WSLCB - Board Caucus
(March 12, 2024)

Here are some observations from the Tuesday March 12th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Director of Legislative Relations Marc Webster summed up legislative actions impacting WSLCB from the 2024 session, along with noting how major changes were coming to the makeup of the legislature.
  • HB 2151 - “Reassigning the accreditation of private cannabis testing laboratories from the department of ecology to the department of agriculture” (audio - <1m, video)
    • Webster mentioned the bill was scheduled to be signed by Governor Jay Inslee on Wednesday March 13th, “and we've been in talks with our partners at agriculture around that and how best to ensure that the handoff around cannabis lab accreditation goes smoothly.”
    • Noted in the March 8th legislative update, HB 2151 was one of four cannabis-focused bills to be passed by the legislature that awaited gubernatorial action at time of publication. Other bills include SB 5376 (“Allowing the sale of cannabis waste”) and HB 1453 (“Providing a tax exemption for medical cannabis patients”).
  • HB 2320 - “Concerning high THC cannabis products” (audio - 1m, video)
    • With data gathering and reporting requirements for WSLCB among the bill mandates as passed, Webster stated the measure may impact the Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS), which could “be one of the themes of the interim” work by agency staff. He indicated the legislation was amended to include reporting requirements of SB 6271 “on the amount of concentrate sold, usable flower, infused products…the range of THC concentration in products in the market, the average THC concentration within the market, so we'll have a lot to keep our eyes on.”
    • Webster added that bills from 2023 were still in the process of being implemented as part of the substantial rulemaking backlog at WSLCB.
  • Webster brought up the legislative implementation tracking system—which he’d also discussed in June and August 2023—and told board members “we'll make sure you have access to that and you can…see these are the things from 2023 that we're still working on, [and] here's the new work…from 2024” (audio - <1m, video).
    • Board Chair David Postman clarified whether the tracker included budget provisos. Webster affirmed it did, confirming “we definitely have a number of provisos to look after this year” (audio - <1m, video).
  • Additionally, Webster pointed to the retirement of several members of the legislature in 2024, specifically noting “Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, Senator [Mark] Mullet’s not coming back, Senator Lynda Wilson, our Senator here in Olympia, Sam Hunt is also leaving,” as well as Senate President Pro Tempore Karen Keiser. While other state lawmakers were running for higher offices, as Webster quickly acknowledged campaigns by:
    • Mullet’s campaign for Governor
    • Senator Emily Randall for the 6th Congressional District
    • Senator Drew MacEwen for the 6th Congressional District
    • Senator Manka Dhingra for Attorney General
    • Senator Rebecca Saldaña for Public Lands Commissioner
    • Senator Patty Kuderer for Insurance Commissioner
  • Even if some of the campaigns weren’t successful, Webster still anticipated “we are going to see significant change in both chambers…we could see a real…wave of new members.” He felt 2025 was already shaping up to be a year “we're gonna have to teach a new group of members about our function, what we do and how we do it” (audio - 2m, video).
    • Postman observed that agency leaders would also be working with the first new governor and Attorney General since cannabis was legalized in Washington by voters in 2012 (audio - <1m, video).

• Policy and Rules Manager Cassidy West went over developments in rulemaking projects, including outreach events and one project delayed from the timeline provided the previous month.
  • Retail Medical Cannabis Endorsements (audio - 1m, video, Rulemaking Project).
    • West brought up the Monday March 11th focus group on the topic, stating it was led by Policy and Rules Coordinator Daniel Jacobs. Another event was scheduled for the afternoon of Thursday March 14th, she said, “and based on the feedback that we get at this next session, it will determine whether or not we hold another round of engagement.” West expected this was “likely going to happen” and would necessitate revisions of the draft language.
    • Cannabis rulemaking work had faced setbacks throughout 2023 and by the start of 2024 the timelines for several rulemaking projects had been pushed back. Nonetheless, West’s forecast for the projects were largely in line with general timetables staff offered on February 13th, with the Retail Medical Cannabis Endorsements project pushed back from a March 13th presentation, something Jacobs warned was possible at the time.
  • SB 5367 Implementation (audio - <1m, video, Rulemaking Project, Rulemaking Project).
    • “We're hoping to send the draft rules” before the end of the week, West said, then “send out an invitation at least holding the dates, and I hope to hold stakeholder engagement at the end of March.”
  • Product Samples (audio - <1m, video, Rulemaking Project).
    • West expected her team would be “sending out draft sampling rules and then holding engagement on those draft rules in April, mid-April.”
  • Minors on Wholesale Licensed Premises (audio - <1m, video,  Rulemaking Project).
    • Policy and Rules Coordinator Denise Laflamme would present the CR-101 to start the rulemaking process on March 27th, West stated, after board members accepted a petition on the subject on February 13th.
      • Laflamme had already presented the CR-101 and received board approval on February 28th.
  • SB 5080 Implementation (audio - 1m, video, Rulemaking Project).
    • West said “we have a lot for social equity,” and were “on track there. We're in the process of drafting rules internally and next steps will be holding stakeholder engagement to review and discuss that draft rule language.” She believed a CR-102 with proposed changes was going to happen “at the end of May with a public hearing to be held in July.” If this timeline was correct, she said the final rule changes “would be filed in August with rules effective in September.”
    • Postman was curious how West would approach outreach for this rulemaking. West replied that the “tentative” plan was to host events for public input both after draft rules were released, and following any revisions to the draft. “So, we built into our plan some time [for] both of the stakeholdering engagements.” Postman asked to be kept informed of what structure staff used in their engagements for the project. West shared that she was “hoping at the end of the month maybe sending out those invitations, or just, tomorrow I can give you a better update on that timeline” (audio - 1m, video).

• West also went over the Harvest or Processing Date Rulemaking Petition, eliciting several questions from board members about the history and need for the change.
  • Under product labeling rules for cannabis in WAC 314-55-105(8) “Optional label information includes the following: Harvest date, ‘best by’ date, and manufactured dates.” This was removed from required product labeling through a February 2018 rule change.
  • In caucus, West brought up the petition, submitted by Chuck Olivier, “who's a concerned citizen.” She said he was requesting that harvest dates return to being a required part of cannabis product labeling, with a “harvest day [for cannabis flower], and the day cannabis concentrates are processed, processing date.” West presented Olivier’s reasoning as claiming that not mandating this information “hinders consumers from being able to make informed purchasing decisions, which could lead to purchases of contaminated products,” and that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content declined as products sat on shelves. West relayed how “the impetus for the petition stems from concerns about the quality of sun grown cannabis, in particular, because it's harvested seasonally and then stored long term” (audio - 2m, video).
    • West said that staff “reviewed the merits of the petition which included how quality and stability of cannabis changes over time, and potential impacts to consumer safety, as well as the potential benefits of the petitioner’s request including how increased transparency may affect consumer behavior.” She indicated they also looked into “practical considerations such as the feasibility of what the implementation would look like if we were to move forward with rulemaking, and then also implications for the market.”
    • At the following day’s board meeting, she’d be “recommending that the board accept the petition to initiate rulemaking to consider amending the packaging and labeling rules to require the dates on retail product labels.”
  • Postman wondered whether other states required the harvest or processing date on cannabis labels. West replied that the vast majority of legal cannabis states didn’t require the information, “I want to say like four or five” did mandate it (audio - <1m, video).
    • According to a 2022 research article comparing labeling laws among legal cannabis found: “Less than five states also had requirements for cultivar name, date of harvest, activation time range, and dosing for individually packaged units.”
  • Board Member Jim Vollendroff drew a comparison to fresh produce. While acknowledging “it's not exactly the same thing,” he felt “harvest date[s]” were worthwhile information. “When I talked to Cassidy, I used apples as a specific example where apples can be stored for a long period of time, and you never know what year but you can sure taste the difference,” he said. Vollendroff felt this was an “important discussion for us to have” (audio - 1m, video).
    • With cannabis plants needing to be harvested, cured, and packaged, there are significant differences between cannabis products and fresh fruit. Research has shown potential for contamination to occur during the packaging stage, with some companies marketing products specifically aimed to reduce this. In this light, harvest dates could be valuable information for would-be buyers, given that packaging rules also restrict consumers’ ability to smell cannabis products.
  • When West noted harvest date information had become optional early in 2018 Postman asked why and West promised to outline that history in her presentation the next day. She pointed out when it had been removed, WSLCB was using a traceability vendor instead of CCRS, and “without the date on there, we [were still] able to track the product through the system” by way of unique identifiers. However, CCRS didn’t produce these unique identifiers, and West said there was “a disconnect…in now what our traceability can do and what the intention of removing the requirement was, which [was] less compliance burden for businesses.” Board Member Ollie Garrett, the only still-active member from that time, agreed that lightening the regulatory load on licensees had been part of the conversation on the change (audio - 2m, video).
  • Vollendroff checked whether harvest information had been “consumer product information, or was that just internally used by us?” West was uncertain about the history (audio - 1m, video).
    • Harvest date was required in rules on retail labeling until 2018.
  • Postman asked whether CCRS was able to support adding harvest date information. Although cannabis data reporting was outside of her purview, West conveyed that she spoke to members of the CCRS team “and they are working on putting some additional trackers in there like created date for packages.” However, she anticipated “it's gonna take some time to put that in place,” guessing “I wouldn't expect it would happen until…fall next year just because of the legislative rulemaking we’ll have to do” (audio - 1m, video).
    • At time of publication, harvest date was an already existing data element in CCRS.
  • Garrett remembered “a lot of the concerns for the industry was having to have so much things on the packaging.” West suggested staff would look to trade-offs: “do we need all the information we currently have on the package…is there an alternative way that we could provide this information without having to do rulemaking?” She indicated accepting the petition would allow for alternatives to be explored and evaluated (audio - 1m, video).
    • As noted in the February 2018 concise explanatory statement, public comments on removal of harvest date were categorized as:
      • “1. Harvest dates are one of the most important pieces of information that I look for…It is important that consumers know as much about a product before purchasing it. Products lose freshness, potency, and quality after time, [and the] vast majority of recreational marijuana is not packaged or stored in a way which allows it to age well, it is often package too wet and due to problems with the microbial testing system, product tainted with potentially harmful microbes does get packaged sometimes can fester and become more potentially harmful.
      • “2. Other comments were received supporting the removal of harvest date…Some licensees stated that the inclusion of harvest date misleads consumers to thinking “fresher is better” and stated that marijuana is best cured for several weeks. Other statements that harvest dates disproportionately favor indoor growers above outdoor growers.
      • “3. Comments were received stating that harvest date is important information for medical marijuana patients.”
    • At that time, agency staff determined “It will be up to each producer/processor to determine whether to place that information on the label…As for concerns about microbial testing, tests for water activity (how likely bacteria is to grow) and water content (how much moisture/water is contained in the material) are required under quality assurance testing rules [to] help to ensure that product will remain acceptable while on the shelf and not exceed microbial limits in testing requirements.”