WA House COG - Committee Meeting
(November 18, 2021)

Thursday November 18, 2021 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM Observed
Washington State House of Representatives Logo

The Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) considers issues relating to the regulation of commerce in alcohol, tobacco and cannabis, as well as issues relating to the regulation and oversight of gaming, including tribal compacts.​

Work Session

  • Social Equity in Cannabis Task Force
  • Cannabis Science Task Force
  • Problem Gambling Task Force
  • University of Washington Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute
https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Documents/29325

Observations

Cannabis social equity task force staff described adopted recommendations and those still in progress before responding to questions about data and goals of the group.

Here are some observations from the Thursday November 18th Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) Committee Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Lawmakers on a key policy committee for cannabis heard about the status and progress of the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF) from their colleague and task force chair, Representative Melanie Morgan, and WA SECTF Manager Anzhane Slaughter.
    • WA House COG members first heard the legislation changing the task force’s scope and membership on February 5th before voting to amend it on February 12th. The bill was ultimately signed into law on May 3rd. The committee heard WA SECTF mentions during their meetings on March 25th and 26th, and on October 21st. 
    • Morgan wanted to keep the committee informed of “the awesome work that the task force has been tasked to do” and expected “the committee will be well pleased with” the recommendations “we are now bringing forward.” She thanked Slaughter for “really pulling it off” and coordinating staff to work “with our task force at large and our sub-groups.” Before introducing Slaughter, Morgan included a “word of caution” that “these are recommendations” that would need input and support to “turn these recommendations into actual legislative language” (audio - 1m, video, presentation).
    • Slaughter described staffing WA SECTF on behalf of the Governor’s Interagency Council on Health Disparities along with a “policy analyst, and a part-time administrative assistant.” The legislatively created task force had what she called “a perfect balance of legislators and industry experts, there currently are 17 members on the task force” including Morgan and the WA House COG Assistant Ranking Minority Member, Kelly Chambers (audio - 5m, video). 
      • There were also “three vacant seats...from the Office of the Attorney General, the seat from the Department of Commerce, and our seat from the Association of Washington Cities” (AWC), Slaughter testified. She understood legislative leaders were working “to fill those seats as soon as possible.”
        • Yasmin Trudeau represented the attorney general’s office until she was appointed to the Washington State Senate on November 2nd to represent the 27th Legislative District following the retirement of Senator Jeannie Darneille.
        • Christopher Poulos represented the Washington State Department of Commerce, but in October Slaughter communicated that he had “accepted a new leadership role with the Department of Corrections. With his new role, he will be stepping away from the Task Force and another representative from Commerce will fill his seat.”
        • Cherie McLeod represented AWC, but Slaughter stated she was “no longer representing the Association of Washington Cities, [and] another representative from AWC will fill in.” Like Poulos, she stayed on as a Disproportionately Impacted Communities Work Group co-lead until that group completed their recommendations, as Morgan was “looking to dissolve the workgroups and move the work back to the Task Force level.”
      • Slaughter reviewed the enacting and modifying laws for the task force. She then relayed how the social equity program mandated that from “December 1st, 2020, until July 1st, 2029, cannabis retailer licenses that have been subject to forfeiture, revocation, or cancellation by the board, or cannabis retail licenses that were not previously issued by the board but could have been issued without exceeding the statewide limit” could be made available to applicants who met any of the following criteria:
        • “They have lived in a disproportionately impacted area”
        • “They have a drug conviction”
        • “Their family has a drug conviction”
      • The existing law also set up the technical assistance (TA) and mentorship grant program, Slaughter commented, and required the task force provide feedback to the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) on “how to implement the current program that’s outlined.”
      • Additionally, she explained that WA SECTF would be advising on several topics:
        • “Whether any additional cannabis producer/processor, or retailer licenses, should be issued”
        • The social equity implications of allowing limited adult cultivation of cannabis
          • At publication time, HB 1019 ("Allowing residential marijuana agriculture") remained active legislation that could be taken up during the 2022 legislative session.
        • Moving “primary regulation of cannabis production from [WSLCB] to the Department of Agriculture” 
        • Possible impacts on “employment rights of workers”
        • Removal of “non-violent, cannabis-related felonies and misdemeanors” that could impact application approval
        • “Workforce training opportunities for underserved communities” to join the cannabis sector
        • The “equity impact of creating new cannabis license types”
        • “How to implement this new social equity technical assistance and grant program”
        • Recommendations would be forwarded to “the respective bodies in batches as soon as they’re passed” by the task force, she said, with a final report from WA SECTF “due December 9th, 2022.”
    • Reviewing public meetings, Slaughter noted there had been eight full task force meetings since the first in October 2020, and they had established work groups for specific focal areas (audio - 4m, video):
      • The Disproportionately Impacted Communities Work Group “focused on eligibility and prioritization of the current equity programs” for those “harmed by the war on drugs.” Considering public input, the work group developed “definitions of family” and a “scoring rubric.”
      • The Licensing Work Group engaged on “task force responsibilities relative to licensing,” such as “do we need more retail or producer/processor licenses?” The consensus was that the allocated retail licenses would be insufficient for creating market equity, “instead, the work group and community agree that true equity would mean that social equity business owners should own 50% of all cannabis licenses issued.” This led to the work group asking the task force for “additional retail and producer/processor licenses” with fewer barriers to entry. 
      • The TA and Mentorship Work Group focused on the grant program “as well as any legislative recommendations” involving the program. Difficulties accessing business capital were considered “the biggest need and barrier for those that are harmed by the war on drugs.” The allocated $1.1 million for TA and Mentorship grants in the 2021-23 fiscal biennium was “insufficient compared to the half a billion dollars in tax revenue that came to this state in 2021.” Reviewing cannabis appropriations, the group had proposed “a new cannabis tax structure” for lawmakers to consider.
    • Going over the WA SECTF work plan, Slaughter stated that producing recommendations for WSLCB staff to implement the existing program was their top priority, followed by guidance to Commerce officials on the grant program, and finally “offer[ing] recommendations to the legislature” (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Slaughter shared recommendations to the legislature that had been adopted by WA SECTF members around eligibility; disproportionately impacted communities; technical assistance and mentorship; and licensing (audio - 7m, video).
    • Slaughter relayed that the Disproportionately Impacted Communities Work Group had secured a task force recommendation after “looking into the definition of family” and established an algorithm for disproportionately impacted areas (DIAs).
      • The work group participants decided to be “as inclusive as possible,” she stated, and count those who were “non-biological and de-facto relatives” by using a definition of “family member” already in law. Slaughter said the language, approved in 2020 as part of HB 2614, “would be most fitting for” the cannabis social equity program.
      • Slaughter said the task force had recommended that DIAs be “defined through a formula that is rooted in statute,” with variables such as “the percent of unemployment in these areas, median household income as proportioned to the county, [and] number of drug convictions.” She believed a “nuance that the work group brought to the task force was a coefficient to represent disparities in cannabis convictions.” Under this formula, Slaughter told the legislators that an “index” of DIAs was created showing areas “most harmed versus those that are least harmed.”
    • Slaughter reported the task force had adopted a TA and Mentorship Work Group recommendation “to begin implementing the current mentorship program that’s already outlined” in addition to a recommendation “to provide financial assistance as an additional use...for these cannabis licensees who fit the social equity definition.”
      • Slaughter remarked that on November 16th the task force had voted to recommend that “50% of all cannabis revenue that comes to the state, should go back into communities.”
        • WA SECTF members were asking that 10% of cannabis tax revenue go into the grant program budget rather than the state general fund.
        • Another 5% of cannabis taxes could “go towards low-interest loans for social equity licensees.”
        • The other 35% would go to reinvestment for “programming in...areas that have been also impacted” disproportionately by drug prohibition enforcement.
    • Regarding the Licensing Work Group, Slaughter said the task force had approved several recommendations after hearing how “inequity eight years after legislation has left a lot of room to catch up for individuals who were most harmed by the war on drugs.”
      • “All new licenses should be reserved for social equity” applicants through 2029, she commented, including “new license types that haven’t been passed through the legislature.” This sunset date permitted “equity applicants the time to catch up so that we can meet equity in the industry,” Slaughter noted.
      • All social equity licenses “should be flexible,” she explained, and allowed exceptions to barriers posed by “buffering [distance] issues.” Slaughter mentioned that the task force felt there was “room to reduce the buffer zones from a thousand feet to 500 feet” for equity applicants, except for elementary schools, secondary schools, and playgrounds.
      • The work group also advised allowing mobility for licenses out of areas with bans or moratoriums with approval of the jurisdiction the licensee was moving to, Slaughter stated. This flexibility for cannabis equity businesses, she told lawmakers, meant greater odds of their success in the marketplace.
    • Remarking that the already approved recommendations were “a lot,” Slaughter indicated WA SECTF would meet again December 14th and “the Licensing Work Group will be able to make...a few more proposals” to the task force. She said this included potential “city incentives” to end bans or moratoriums, as well as asking for “at least 200 new producer/processor licenses be created and allocated to social equity license holders between now and 2029” in addition to “a minimum of 300 additional social equity retail licenses be created between 2022 and 2029.” Slaughter mentioned the work group might also amend their recommendation “around flexibility” to further remove or reduce buffer zones in order to help reach the “goal of 50% of all total licenses being owned by social equity applicants.” 
      • The December 14th WA SECTF meeting was subsequently cancelled on November 24th.
  • Questions were raised around previous licensing discrimination, data collection, and the equity goal task force members set for the state cannabis industry.
    • Representative Eric Robertson, noting he was a newer member of the committee, was curious about the “initial round of applicants” and how many had fit “the DIA classification” and been approved for a cannabis license. He hoped to get a sense of “the full scope of the issue” and “the justification for holding all these current licenses and any future licenses, up to 50% of all licenses, for DIA candidates” (audio - 2m, video) 
      • Slaughter didn’t have that information readily available, but offered the “current stats” that “over 80% of...cannabis licenses owned in Washington state are by” people who hadn’t been “disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs.” She promised to get back to him with more data and “better context”
      • Morgan spoke up to say “why we created this task force to begin with was that there was a disparity” in enforcement and incarceration from the war on drugs that “disproportionately impacted Black and Brown people, locking them up for long sentences that were undue sentences.” However, now “that we’ve legalized cannabis,” she argued, impacted individuals were “still being penalized” and were not “able to participate” equitably in cannabis license ownership. Even absent “the actual data that you are looking for,” Morgan remarked that the work group covering DIAs found “communities that have been redlined and that have been purposefully pushed out of the industry, and that’s why we slowed it down in this committee so that we could make sure that we were having equity come along in all parts of the industry” (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Chair Shelley Kloba confirmed that “race or some of these other aspects of how you would define” DIAs hadn’t been collected from license applicants before, leaving it “hard to know what those numbers are.” Morgan noted it was a problem not exclusive to the cannabis industry, and other sectors lacked information “in order to create a more equitable system and processes” for the “Black and Brown people who have been excluded from many, many industries in the United States.” Kloba concurred that information was necessary as, “you can’t change what you don’t know, and you can’t know it unless you measure it” (audio - 2m, video).
    • Robertson inquired how, in the absence of “baseline data,” the task force set “the goal of 51%.” Slaughter said the work group looked “at other states...there’s social equity programs happening all over the country right now.” She called New York’s program “currently the gold standard” as authorities there had “set out that 50% of all their licenses would be owned by social equity applicants.” Slaughter argued it was reasonable Washington state should follow this example (audio - 1m, video).

University of Washington researchers spoke about recommending policies regarding high THC cannabis concentrates ahead of a legislatively mandated report on the subject.

Here are some observations from the Thursday November 18th Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) Committee Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Two UW ADAI researchers discussed their upcoming report on potential policy responses to health risks associated with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrates.
    • Committee Chair Shelley Kloba welcomed Susan Ferguson, a UW Associate Professor of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and the UW ADAI Director, and Beatriz Carlini, an Affiliate Associate Professor of Public Health (audio - 2m, video). Ferguson said Carlini would lead the presentation but she remained “available for questions” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Carlini told legislators she led the “cannabis research and education program at ADAI” and said she would give a “proviso update on the developing policy solutions in response to the public health challenges of high THC potency cannabis.” She promised to review the mandate given to the institute, the progress to date, and future steps in completing the contract (audio - 16m, video, presentation) 
      • A provision in Section 215(55) of the 2021-23 operating budget directed the creation of a contract with UW ADAI “through [the] Health Care Authority to...explore policy solutions in response to the public health challenges” posed by “high THC.” The contract required “an initial report summarizing the progress to date,” she noted, saying researchers were “40 days [out from] this report.”
      • Carlini called attention to a decision by UW ADAI staff to “not include medicinal cannabis, we are talking here about non-medical, commercial cannabis.” As researchers “recognize medicinal users have specific needs,” she stated that health concerns around higher cannabinoid concentration products “[do] not apply in this case” and were left out of “our scope of work.” She then highlighted the research brief UW ADAI officials prepared.
      • Carlini found the UW ADAI review of potential policy responses would be “a natural next step in terms of work [beginning] in 2020” with a consensus statement that represented “the initiative of Health Care Authority...through the Washington Prevention Research Subcommittee.” The statement was authored by UW and Washington State University (WSU) experts “with” Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), Washington State Department of Health (DOH), and Washington State Health Care Authority (WA HCA) staff; and Liz Wilhelm, formerly of Prevention Works in Seattle (Prevention WINS), a community-based alcohol and drug use prevention coalition.
        • According to Carlini, over six months the group “analyzed the data in terms of cannabis concentration and health risks” before publishing the statement and the research brief. She said they’d concluded that “there was a clear, dose-response relationship where the highest the THC content was in cannabis products the higher the risk of encountering adverse health effects,” with impacts especially concerning “for young users and people with preexisting mental health conditions.”
        • Additionally, Carlini relayed that researchers looking at data from Washington state claimed “that the harms seems to be more likely to” disproportionately affect “marginalized populations like low-income and minorities, in part, because [these] products tend to have a lower cost,” a more “discrete nature,” and because of “glamorization through social media and the effect of advertising.”
      • She explained that the contract hadn’t funded new research, but the “evidence was documented previously” so researchers could “use our skills as scientists to develop policy solutions in response to the public health challenges.” Several policies “that were proposed and adopted in North America” were identified, she indicated, but had not been expressly recommended by UW ADAI staff yet.
      • Carlini discussed the outreach conducted to “stakeholders and experts,” telling lawmakers her goal was finding “common ground and consensus” on which recommendations to forward. Carlini reported that stakeholders were being sorted into “different types” and received different engagement methods to “bring a fair assessment” of policy approaches before researchers determined final recommendations. They contacted 42 organizations and 120 individuals, she added, and “although not considered stakeholders because they are sovereign nations,” outreach had included leaders in tribal governments. Carlini said the interviews and surveys included “cannabis consumers---both medical and non-medical---mental health advocates, mental health patients, historical marginalized groups, health experts...health care agencies, prevention agencies” and cannabis sector “farmers, processors, retail, lobby organizations, and immediate, dedicated, and [ancillary businesses] funded by cannabis industry.”
      • Carlini listed policy options being surveyed by UW ADAI:
        • “Taxation based on THC Potency
        • Prohibit certain product types
        • Regulate or prohibit marketing
        • Limit total THC in a single purchase
        • Require serving size
        • Cap on THC concentration
        • Require minimum CBD content
        • Regulate packaging or labeling”
      • Carlini talked about how stakeholders were engaged in a “two-step approach, and the main common denominator of [these] two steps is that basically we are gonna listen, listen, and listen.” The listening would be done “first through interviews, about 35 to 40 people will be selected,” Carlini stated, specifically those “with lived experience, or representing collected interests of people with lived experience that may have experienced problems with high THC products.” From there, she said researchers would use “concept mapping” which featured individuals “having to choose policies,” a “participatory approach that is very equitable in the sense that everybody can give anonymous input and allows for ample participation.” At that point, researchers’ role was to be in “the background, synthesizing data that we collect and analyzing areas of convergence of possible consensus in terms of policy,” Carlini observed, as stakeholders rated “how important, feasible, and equitable are the different policies suggested.”
      • The final phase involved organizing the ratings, said Carlini, so that “stakeholders [were] telling us what is important to them, what’s feasible to them, what’s equitable to them.” She promised that stakeholder work would continue as it was “the bulk of the work that we are doing” along with evaluating proposed or enacted policies on cannabis concentration “taking place in North America.” Moreover, Carlini said that UW ADAI researchers planned to “dive more into the local assessment of what is happening” in Washington, like “acute health events” as well as “a possibility of the informal market then start producing” unregulated cannabis concentrates, leading to “fires and explosions.” She indicated researchers would also look at “mental health events that happen in our community."
  • Two questions posed by committee members pertained to the impact of cannabis concentrate regulations on the legacy market and outreach UW ADAI staff were conducting.
    • Kloba inquired whether the policies under consideration included “criteria” to weigh the “impact on the illicit market.” Neglecting to do so would be “antithetical to what you’re trying to do if any regulation we do on the legal market pushes people into the unregulated market,” she said (audio - 3m, video) 
      • Carlini agreed, saying “it's our hope that our...suggestions and recommendations are going to be made are really not as ADAI,” but instead “facilitating the voice and the considerations of Washington stakeholders.” She intended to “organize different opinions and find areas of consensus through analysis of data” to find “go zones,” or places of consensus, versus divisive policy options. Carlini acknowledged potential impacts on the “illicit market...has been a very common argument.” Though no one “can totally guess what will happen,” Carlini planned to look for “examples in other places and also see what experts and stakeholders consider in terms of possible effects.”
    • Assistant Ranking Minority Member Kelly Chambers, also a legislative appointee to the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF), asked if lawmakers “can help distribute...or participate in, or share with our constituents,” the research surveys. Carlini replied that researchers intended to use an “online survey process” and that Chambers could reach her by email for the purpose of “sending people our way” as prospective stakeholders (audio - 1m, video).
    • Kloba looked forward to “partnering with” UW ADAI to “tackle this problem and come up with some good solutions.” She concluded cannabis concentrate regulation was “not an easy issue to resolve, but it’s absolutely necessary that we do” (audio - <1m, video).

The chair of the cannabis science task force explained the work of the group, including its remaining report, and fielded a question about in-matrix proficiency tests.

Here are some observations from the Thursday November 18th Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) Committee Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Annette Hoffmann, Department of Ecology (DOE) Environmental Assessment Program Manager and Cannabis Science Task Force (CSTF) Steering Committee Chair, went through recent activities of the group and their first report from June 2020.
    • Hoffmann reminded lawmakers of the 2019 legislation establishing the CSTF, which required movement of authority for cannabis testing laboratory accreditation to DOE from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) by July 2024. She testified that the “cannabis industry has evolved more rapidly than the science needed to support it" (audio - 8m, video, presentation). 
      • Hoffmann described accreditation as a “third-party process by which a laboratory is certified that it has the right resources needed to do a specific task” and “provide positive proof of that capability.” She compared it with someone getting their driver's license, as “there’s a written test to show that I understand the rules of the road,” as well as “a practical driving test that shows I can actually be competent on the road.” Given cannabis laboratories identify “their own testing methods, there have been reports of inconsistent testing results among laboratories which has reduced regulatory and consumer confidence,” Hoffmann stated.
      • As DOE staff “has extensive experience accrediting environmental and drinking water laboratories,” Hoffmann said legislators determined the department was “the appropriate body for cannabis. However, it also recognized that there were gaps in order to fill and implement...Ecology’s program.” She said this led to the mandated creation of the CSTF “to help fill those gaps.”
      • Hoffmann commented that “the first substantial gap identified was in scientifically-based and standardized lab quality standards and the second was to characterize successful proficiency testing.” She felt it was “worth pointing out that the terms ‘lab quality standards’ and ‘testing methods,’ as used here, really mean the same thing” and she’d use them interchangeably. The former was “written in statute,” but Hoffmann indicated the latter term was “really the practical application” of lab standards, and task force members found the phrase “lab quality standards” was regularly “confused with other kinds of standards like product standards, or lab accreditation standards.”
      • Under the existing accreditation system, Hoffmann said “a lab’s proficiency in one area certifies it for a broad scope, with Ecology’s model a lab must be certified...for and demonstrate proficiency in each specific combination of method, analyte, and matrix.”
        • Method “is the testing method or the lab quality standard.”
        • Analyte “is the substance that...you’re trying to find.”
        • Matrix “is the actual product being tested.”
      • Hoffmann observed that accreditation under DOE would involve several “pillars,” which she called a “substantial difference” from the existing system. She made clear that the pillars presented applied to the accreditation regime for each combination of method, analyte, and matrix:
        • “Personnel, Equipment and Supplies 
        • Sample and Data Management 
        • Methods and [Quality Assurance/Control] Protocols
        • Proficiency Testing”
        • The end purpose, Hoffman stated, was for the laboratory to show “positive proof that it can put all those things together in a way that provides accurate results in a blind study.”
      • The CSTF itself was a “cooperative effort with many bringing important experience, expertise, and authority...to the table.” There had been 42 participants throughout the group’s tenure, including staff from DOE, WSLCB, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), and Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA), Hoffmann indicated, as well as representatives from nine accredited cannabis labs in the state. She added that the Steering Committee had representatives from all participating state agencies, in addition to staff from “Medicine Creek Analytics, Confidence Analytics, and Capitol Analysis Group.”
      • Efforts had been distributed among private work groups with focus areas “like pesticides, or heavy metals,” Hoffmann said, to do “the heavy lifting, comparing existing methods, having in-depth conversations about applicability, [and] developing proposed motions for recommendations or for testing methods.” These groups also allowed for cannabis laboratory members to “bring forward their own work on testing methods for consideration,” she noted, as well as evaluate testing processes and certifications in other legal cannabis jurisdictions.
      • Hoffmann described how motions were brought before the Steering Committee from the work groups, “along with the pros and the cons that [they’d] discussed.” Following questions, deliberations, and amendments to the motions, she explained that a vote was taken “and the motions either passed or failed,” and, occasionally, were “sent back to the work groups for revisions, or to deliberate other considerations.” Hoffmann remarked that under this system all the motions that came to a vote were passed, “and all but one passed unanimously.” “In the end, the task force recommendations on testing methods in the reports” started in the work groups, she concluded, and were vetted “through this decision making structure.”
    • Hoffmann referenced the first report released 17 months prior ("Cannabis Science Task Force Recommendations: Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products") which “addressed laboratory science to test for pesticides in plants and products” (audio - 2m, video). 
      • The task force had utilized “current procedures, and adapt[ed] them to cannabis,” Hoffmann commented, leaning “heavily on United State Department of Ag[rilculture] methods and procedures that were already in place and already had protections built into them.” A key theme task force members identified was “the need for some flexibility to enable the science to evolve with the industry,” so the report’s recommendations had “some flexibility built into it.” She cautioned that such flexibility “has a cost associated with it in the form of an ongoing regulatory oversight body,” suggesting that the justification for that body was “threaded throughout the work of the task force.”
  • Hoffmann shed light on the second report from the CSTF due the following month, as well as the future of the task force before accreditation was transferred to DOE.
    • Hoffmann relayed that the second report from the task force “addresses other fields of testing, there’s potency, heavy metals, microbial elements, and residual solvents,” in addition to “proficiency testing that must be applied to all fields.” The group had “relied heavily on already approved agricultural and environmental testing industries and standards,” she said, leveraging “consumer protections that are already built into these methods” (audio - 4m, video).
      • The methods and programs “needed some adaptation to fit” with cannabis testing, stated Hoffmann. Flexibility remained important, she remarked, as “during the potency discussion...different opinions began to obstruct progress towards methods and recommendations.” Hoffmann told lawmakers that the Steering Committee “drafted guidance on flexibility for the work groups to follow.” This general guidance “largely favored prescriptive methods that were amenable to regular regulatory and accreditation needs” while still allowing for “creative work,” she said.
      • Another theme “on proficiency testing” came to light, Hoffmann indicated, “a study where an independent provider sends samples of product with known quantities of a chemical to laboratories.” She conveyed that a proficiency test (PT) used “all of the accreditation pillars and demonstrates that the lab” can provide “positive proof” that their staff “can follow the method correctly and produce accurate results.”
      • Hoffmann testified that an “essential element” of the report was that PTs “must be in cannabis when testing for pesticides, potency, or residual solvents,” and hemp samples were not an acceptable substitute. She emphasized that DOE officials concurred with this point. She claimed the task force had been “unable to identify a technical solution where hemp could be used as a surrogate for cannabis-based proficiency test,” but noted work group members went “looking for a solution” when articulating the “needs of a cannabis-based PT program.” The Proficiency Testing Work Group “designed a trial experiment to try to understand the logistic, and other barriers,” and found that “control mechanisms, for example licensing, or the traceability requirements” were policy obstacles the group could not solve.
      • According to Hoffmann, DOE officials “reached out, recently, to industry representatives and other agency staff, to brainstorm potential alternative technical solutions" that might “allow hemp matrix to be used as a surrogate.” Unfortunately, she noted, “based on those conversations we feel we’ve exhausted those possible technical solutions.” Hoffmann said agency representatives worried “whether or not the cannabis-based PTs will be available before we take on accreditation.”
        • DOE leadership crafted an agency request bill which would have eliminated the 2024 statutory deadline for the transfer of lab accreditation responsibility until three benchmarks were met: the formation of the ICT, lab standards in WSDA rule, and “availability of in-matrix cannabis proficiency tests for pesticides, potency, and residual solvents.” DOE staff claimed that only when these had been achieved would the department be able “to provide the accreditation program that was envisioned.” However, on October 1st, Hoffmann acknowledged that DOE leadership had decided not to pursue the request bill during the 2022 session after finding minimal support during “stakeholder outreach.”
    • Hoffmann described on-going work of the task force and request legislation to create an interagency coordination team (ICT) which had yet to be approved by Governor Inslee’s office for the 2022 legislative session (audio - 4m, video).
      • Going forward, Hoffmann said the CSTF would continue to evaluate “other fields of testing” around microbiology, mycotoxins, and water activity/moisture which weren’t finalized in time for the upcoming report. The additional topics would be included in memoranda sent to WSLCB “before the task force disbands.”
      • The potential joint request bill would “transfer authority for the testing methods” from WSLCB to WSDA, she commented, “and it would form that regulatory oversight body that you heard about.” Hoffman said the ICT would have representatives from the requesting agencies “as well as Department of Health,” and be tasked to:
        • “Provide guidance/validation needed to implement flexibility
        • Assist with coordination among agencies with different jurisdictions
        • Coordinate an in-state Cannabis-Matrix Proficiency Testing Program”
      • Considering the timeline for transfer of accreditation, Hoffmann noted the task force had met its initial benchmarks and “provided additional clarity on those details that were needed for implementation that were unforeseen in 2019.” She said this meant implementation would “not be as simple as might have been originally envisioned,” and would involve more than transferring authority and a new “fee schedule.” Hoffmann reinforced the need to create the ICT to handle “flexibility and the other list” of responsibilities such as the “cannabis-based proficiency testing studies in order to achieve the desired results of accuracy, consistency among labs, and the improved consumer protections that we’re looking for.” She affirmed that the 2024 transfer deadline “is dependent on those elements being in place.”
  • Chair Shelley Kloba asked about in-matrix proficiency testing, believing it was preferable to set standards “according to cannabis.” She wondered if “there’s potentially a legislative fix that you see to the barriers” (audio - 4m, video). 
    • Hoffmann said the question indicated the “complexity” of the topic, noting CSTF members had focused on “the content and the science of the work, but there’s this companion component of implementation.” She noted that a “cannabis PT provider that does in-matrix, or in-cannabis based PTs for Colorado and for Oregon,” whose representative talked to the task force, was required to “sell their standards.” Such an arrangement was a “more complicated field of...what we can do with licenses,” Hoffmann conveyed, and the task force lacked “the ability to solve that.”
    • Kloba called attention to the precedent of “a research license,” of which state regulators had “only granted one” to date, and wondered aloud about other licenses “that we could create so that...the standards could be sold, for like, a very narrow purpose.” She added that her focus continued to be on how “the product needs to be safe, and consumers need to know exactly what they're buying.”

Information Set