, everyone who's just joining us. I'm Cassidy West. I'm just walking through what we're going to do today.
So the workshop, excuse me, the workshop objective for today is to review discuss and gather feedback from interested parties on the draft proposed rule changes to WAC 314 55 102. And that's the quality control and quality assurance testing. And then also changes to WAC 314 55 109 relates to cannabinoid additives. And before I move on, if you would like to get these documents, if you if you these are online, if you weren't able to access these online or haven't had a chance to please put your email in the chat and then to your name, we'll follow up with you in any email so that you have all the materials for the workshop. Okay. All right. So with regards to changes to those sections, these are to incorporate the new definitions or amended definitions of cannabis, cannabis products and THC concentration. That were the result of the legislation the THC bill, as well as amendments to RCW 69 50 326, which is related to the use of additives to enhance the CB- CBD concentration of authorized products. Again, I'll just go ahead and say welcome to those who just came in. I'm Cassidy West, and I'm going to be leading this workshop. Today, we're going to be focusing on the two sections provided below. If you don't have access to these materials, which are posted online, please put your email in the chat and tyranny will follow up with an email so that you have these for the workshop. All right, I won't say that again. So with regards to the scope of the rulemaking, I just want to be very clear that we only want to make the changes that are necessary and relevant to be able to implement the statutory provisions that resulted from the bill. There are going to be things that are connected to this, but we really want to just make sure we're staying narrow in scope. And then, as with all of these meetings, that we want to get stakeholder engagement on and get your feedback, nothing that we're providing today is final. We want to get your feedback so that we can finalize a set of rules to be able to bring those to the board to do a CR one or two filing. So what that means as soon as we get a finalized draft here, we will ask the board to adopt the draft. And then at that point, the rules will become officially proposed. At that point, you'll also have a formal comment period where people can submit written comments, so you'll have another chance to weigh in. And there will also be a public hearing scheduled. We will have a final workshop on May 2, to review all of the changes to all of the sections that we've discussed during this during these workshops. And then from there, that's that's when we'll file this year one or two. So we'll give people a couple of weeks, actually until May 15. After we have sorry, let me back up. We have the workshop on May 2. And you can provide written comments in formal comments as well. It's technically the informal comment period. But you can provide those up until May 15. And then we plan on filing the CR 102 in June. So it'll take us a little bit of time it will incorporate those changes or feedback and then they will present the CR one or two to the board. Any questions about the just the process generally, or scope of the rulemaking before we go ahead and get started? Oh, just raise your hand if you have a question or comment. tyranny will unmute you. And with that, I will let folks raise their hand if they have any questions before We jump into the material
I'm not seeing any hands. Okay, and so actually, so we're going to review just draft proposed rule changes to both of those sections, I'm going to walk through all of them. And then we'll have a little bit of a break so that everybody can just take a look yourself digest and then stretch your legs. And then we'll resume at 1110 and have a 40 minute discussion where we could, where we'll answer questions about some of the details about the changes, and then any discussion or feedback suggestions that you have. We'll also talk about that during that time as well. With that, I'll go ahead and move on to the changes.
We'll start with the changes to WAC 314 55 109 Just because those changes are the it's less changes, they're not as substantive as the ones in the testing section. And just very straightforward for basically reflecting exactly what the statute says. So this is the form without track changes so that it's clean and easy to read. We can get you know, definitely will have a version with a track changes, but I just want you all to walk through this. I'll read it out loud and then we give you a second to to take it in yourself and then move on to the 102 section because there are there is overlap and you'll see it just the fact that Okay, so I'm just gonna read as provided in RCW 69-50-326, licensed cannabis producers and licensed cannabis processors may use cannabidiol products CBD products obtained from a source not licensed under this chapter, provided that the CB D product is not cannabis or a cannabis product. So those are those new definitions that are amended definitions, does not contain the presence of a synthetic cannabinoid, and has been tested for contaminants and toxins by testing laboratory accredited under this chapter and accordance with the testing standards, a tap established in this section. Licensed cannabis producers and processors may use a CBD product if they came from the source not licensed under the chapter for the purpose of enhancing the CBD concentration of any product authorized for production processing and sell under this chapter. However usable cannabis except for cannabis, uh, you know what, I'm gonna stop there, because the this hasn't changed. And I'm gonna highlight here, just the changes. So just summarize again, what was amended. So for this section, the only thing that we've done here different than the existing rules, as instead of having that the CBD, the THC concentration has to be less than 0.3%, that's been replaced to state that it cannot be the CBD product cannot be a cannabis or cannabis product, as defined in this as defined in statute. And this was to reflect those new definitions, which means that now, any product with a detectable amount of THC can be considered a cannabis product. I hope that wasn't confusing, but I'll stop there just to see if there's any questions for for clarity, and then we'll get feedback when we go through everything in a minute.
Yeah, Shawn, I see your hand. You can go ahead.
I guess this morning is a clarity statement. But I think this would be the place to appropriately include that this imported CBD product cannot be utilized to convert to any other cannabinoid. I think that would fit nicely here.
Okay, um, thank you for that. Take some notes. And I will point you to a section later on. Just where it does talk about. Well, you'll see, we'll see in just a second, but this may be relevant to what you had to say. Okay, thank you. Um,
now with regards to this is new to not being able to it's not really new, because it can never contain a synthetic cannabinoid. But now we're specifically calling this out. And this is just referencing the a new section created by statute that specifically prohibits the manufacture or sale and production of any synthetic cannabinoid have any questions about what that means?
Okay, and just to synthetic cannabinoid, we did go over what that means in the first, the first workshop where we went over the definition changes, and we're simply referencing the definition in already existing in statute. So we didn't create a definition ourself. Just want to make sure that's clear. Alright, so I'm gonna move on and not read everything that I'm not going to read anything that hasn't been touched. So we're just gonna scroll down. I'm on page two now. And testing, okay, so we're gonna go to subsection four nope, hold on, I'm sorry. Give me a second. I want to make sure I'm not leaving your downer on path here.
Alright, here's where I am. Sections quite large.
Okay, here we go. Alright, so I'm on page seven. And this is section subsections, filling up and then I'll, I'll get back there. Subsection four of your testing requirements. Section four, B. So required fields fields of testing, Page seven. I'm going to highlight the section which was the only language amended. So cannabinoid caught are required required fields in testing cannabinoid concentration analysis. Now, you'll notice this is a new term, it said potency analysis previously, or potency test. The reason that this has been changed this language is to align with the rule, WSDA rules that have lab standards. So they're referring to potency dust as cannabinoid concentration analysis. We want to be consistent, of course. And so that's why this term is used, but it doesn't mean anything else. So it's still a potency test. It's just a nomenclature change. Okay, so cannabis, cannabinoid concentration analysis is required to confirm the product is not cannabis or a cannabis product that's defined in statute contains detectable levels of CBD. And to determine the levels of THC THC A CBD and CBD A and the product. synthetic cannabinoids, as defined in RCW 69 50 204 are prohibited under RCW 69 50 401. And any test results that suggest the presence of a synthetic cannabinoid must be immediately reported to the LCB and I'll give everyone a second let me know if you want me to read that again. I don't know how many how many people are on the on the call and can't see the screen. That happy to do that?
Okay, so just moving on just to this next. So we're at B one a. So on page seven. If you look at sub point A, this is no change. Like no sub substantive change. This section before had everything that you have to test for the THC THC, a total THC, and it is exactly what is in the testing section. And so we just referenced that here so that any changes that were made to the testing section, we wouldn't have to repeat it over here as well. This is all to say that the same tests have to be conducted. And so I'll leave that for a second. Are there any questions to see if anybody has any questions?
Yes, Shawn, go ahead.
Hi. So on the on the language that says you know, synthetic cannabinoids, as defined in our CW are prohibited, but yet the testing requirements for THC THC, CBD and CBDa, don't lay out that that the product has to be tested for synthetic cannabinoids. And so my question is, is, if there's any results that suggest the presence, it's suggest the presence of a single, synthetic cannabinoid? What, what would be suggesting the presence, I don't understand what that trigger would be? If anybody else can speak to that, that would be interesting to know.
Sure, and I'm happy this is how I am interpreting this. So this is what I'm intending it to me. So the presence that could be detected just because you see something that is not naturally occurring, or in an in a concentration that's higher than what would be naturally occurring. So I'm not a chemist, but it's my understanding that there are certain cannabinoids like not THC, so like CBG or CBN. One of them I may be butchering it, so chemists please speak up if I am not saying this correctly. But there are certain compounds that can be used as indicators for if there may be a synthetic cannabinoid going on there. And Justin, I'll let you go ahead.
Oh, it's just gonna make sure that that folks understand that this is only CBD, you cannot bring in any other type of cannabinoid into the into the market and all synthetic or synthetically derived products of any cannabinoid is prohibited under state law now, so there will need to be some testing around that if CBD is coming into the market to be used as an additive. So what Cassidy is talking about those other flags are not necessarily that we're looking at those those types of things coming into the system to be used, but as the indicators.
Thank you. Shawn, does that help? Sorry, you're unmuted, but what? No, you can unmute yourself, I believe now.
Thanks. Yeah, we can continue. Okay.
Okay, great.
Bonnie Jo, go ahead.
Um, yeah, so I guess I'm was along with Shawn was asking what these indicators were. But when we're looking at, specifically the THC, THCA, CBD and CBDa. You know, you wouldn't be able to tell those since those were the ones that were listed. And, you know, in most regards, you can't tell if something's actually synthetic, unless you're testing for some, you know, something that's made in the processing, not specifically the cannabinoids, and the having Delta eight specifically, I guess that's under that, you know, that would be under cheap seed. But that's the one where, you know, we would know if it was in a certain concentrations, that it would be synthetic. So I guess I'm still a little bit confused there.
Sure. And we can, it might be easier to write this out and provide examples, but I just do want to note that this language is as it currently exists in rule. So maybe I shouldn't have this highlighted. And nothing changed here. But if there's additional guidance needed, and maybe we need a further clarifying rule, or or not just provide informal guidance. I'll definitely follow up with everybody afterwards. And try to provide some examples. Did okay, I don't see any more hands. And I'll get one of the chemists that we work with to maybe explain it a little bit better. Right, write down something for y'all. Okay.
So those are the only changes substantive changes outside of just replacing potency testing with cannabinoid concentration analysis throughout. And that's it for those.
I'm gonna go ahead and move on to the fun stuff. Testing So, WAC 314 55 102. This section I've included so subsection three is the part that we're messing with, primarily. There's some just technical changes above, like replacing potency testing with cannabinoid concentration analysis, ensuring that reference that language that would mandate that labs have to do something is tweaked a little bit since we're no longer what is the we're no longer responsible for creating rules for lab standards. And so, other than so we'll focus on this so this is subsection three, what WAC 314 55 102, subsection three, quality control, analysis and screening. Um, all right, so I'll just go ahead and read through and we'll just, we're just gonna go through this first section. If you can see that I'll have highlighted stop there and then move on. Okay. Quality control, analysis and screening. The fault the following Analysis and screening are only required for samples that have not been previously tested, or that have failed quality control testing, cannabinoid concentration analysis. So subsection A licensees are required to use certified labs to conduct cannabinoid concentration analyses and report the test results to the board and the state traceability system. Licensees must test for the following cannabinoids. And this launch will have a conversation about I wouldn't. Okay, licensees must test for the following cannabinoids, CBD and CVA. So no change there. Delta nine THC and THCA also required currently. So this is new, any tetrahydrocannabinol oils as defined in RCW 69 50 204 that will be marketed or advertised as part of the product or displayed elsewhere. Each teach THC compound must be individually identified. So I'll give you a second I just want to make sure things are clear and then we'll get to getting feedback after the break.
Alright, we'll move on. So now we're going to just scroll right down to measuring and reporting cannabinoid concentrations the concentration, maybe I'll highlight this in blue. Someone told me if this starts to get like, confusing with all the highlight colors. Okay, so now we're looking at the blue section, measuring or reporting cannabinoid concentrations, the concentration of all cannabinoids tested must be accurately measured, regardless of the analytical equipment or methodology looked sorry, and reported to the Board and the state traceability system, as described in this subsection. Licensees may only use labs within an established limit of quantitation---LOQ---of 0.01%. Which is point one milligrams per gram. I think maybe it's 1.0. I will not even put that here because I am not sure that that right. Though, just okay, licensees may only use labs with an established LOQ of 0.01%, or lower, and limit of detection of 0.03%, or lower for all cannabinoids tested. So just to clarify, this LOQ is not supposed to be changed for what it is in current rule and I'm second guessing myself, so I'll look that number up. But this isn't, this isn't a change to what exists currently. And this limit of detection which is just new language corresponds with the current ello Q. So additional testing equipment is not required to meet these established standards labs should already be meeting these. Any questions? There? I'll stop for a second. Look at that number over here on the side. I guess I'm
Okay guessing hands here I don't want to confuse anybody. So I'm just gonna check this out really quick in case I've missed this representative number
I did its 1.0
so after a while, I do apologize, we were we're trying to make sure that the feedback from the other workshops get in here. So this is a work in progress. And like I said, we'll have a workshop over all the changes together once we get feedback from today and through that informal comment period. Okay, I don't see any hands. So I'll just go ahead and move on. This is we're gonna go into how the CV calculating or reporting concentrations of different cannabinoids. What's particularly important here, the big policy change that resulted from the legislation is the expanded definition of THC concentration. So, as you all know, previously, it was only delta nine THC. And now it's tetrahydrocannabinol oils, which is a very vague and broad term. We understand that, but that is defined in RCW 69 50 204. So the CBD concentration and THC concentration, as riba must be reported as a percentage by weight or volume, the CBD concentration and THC concentration do not account for the potential conversion of the acidic form of the compound into the neutral form of the compound that reflects the only CBD and THC compounds present at the time of testing, the concentration of each cannabinoid must be individually identified. Total THC is the value determined after the process of decarboxylation or the application of a conversion factor if the testing methodology does not include decarboxylation that expresses the potential total cannabidiol derived from the sum of CBD and CBD a concentration total THC must be reported as milligrams per gram if by dry weight or milligrams per milliliter if by volume. And then to calculate the total to CBD, it's same formula we're using already so no change there. This language was really just added to clarify since we're talking about THC concentration, and we the goal is to distinguish these because they're kind of they're both used throughout rule, there isn't consistency and so we just want to make sure that everyone's clear on what the terms mean regardless of how we tackle that. Okay, so I'll move on. So total THC until it total THC is the value determined after the process of decarboxylation or the application of a conversion factor if the testing mallet- methodology does not include decarboxylation that expresses the potential total tetrahydrocannabinol derived from the sum of the THC and THC A concentration so same language there as above total total THC must be reported as milligrams per gram if by dry weight or mellow milligrams per milliliter if by volume. Okay, so this is where a big changes so I'm gonna just highlight this in a different color. Okay, no, that might be hard to see, we won't highlight it. Alright, to calculate the total THC, here's the change, okay, so if two or more, two or more THC compounds are detected in the cannabinoid concentration analysis, the total THC refers to the sum of the total THC of the individual compounds, the total THC concentration must be calculated using the fault following formula, where m is the mass or fraction of the THC compound. And the subscripts represent the individual compounds. So we have just same formula, we're sorry, we're, we're mass is the We're m is the mass or fraction of the THC compound. Okay, so we're looking at the total THC of a product that contains and as has other forms of THC detected, not just delta nine. And so basically, it's just adding those together. This is something that a lot of other states are doing, we do recognize there are a lot of limitations to this. And I will just leave that there, because we definitely want your feedback all of this. And just to provide an example of what this would look like in real life. If for example, delta 8 and delta-9-THC were found in the product, you will just have the mass of the total delta nine plus the mass of the total delta eight. And again, each compound must be individually identified. So you would have to calculate like want to make sure that it's clear how much total of each THC compound were in there, and then how much THC is in the product. So that's, that's what we're we're going for here. And then this is just new language. Sample that a sample fails the cannabinoid concentration analysis if the presence of any tetrahydrocannabinols that do not naturally occur in the plant cannabis, or synthetic or synthetically-derived cannabinoids- cannabinoid is detected. Failed tests must be reported to the Board immediately.
Okay, I'll stop there Micah.
Mica, you should be able to unmute yourself now
alright, Mike is going to log out and log back in so we might just take a second okay
all right, Micah, try it again.
Hi, there that worked. Thank you. Um, I guess in a similar way that I brought up a concern about including thc v and the concentration of the total THC I also have concerns about the sort of misleading inference of putting delta eight and delta nine into the same- Total number implies that there's equivalency to them. And it creates a meaningless number on our packaging of this total, which is not communicative of anything real. And so putting two compounds that have different properties together into one number is misinformation. And I would like to see the rules not require me to put misinformation on my packaging.
No, thank you for that. And I do want to clarify, we're just talking about testing. So going back to the packaging that we talked about earlier this week, we're still thinking a threshold. So, if you have over a particular amount, there's more packaging that would need to be on there. This is just like CoA.
Yeah, that's, that's okay. So I don't want to have a COA that has misinformation on it either.
Okay, I understand that. Um, and
that's what this is proposing. This is proposing creating a category that doesn't exist. That takes two numbers that mean different things, and totals them together and says, "These things have meaning together, and you need to know it." And that is not accurate, and should not be included in this rule set.
I understand what you're saying completely. So the reason that this is included is because the if you're reading the statute, letter of the law, this is strictly what that would mean. So when it says THC concentration, like, when it says THC, you're including that? That's my dog, sorry. But
can we not still break them down and not add them together and still be cold communicating the THC concentration, just as different categories, which is more accurate?
I'm gonna just take my dogs, obviously, you can hear?
Yeah, Hey, Mike, we've been having discussions around that. So your points are well taken. We've been. So we took the conversation around the thc v, for example. And, you know, had some legal analysis done. And that would actually be a part of THC concentration as it is detailed in the statute. And so what we're trying to think of is kind of to your point is mandating that the, you know, all different types of THC would be recorded independently of one another. And then the threshold would come into play on whether it would need to be on the label type of a thing or not. So wouldn't be a calculation of the different molecules together. Because I agree that there's not It's not apples to apples in that area. So that's, we're still working through that piece. So anyways, we do hear what you're saying. And we're trying to work around that. And one of the concepts that we're we're debating right now is to make sure that in this may not be how it ends up, but is to have the serving size represent the delta-9-THC. So no more than 10 milligrams in a unit and etc. and not have the other calculation in there unless it is it or detail on there, unless it's exceeding some sort of a threshold and that kind of thing. And so we're trying to, you know, adopt what we have to out of the statute, but still trying to keep and maintain a number of the current operations that, that you all are doing right now. And so it's just kind of the balancing thing that we're working through. And on. Next week, we'll have more of a redline version, so you'll be able to see a little bit more detail on that, too.
Okay, that, that makes sense. I understand the constraints there. I just think that there's probably ways to solve it without creating this top line number that adds some confusion to an already confusing situation.
Yeah, and we hear that so definitely look forward to your feedback as we draft some of this stuff. So making sure that we're meeting that need. Yeah,
we'll definitely be will be thinking on our end to
write good, yeah, thank you. I was gonna say if anybody has language suggestions, or ways that we can tackle this. We are all open ears. And
I do I have a question. For the group. Or Micah, you might be able to answer this. So a lot of the flower labels out there I'll stick to flower has like total cannabinoid concentration. So if this if adding these total THC doesn't mean anything, then how is that different from the total cannabinoids that are being seen on labels that has the light total percent?
That's also a confusing abstraction that we have to include and should probably not exist either. In my opinion,
okay. I'm just wondering, because the way I see like they're the same. I just didn't know if one was more valuable than the other for whatever reason, but that makes sense.
Yeah, I mean, I think the value comes in understanding the total available amount of each individual compound adding them together is is confusing not clarifying.
Okay, no, that's great. And we do want to make sure we are still calculating them individually the question it's, I think more so. Is that all that we should be doing?
Yeah, one of the problems with the total calculation is we often end up with sort of unidentified, finer cannabinoids, and that total number. And and that is something that I find confusing about the way that it's currently done.
Oh, yeah, thank you. And I do want to clarify, so if, what if whatever THC compound, let's say that's not delta and I actually is detected, which is just looking at a bunch of CoA is not really something that happens, then you wouldn't even need to include it in your total THC. So this would only be like if there was more than a trace of Mount amount that have a THC compound, so not if it were like point 000 2% Or something like that like that. We're not talking about that, because that would be below the detectable limit. I don't know that that helps anything. But I just wanted to clarify, that's what we're trying to do here. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and move on.
Juddy, go ahead.
Hi, thank you. Yeah, I asked for in the last meeting, if you guys had were able to present the data of how much Delta eight THC is occurring in flower, so that we can put it in into perspective, because I, to my understanding, to my experiences, there's, it's really a negligible amount. But I don't have the way to collect the data that you have, like, what percentage of flowers? But what is the what is the high concentration of Delta eight in flower? I have no idea what that number is. And I don't know if anybody here does. Because I think that would be part of helping us understand. What should you know, what do you see we don't see what you have the data of so a can we get that data? And then I think it was also stated that because of based on that data, you will have a be able to establish a threshold number of if it's above this percentage of Delta eight THC that's going to throw a red flag, we're going to have to look more at this. And I think that's really going to only apply to the concentrates that are going into edibles is that.
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And I will definitely provide the data, I'll make sure that we have some way that people can access all the resources that we use. But with regards to the naturally occurring, Delta 8, it's below its low. So like, on average, I think it was like point less than 1% of the plant. It was lower than I think, the detectable limit that we're proposing so 0.03%. So this scenario, or this example of the Delta eight, it's basically a moot point right now, like you probably wouldn't happen right now. Unless there's some high level Delta eight plan out there that exceeds the normal naturally occurring amounts.
I'm not aware of anything like that. So yeah, how and when can we access this data? Is it going to put on the lcbs? Like, I know that there's like a rule making information where you put some draft languages and stuff. Yeah, we can post it somewhere publicly for all of us to access and let us know where that will be.
And then my second question, thank you for doing that. And then my second question would be under the failed tests, if you can scroll. So I can see the bottom of that says failed tests must be reported to the Board immediately, by who is that by the lab? Are you going to rely on the honesty of a producer processor to do that? Because I don't think that would be a good idea. I think that there needs to be some sort of a, it goes to from the lab to the LCB. And the LCB can look into it a little further, or else it's going to go so it's not going to happen.
Oh, yeah, thank you for that. And maybe we need to clarify the one language. And so that's a good point. But it should be reported by the lab. There was some language at the very top beginning of this subsection that talked about that the lab has to report this stuff. But yeah, if we need to provide additional clarity, happy to do that.
Fantastic. Thank you.
Yeah.
All right, Jessica, go ahead.
Jessica, you should be able to unmute now.
Oh, no, I think I can unmute. This is, um, I'm Jessica Tani, we screen a lot of plants in our lab or essentially a breeding facility. And I think, Judy, to your question, you know, the highest that we've kind of seen it naturally occurring is, you know, two 3% or so. But I think one of the concerns that, you know, should be addressed in this is if people are doing any sort of distillation, storing their plant material differently, that they may see, you know, a few percent of Delta eight. So, that's why I think I continue to advocate for could we do a percent of the total THC. So for example, if the total THC number was, you know, 25%, that that would be 100% of the THC would be, and then, you know, a small percentage, maybe less than 10% or something like that could be delta eight. So it's not a hard stock number, because I think what you'll find is, depending on how people are storing processing, and even some of the genetics, they may see a small amount of Delta eight. That's, that's a little higher than I think what's been proposed.
But okay, no, that's, that's helpful. I will I point definitely, well taken. I know we talked a little bit about this more yesterday, I'm going to, there may be some legal considerations, just you know, now that the law says detectable amount of THC. So we do want to just make sure that we're aligned with that.
And I'm not saying don't detect it, I'm just seen for a 502 product. We we've had a, you know, one, a you know, if you look at some of the distilled out oil out there, you'll commonly see it be at 90% THC and then delta nine and then three 4% Delta eight, and that's kind of been a rounding error. So I'm not going to I'm not saying don't test for it. I'm just saying, we really should look at the CMA so that this kind of background routing situation we've seen in the 502 doesn't lead to, you know, more headache for something that's probably not a huge issue.
Okay, yeah, that's great. Thank you for that. Justin, I don't know if you have anything. To her point, since you and I have talked about this a little bit.
Yeah, I think what you're talking about Jessica, is is in line with what we're trying to think about. We haven't really gone too deep into the percentages, we're mostly looking at, you know, what, what should be reported based on a straight across milligram threshold? So we don't have to do additional calculations, but it's certainly something we can think about. And I'd be happy to talk with folks off line on that topic as well.
Yeah, yeah. Thank you. And we just, we also talked about a, like a ratio yesterday, a lot of other states do that, you know, like a 20 to one ratio, or something like that. So I'm just mentioning that if others have thoughts or feedback, I want to follow up with this as well.
Okay. See, it's 1050. I think we are actually at a at a break. Let me double check here. And that'll give everyone a time to just go over the language again, gather thoughts, and then we're really looking forward to some suggestions. So we're certainly suggestions you may have on role language, ways to approach some of this implementation of these new and amended definitions, including calculating and reporting THC. And any concerns that we need to address. I would also like people to start thinking about and these rules aren't final. But what is what does an implementation timeline look like? So whatever changes are made, we definitely want to make sure that we're minimizing that impact and not saying okay tomorrow or whatever 31 days after this is published or you have to start complying if it's going to take you a few months to get ready to change your labels and adjust to the compliance changes. So.
With that, we can return at 11 o'clock and I will be here and ready for the discussion All right?
Right All right, that's 11 o'clock. So we're gonna go ahead and resume here. Before we continue, I just want to recap some of the feedback and suggestions so far. Follow up items and just make sure I didn't misinterpret anything and then we can just go ahead and move on. Okay, so Following this, or what we want to do is clarify the labs must report failed test. And TJ made an excellent suggestion here in the chat, that the sample fails the cannabinoid concentration analysis, if the presence of any THC that does not occur in the plant in natural concentrations. So thank you for that suggestion. All right, with regards to calculating total THC, and reporting THC concentration. So Jessica suggested that we consider maybe a percent for calculating total THC, perhaps a ratio of the different cannabinoids. And then also have concerns about from mica and many others, I'm sure about how calculating total THC by including all of the THC compounds is confusing and misleading. Also, we need a follow up to address how synthetics synthetic cannabinoids would be detected. And then I'm also going to follow up with some other research and resources that we've been using as we've developed these rules. Alright. Is there anything else that I missed? on that? All right, great. Um, so I just the question all of this, as you're thinking about it, or what we keep coming back to is, you know, like, what is THC? And then from there, it's and then how should it be reported? Now that that concentration changed in? So that's what we're trying to figure out here. Again, these are just draft suggestions. What suggestions do you have?
Oh, conversion factors. And Greg mentioned here, defining conversion factors, if that's something that people are interested in, that's definitely something we can consider, especially if it provides additional clarification. If we could if if we were to move forward with defining or clarifying what a conversion factor is, then we probably do it in this section, I would imagine.
I think there may be some hands. Oh, no, that's, that's my hand.
Did you hear me? Yes,
I can hear you. Sorry.
Hi, this is Jay burns from tree line. I just have a couple of quick comments. Were actually that one, I think you have ello Q and LOD reversed in the one or two. So LOD should be the lowest amount that you can know that it's present. And ello Q is the lowest amount that you can actually quantify.
Are you looking at the draft online? Because I made an error there with what I put that a lo que es Oh, did
you change it on the video on the screen?
I did. And I'm so sorry about that. That was a typo. But it didn't change based on what's currently being done. So it's still got to
make sure it's here.
And then another question. We're in that same in the 102. Where it talks about shall be for the concentration must be reported milligrams per gram, if by dry weight, and I don't think anybody does dry weight, then the labs we we don't we do sort of do as we receive it.
Oh, yes, you're right. It does say that. Yeah, that's
kind of been a debate for a long time. But we've never, never gone to that.
And then the the last sort of question I have, I guess, I'm just trying to understand these, you know, these this early draft here. In what is its section three? A where it gets down to any tetrahydrocannabinol as defined in our CW that will be marketed or advertised as part of the product or displayed elsewhere. So is that is that saying that we that the labs guru or the producer, whoever would be required to get a test if they're going to advertise for these other compounds? I don't, I don't quite understand what that language is getting at.
Sure. Oh, just so you came off mute, so you could probably do So what we're trying to say here?
Yeah, so So the concept there was, or the question I, I'll pose it as a question is, should every THC compound be tested every single time? And, you know, we were trying to minimize and mitigate the impacts of that from current state. And so we were interested in because we know that, you know, for example, the Delta eights and 10s, that there there are trace amounts in the plant. And so are we wanting to identify all of the trace amounts? Or are we trying to say we need to I have these things tested and identified, if, you know, basically, you're going to be utilizing that as a selling point. So if you're planning on having another package, if you're having marketing that, hey, this is, you know, whatever THC, you know, is predominant in this or, you know, at a level that's, you know, engineered to be a little higher than a trace amount, whatever the case may be, if that's what your interest is, as a business owner, then you would have to request that test to be done. Because I'm assuming that the labs don't test for everything, every time. And if you guys are testing everything every time, then that's, that'd be good to know. But my assumption was that you have a core group of tests, and you don't necessarily test for everything every single time. And so we were trying to figure out how to make sure that we weren't forcing tests for everything, when it's, you know, just going to be known that it's just going to be traceable. Not at best.
Right. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, okay.
Any thoughts on that? J? Does that help? Or is that confusing?
No, I guess, I guess I'm trying to understand how that interacts with sort of, you know, the purpose of trying to I guess, we're trying to keep synthetics off the market. And all this and, or, you know, not are compounds that are not higher than naturally occurring, additive compounds out and then, but this sort of seems like it's optional to test for it. So like, you could put it in your product and just not put it out, claim that it's in there, and then nobody would test for it. Right, I guess. So I'm trying to figure out like, what's the, how they everything kind of works together? Is what I'm what I'm trying to figure out.
Yeah, and I guess, and this may not be the right approach, but you know, as a reasonability, standard, you know, would it be reasonable for somebody to take the time, energy and cost of creating something that, let's say is synthetic, or synthetically derived and not call it out as part of their product? You know, the likelihood is no, you know, and so the, what's the risk of finding any type of synthetic cannabinoid at those, you know, super low levels? And that's why we're trying to figure out, you know, if you're going to have it in there, if it's tested for at what level should it be disclosed to the consumer, because if it's incidental, we have all sorts of incidental compounds in the products right now. And we're not detailing every every nuance. And that's what we're trying to try to balance is that we don't necessarily feel that we should mandate every nuance be tested now, because of this, this issue and the synthetics, you know, we're, quite frankly, I think we're going to be seeing those potentially outside of the regulated market versus inside the regulated market. You know, if people disagree, that's, you know, please chime in. But that's kind of what we're trying to look at is what's the reasonable course of action so that, you know, we don't have to add a whole bunch of regulatory burden on something that's no value added.
And just to go off that point to something that we we need to make sure is if there are teep sees on the label marketed, then we can go back and verify that whatever you're saying, that amount is or concentration, that that's actually under CoA, and you test it for is to just verifying that. Okay.
I believe I can't see who it's next. I can maybe
there, um, I wanted to sort of highlight what Jay just said about the driveway. This is for reporting numbers. And the fact that there's a debate about that means from my understanding that like, it's being reported differently on in different tests across different labs, and that could result in like some of the variation and sort of concentration levels that we see. And I'm curious if there's been conversation about I'm standardizing that reporting ratio, so that it's like a consistent moisture basis across different different products, because obviously, the moisture content of cannabis changes a lot even after it's been tested. And so, you know, has there been conversation about should we be reporting that so it standardized that a particular moisture content? Or? I'm just curious if that's been a topic of conversation here on this? If not, is it possible to include that in this discussion?
Oh, thank you for that. And while I was I will say we've had conversations about this with ws ta with our chemists, just because that is so much and be ambiguity on like you were saying, how the, what the concentration is. And so I don't know that that's within the scope of this particular rulemaking, although we do recognize that's kind of like a piece hanging out there that makes this also ambiguous. But there's an interest from a lot of people to just go through and make those sorts of changes throughout our testing rules. So all that to say, unless Justin disagrees with me, I don't know that that's 100% in scope with this, but something that we are like to explore further and talk to you about or whoever's interested.
Yeah, I don't think that would be in scope of this particular rulemaking. As part of the implementation, I think that, you know, if that needs to be discussed, that would have to be a separate project, unless there's a strong tie into THC concentration evaluation, if it has a significant difference in how that would be conducted. I mean, the the, if I remember, right, our regulations are currently saying that the labs are testing on an as is are as received bases. And so I think that's where what you're talking about creates some confusion on how it comes in and what those results would be. But the the formatting and processing for the testing, in general is not part of this particular rulemaking. Scope.
And we will have to work with W USDA with whatever we're changing, just because that's a take that same things in their roles, too. But anyway, um,
I will say that I do think that it has a relationship to having consistency across samples and how the concentration is recorded. So I do think that there's a relationship, but also understand if it's not all the way there.
Yeah, no, thank you for that. Like. That's all I have to say. Yeah. Thank you. Um, I. Yeah, this, this is a tricky one. Okay, so we'll go ahead and move on.
All right. Oh, Harrison. Oh,
heading, excuse me. Harrison Fontaine here with HCA. Um, so we've had some conversations about this one. And I'm wondering what your thoughts are currently on, you know, potentially broadening this section that we're looking at, in blue to something along the lines of measuring and reporting cannabinoid content. And getting sort of to the point that while these, you know, while this limit of detection is pretty reasonable for a lot of products, we definitely have this issue of, you know, products that weigh a lot, potentially having pretty substantial amounts of cannabinoids. And so, you know, if you're talking about a beverage, I can't remember exactly how the math works out. But that could be like 100 milligrams, which is a lot. And so I'm wondering, if, if you've had any conversations around, you know, for products that are, you know, perhaps above some threshold, let's say 20 grams, they need to undergo testing for you know, total cannabinoid content, so total THC content per unit, something along those lines. I know that other states do have sort of, you know, per unit thresholds or prepackaged thresholds for THC is, you know, below that is a is that it's outside of the regulated market and above that is inside the regulated market. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. Obviously, you know, the exact specifics of how those measurements would occur is up to ws da but it does seem feasible with extraction and various other methods to potentially do that.
Yeah.
Go ahead. You go ahead.
Yeah, I think that's also outside the scope of this particular rulemaking because what what that kind of and goes down the path of regulation of potency. And that's not really what this is. This particular rule development is about implementing the previous bill. I know there's a lot of interest in that we've had conversations around different potency issues that I think that would fall into. They're not, again, if you disagree, please let me know. But that's that's kind of where we would see that falling at this point. Yeah,
I would be curious to hear a little bit more about that. Um, my, my take on it is, you know, this is implementing whatever detectable means. And, you know, if it is feasible for a lab to detect something, whether that means, you know, on a concentration basis, or on a total THC basis, that seems to me like that could be within scope, I certainly know that there are other conversations happening that go beyond that. But, you know, if there's enough to see there to be detected, I think that that would potentially fall within the scope of, you know, what, what the, what the RCW was, and, and all of that.
Yeah, thank you, Harrison. And it, I mean, you know, this already, but, um, these, even though we're setting a detectable limit right now, I-502 licensees can have up to what they established limits, you know, that are currently in rule. So this doesn't really affects our I-502s also, because we're not changing this. But I understand what you're saying. We have had conversations, I think this is aligned with what Jessica was, was talking about earlier with maybe setting a ratio, or the percent of the product or something like that. So yeah, so we've had conversations, and there was something else I was gonna say. Oh, so yeah, some of the other just around conversations around this. We also recognize that setting a limit of detection that's blanket across the board for all all th C's, and for, regardless of whether it's a liquid or a solid, or whatever it is, there are limitations to that. This was discussed in the cannabinoid science workgroup of it, but I'm just saying there's we recognize that we're having discussions. And that is, that's it. Thanks. Yeah. And of course, let's follow up afterwards. And we can always talk. Okay.
Juddy, go ahead.
I think you, if I understand correctly, this is this section is for it encompasses everything, flowers, and remixes, concentrates, edibles all things, I think that it would be advisable to try and take a look at separating these different things. Because I think we're trying to make a one size fits all rule. And I think that the differences between raw flower and an edible are great. And the further you get away from raw flower, the more likelihood you're going to have for adulteration of synthetic cannabinoids that we're talking about. And so to expand on that a little bit more to Mr. Nordhorn's, you know, why would somebody his statement of why would somebody go through all the time and expense to create a Delta eight and not want to account for it? Because if, if I'm limited to 10 milligrams of delta nine THC in my edible. And if I want to add another 10 milligrams of delta eight, but not advertise it, not claim it, it's going to have a stronger effect on the consumer base and on the consumer. And so there is incentive to not test for it, not claim it, but you're gonna have all of the budtenders and oh, yeah, these ones really hit hard. These ones really hit hard. So there is incentive to do that. And so, like I said, maybe you don't have to have to test for Delta eight and flower but you do in anything that's gone through a concentration or a final product of an edible has to have this because there's where the adulteration is going to have Are you on? On on the on the producer processor for it? And they, they could just tell everybody? Oh, yeah, use hit strong. And you don't have to report the Delta eight THC because you didn't test for it. And you're not advertising for it. Or separating these out might backing up separating them out and making different rules for flowers and concentrates and edibles and beverages or whatever might be worth looking at.
Yeah, no. And so thank you for that. And so the cannabis, that's what I get. That's what I was saying with a cannabinoid science workgroup that discussions around exactly that, like how do we measure and report these for the different substances. But just to comment, if somebody is incentivized to add something else to it to make it a stronger product and not advertise that and then budtenders were doing exactly that, and consumers, that would be very misleading to the consumer and I would have, like, greater concerns beyond that. But yeah, so
You say there are concerns, but what, what happens if they do?
Well, that's, I don't know what happens if they do. But I would just like businesses have a have a, you know, interest to want to make sure that the consumers know what products they're consuming.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't trust that. The industry. Personally. I was the LCB. Okay, yeah.
I think that I think that's a fair point. And we can take that back and kind of mull that over. So appreciate that feedback. I do think that's a fair point you're making though.
Yeah. And just, we so we looked into a little bit like, what would that look like? If we did you know, break it out by different product type or whatever you want to call it? And there are, there's not a lot of research out there. We looked at the AOA see standards for how they're doing this. But just we're in conversations without and that, like Justin said, That's a great point. And we will take that back. Fantastic, thank you. Okay.
Let's see. Bonny Jo, go ahead.
Thanks for joining Joe. Here, again, I was just going to suggest with the language around ello Q and LOD of adding plus the measurement of uncertainty or the limit of, you know, differentiation, or however it's determined in Washington. But you know, so is it a measurement of uncertainty determined by the lab, you know, by having that specifically in this language, that the measurement of uncertainty is included? Plus measurement uncertainty, I mean, oh,
thank you for that. But we talked to ws CA, just to note the conversations, and I think that that would be a lab standard and under their rules, but I will point taken, and we'll talk about if we want to also reiterate that in our roles, but I understand what you're saying. And that is something that's obviously important. So thank you.
I figured it would be the would be under the cannabis lab standards under the WSDA but specifically in the rules, just however, it needs to be pointed out. So thank you.
Oh, of course. Thank you. And I'll just follow up on that one to WSDA. Okay.
Micah, go ahead.
I just wanted to support what and kind of highlight what Juddy just said about where there's opportunities to make it differentiated between manufactured products and naturally occurring products, the flower versus you know, edibles concentrates, where there's opportunity in this testing updates to make it simpler, where possible on the on the naturally non processed products and make it as complicated as necessary for the manufacture of stuff so that we're not creating situations where we're like over testing flower for things that it wouldn't necessarily be relevant. I think that's a really good point. And we should ensure to kind of incorporate that mindset wherever possible.
Thank you, Mica. And one of the resources, I'll give you all just so because this is a good conversation is the cannabinoid science workgroup report. So you could see where they landed with this conversation, which needs to be continued. I see. Okay, well, on anybody else have questions, comments, suggestions?
Harrison, go ahead.
yeah, I, I suddenly will jump on the train of folks who think that, you know, perhaps different standards for different product types would make a lot of sense. And certain features could be built into that. Another thing to consider is the potential use of surveillance, you know, not testing all products, you know, as their as the as they go through the process, but you know, selecting and point testing for, for, you know, Delta eight, or whatever else, applying a higher standard of analysis to, you know, samples in the market and figuring out exactly, you know, if Jodi's concern is happening, where you have, you might have companies boosting their, you know, the intoxicating properties of their, of their products by, you know, putting putting various synthetics in there, that wouldn't be caught, if not for either testing them all or, you know, point testing at some point.
Oh, thank you for that.
This is just a question to make, because I want to make sure as we're writing these rules, like we're thinking about this practically, right? What a, so if going back to this scenario about if you don't have to put it, like if you don't have to put it on your label, but you have it on there, like the Delta eight situation, how would you know, like, as a, whatever, manufacturer, or producer or something, that your product had that amount in there, if you weren't testing for it anyway. And the reason I'm gonna, I'm just asking for, like, reporting stuff. You can raise your hand, if you have a response or follow up with me afterwards, I just want to make sure we're understanding the process of what people are doing.
I don't really follow the question, so I'll leave it to Juddy.
Okay.
I didn't really understand your question. Can you say that it didn't?
Yeah, sure. Okay. So, um, in this scenario, like, let's say someone's, you know, putting Delta eight in their product. And they're, but they're not testing for it. So it doesn't need to be on the label. But I guess my question is, how would you know what, like, if I'm a manufacturer, I want to know, if I'm gonna put delta eight in there, whatever it is, like what my product is, even if I'm going to be Miss misleading to the consumer. So, so I guess I'm just like, wouldn't there be a COA associated with with those test results? It would it? Does that make sense?
I think so. But I think that, you know, in a, in a real world, people can access delt- concentrate, Delta ate, whether it's in a, you know, a jar, I don't know how it comes. But you know, maybe it's a little how it comes. So I'm gonna say I'm gonna, I'm gonna in my brain, it's like co2 oil, and you get delta-8 oil, and I'm making a candy. And I get my delta-9 isolate or distillate that I'm going to use to make my 10 milligrams a Delta nine THC, candy, and I'm just, if I use my making numbers up, I use a 10th of a gram per candy of Delta nine THC, I'm just going to add a 10th of a gram of Delta eight oil to it as well, whether I make it or outsource it, or whatever, I'm going to put it in there, but I'm not going to test it. So I'm not going to advertise it on my label. So I don't have to report it. I'm just gonna put it in there because my candy now has a better better bang.
Okay, okay. I understand our scenario. So you get the whole thing is like it's not tested. Okay, that makes sense, right?
I think that anything in an A, that's been, you know, a candy or an edible or a soda or beverage or anything that's not flower or pre roll or hasn't been adulterated with anything should be tested. For the ones that we know of Delta eight, I think there's a delta 10 I don't I'm not a chemist. I don't know the difference about all of these, but I think the concentrates anything. Yeah, edible beverages should have to be tested for it. And report for it. So you know, you can send in your sample before, you know, it's like the rest of them. There's all kinds of dirty tricks that the industry is, is aware of. But I think that separating flour, you know, you don't have to test for it if you're separate if you're testing flour, or, you know, J mix for pre rolls, but anything that's been concentrated, or used as a concentrate should just have to have that test.
Okay, yeah. Thank you for that. Right, noting that.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. I think I saw another hand.
You know, and I'll just comment if this is something that we decide makes sense to explore further and move forward with like with the list of the required compounds when which products need to be tested for which I'll let Justin comment, too. But I don't I don't know that that's something we want to address specifically in this rulemaking, even though we're aware that that might be something that we want to address in the future, just to try to keep things in scope and not make too big of a splash. Right now, but this
I think that's something we'll have to discuss offline. I'm not sure I don't have my thoughts around that at this point.
Okay, yeah. So we'll follow up with you.
Okay, oh, just can't see your hand.
Um, you guys speak. I know that there's the possibility that people could spike in the samples. But could somebody speak on the LCB side on the penalty for spiking samples with out of network THC, essentially, my understanding is they were pretty significant that that, essentially, semi synthetic and synthetic compounds couldn't be brought into the 502. And that that was a pretty significant penalty if they were.
Yeah, that's correct. If there's anything that comes into the I 502 system other than CBD, that's allowable by statute. First off, whether it's synthetic or not, that would be an issue for licensees to bring that in that that type of inversion would be would carry. Definitely corrective actions up to including cancellation of license if people are doing that. The other part of that question around synthetics, if anybody brought in synthetics to add to their products, I think the accountability would be more severe than than the other, but both of them definitely have prohibitions of bringing those into the i 502. Market.
Micah, go ahead.
In that same vein, if CBD that was sourced from within the 502, industry got converted as a Delta eight, would that fall under the synthesize synthetic category that just mentioned?
Yeah, if anything is, if anything is converted from one molecule to another, that is a synthetic process. And you know it whether it's fully synthetic or semi synthetic, it's synthetically derived and therefore prohibited by statute not by LCB rules, but statutes governing that No. Great
mica actually. So just along the lines of that, I went back over here to the 109 cannabinoid additive, and there's already an existing existing language that may help clarify may help clarify. So if it's if a substance isn't present, that is not THC, CBD or an inert substance in which the THC or CBD is devolved and dissolved into there, but yeah, just that's, I think, supposed to address that.
Thanks. Appreciate you highlighting that. Yeah, for sure.
Okay. We have I don't see any more hands. Let's see, we have another way to like, I can't do math 35 like 15 minutes to 20 minutes of questions, and then I just have a quick wrap up. I'm happy to do that now, though.
Oh, Amber, go ahead.
Amber, you should be able to unmute your site.
Hi, yeah. Can you hear me now? Sorry, I've been driving for a lot of this meeting. Um, I had a question about plans for enforcement. For this, as someone who runs a testing lab, I find I'm worried that I don't know what the state's plan is for enforcement, like I already planning to pull products off the shelf and randomly test them for synthetics. And if so, I would very much appreciate knowing what synthetics you are testing for so I could potentially align my lab with those molecules. I run into a situation a lot where clients are popped for some very small amount of pesticide run at the WSDA lab that we don't have on our list, and we're unable to help them identify sources and whatnot. So I'm just I guess my question is just a clarification of what are the state's plans for enforcing a the labs reporting this? And if so, where exactly would they be tested? And what what sort of instrument or lab would be used for testing these?
I don't know the answer to that for you. I don't know. I just think that, but I think that's still being determined. I will myself for a second.
Yeah, I don't think that has been fully vetted out. But you know, as far as enforcement operations is typically would be something that is complaint driven, could be a randomized check that happens that they look for all of our testing is done through W SDA. And so that's where the likelihood that that would start. And I understand your point about having the lists that don't have everything identified. So we'll keep that in mind as we're moving through.
I, I have the understanding that the state has purchased light lab boxes for cannabinoid analysis, and I was just wondering if those are going to play into this? I have a number of concerns about that. So I just wanted to know if that was the plan. Or I would like some more for further clarification before these rules are finalized about the state's plans for enforcing this rule. Because if we're creating a rule that's completely unenforceable, then I also have a lot of issues with that.
Right.
Yeah, I haven't heard any anything from enforcement along those lines. But that would probably be a good conversation to put out there. But I don't see anything with light boxes going into the regulations at this point.
Thank you. I guess just one more really quick request before I go back on mute. If there would be a way to get a clarification, you know, before we're, we need to submit final comments, I would really appreciate that. You know, by the next the May 2 meeting or sometime before that, that would be really helpful. Thank you.
Okay, yeah, thank you for that. I'm jotting all this down. All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody else?
Well, I'll just go ahead and wrap up. If you think of anything, we will have more time. And so just to summarize what we heard in the second part. There is an interest to break out the testing for the different product types. A couple of you talked about that a little bit. Also. Whether or not to include a measurement of uncertainty language in these roles or or not. That is something that is in the WASD rules, I believe. So we'll look into that and then And then reporting. And then the state's plan for enforcement, as you just mentioned in birth, so I believe that's all that we kind of, we need a follow up from this one from the second part, um, next steps. You can will have the May 2, may 2, workshop where we'll we will review all the rules. So following this, we'll work on getting a draft up of that has the draft up of all the rules with track changes, and then a clean version so you can see what changed. And then we'll talk about that during the May 2 meeting. And then you'll have again 15 days to submit written comments before we start for real, real finalizing the draft proposed rules. If you have questions or think of anything, or want to discuss anything further, we're always open to that. And I'm going to just switch back to my agenda here because I have some information about participating. Okay, so this agenda is online. Just the information reiterate how to participate. And the dates. Wednesday, May 15, at 11:59pm. I'm trying to think. I think that's it for now. I'm here for a little bit more if y'all have questions. Otherwise, I hope everyone has a good weekend. And thank you all
