State of Colorado “mandatory pesticide testing” does little to address exposure to toxic chemicals in cannabis products

August 2, 2018
Press Release
Colorado, Press Releases
2 Comments

PRESS RELEASE

Denver—August 1, 2018—Today the State of Colorado implemented “mandatory pesticide testing” for the first time. Many consumers may be surprised to learn that a highly taxed industry functioning within significant regulations in licensing, permitting and beyond, has little oversight on the pesticides used on plants that are ultimately consumed by humans.

While Colorado has outlawed many pesticides and approved hundreds more for use, enforcement has been left in the hands of cultivators, leaving the potential that bad actors could take advantage of the system. Today’s regulations barely scratch the surface, requiring testing that will detect just over a dozen of the thousands of potentially harmful chemicals that could end up on this plant.

The industry also grapples with the lack of standardization in Colorado’s licensed labs. With no consistency in machinery or equipment, one test is not the same as the next.

“With Colorado testing for only 13 harmful pesticides, cultivators are essentially directed to operate under the honor code,” said CCC’s Board Chair Ben Gelt. “This means in order to game the system, all a producer must do is use a product unrelated to those 13. There are literally tens of thousands of pesticide products on the market. that have been proven to be harmful to humans. Consumers have increasingly expressed concern about knowing what is in their produce at the grocery store, leading to the labeling of organic products. These same shoppers deserve greater transparency, so they can make smarter decisions about what they are putting into their bodies when they consume cannabis.”

#Whatsinmyweed is built to remind consumers that they insist on buying organic produce and other specialty goods when they shop for food and that they must begin to demand the same options from cannabis producers. A lack of national or state standards for organic, fair trade, pesticide free and other common methods of production continue to leave consumers in the dark with this nascent industry.

“The CCC and #Whatsinmyweed is a great advocate for the health and wellbeing of consumers,” said Peter Barsoom, CEO of premium edibles brand 1906 and founding sponsor of #WIMW. “1906 takes exacting measures to ensure the quality and safety of our product. We want our customers to have total confidence in the fact that they’re getting pesticide-free, consistent and predictable experiences, and we appreciate #WIMW bringing this issue to the forefront as the cannabis industry grows exponentially.”

The #Whatsinmyweed campaign has gathered broad support in legal markets including Colorado, California, Oregon, Texas, Washington, Michigan, Arizona and other states. Founding sponsors of the campaign include L’Eagle, Yerba Buena, Grow Sisters, GrowCentia, Bud Fox, 1906, Mammoth Microbes, Organic Alternatives, High Country Healing, Verde Natural, Dawa Detroit, Stillwater Brands and Grasslands: A Journalism-Minded Agency.

About The Cannabis Certification Council:

The Cannabis Certification Council is a national non-profit promoting clean, ethical and sustainable production via www.Whatsinmyweed.org. In addition to the #WIMW campaign, the CCC is hosting the Third Annual Cannabis Sustainability Symposium in Denver on Friday, Oct. 26. Further information and tickets are available at CannabisSustainability.org. More information about The Cannabis Certification Council can be found online at CannabisCertificationCouncil.org. Continue the conversation on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

This Post Has 2 Comments

Ron Rader says:

August 3, 2018 at 11:52 am

What is wrong with voluntary compliance, particularly since chemical analysis or other quantitative approaches obviously are not suitable, workable, or effective (for anyone seeking to avoid pesticide detection)? Seems a total waste of resources. Isn’t voluntary compliance how it works throughout the agricultural business, with farmers trusted, presumed, not to violate laws and apply unapproved pesticides?

But I also question why mandatory testing is needed. Are CO legal consumers actually demanding this funky 13 pesticides testing? Is this testing PR effort led by testing labs.? Who else would want or see benefits from such a funky regulatory scheme – not growers or consumers? Will the number of pesticides tested increase forever as more pesticide analytical methods are validated? And particularly, is there actual need, risk, such as documented harm or even just theoretical exposures to toxic levels, from legally-manufactured CO cannabis products? Have any actual quantitative assessments of the risks been done concerning the regulated pesticides cannabis consumption by smoking, vaping and ingestion? Are there any cost vs. benefit studies?

If spotting illicit pesticide use is actually needed, wouldn’t other options be more much more effective, simpler and cheaper? For example, why not have a ‘whistleblower’-type reward system for employees or anyone reporting unapproved pesticide applications, much as federal law/FDA has implemented with pharmaceutical manufacturing? If this is good enough for prescription pharmaceuticals, wouldn’t it work with cannabis production?

Reply
1. VeritasVincit says:
  
  August 6, 2018 at 10:00 am
  
  “What is wrong with voluntary compliance…”
  
  Because the manufacturers can’t be trusted. If you have the choice between a failed crop or spraying Eagle 20, without regulation, everyone will choose the later.
  
  “Are CO legal consumers actually demanding this funky 13 pesticides testing?”
  
  There’s nothing “funky” about these pesticides. They are bad for you. Consumers want clean and safe products. We all have an expectation that when we buy our food, it is going to be safe for us to eat. Having clean marijuana is no different. Not only are they bad for you, they aren’t too great for the environment and animals, e.g., Bee Colony collapse. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid for example.
  
  “Who else would want or see benefits from such a funky regulatory scheme…”
  
  The workers benefit from regulation. Federal Pesticide Worker Protection Standard (WPS).
  
  https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/agricultural-worker-protection-standard-wps
  
  “Is this testing PR effort led by testing labs.?”
  
  From what I know, the rules were developed by the Marijuana Enforcement Division and the CDPHE. A Pesticide Working group was formed that consisted of licensees, lawyers, labs, consumer advocacy groups and all worked together with the State on these regulations.
  
  “Will the number of pesticides tested increase forever as more pesticide analytical methods are validated?”
  
  The Colorado Department of Agriculture has a larger list of banned pesticides that the MED and the working group whittled down to 13.
  
  “is there actual need, risk, such as documented harm or even just theoretical exposures to toxic levels, from legally-manufactured CO cannabis products?”
  
  Not yet. These studies take years to complete.
  
  “…why not have a ‘whistleblower’-type reward system for employees or anyone reporting unapproved pesticide applications,…”
  
  There is. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-information-referral-form
  
  Reply