DOH - Webinar - Medical Cannabis - Workshop
(July 18, 2024) - Summary

Participants offered feedback to DOH staff questions related to their medical cannabis testing requirements and then posed questions of their own to officials.

Here are some observations from the Thursday July 18th Washington State Department of Health (DOH) webinar workshop on the medical cannabis rulemaking project.

My top 4 takeaways:

• Cannabis Program Manager Loralei Walker gave introductions and a background on staff work on medical cannabis rules.
  • Walker began by acknowledging other DOH staff in attendance (audio - 2m).
    • Shannon Angell, Deputy Director of Drugs Systems, “which is the unit that houses the medical cannabis program.”
    • Johnny Wong, Chemist
    • Tholo “TJ” Johnson, Microbiologist
    • Reem Aldaghestani, Health Services Consultant who dealt “more with the database authorization system.”
  • The rulemaking project was opened in November 2023, and Walker indicated the “scope of the rulemaking is fairly broad, related to this chapter on medical cannabis standards” in WAC 246-70. She noted potential changes under consideration included “product classifications,” quality assurance (QA) testing standards, “labeling and logos definitions used throughout the chapter, as well as addressing and codifying some of the tax exemption stuff that applies in this chapter” following passage of HB 1453 (audio - 5m, Rulemaking Project).
    • Walker referenced the three prior workshops on medical cannabis hosted by DOH staff in August and September of 2023 followed by an additional workshop on February 29th and officials had been “continuing to have public workshops in that manner that focus on one or two sections.” She anticipated another workshop in the near future “covering labeling logos and tax exemptions” plus a “final workshop that represents draft language for the entire chapter.”
    • DOH staff had been incorporating written comments in the rule draft, Walker stated, and shared links to feedback they’d already gotten as well as posting “draft language, and that recommendations and policy questions document.”
    • Staff expected “interesting questions that go along with figuring out how to be compliant in producing, processing, and selling medical cannabis” since passage of HB 1453, which exempted registered medical patients from paying a cannabis excise tax on certain products. However, Walker requested that comments focus on the workshop topic, and avoid input “that are outside of what we are authorized to write rules on.”
    • Walker noted that “we have some language in our findings section, section 010 of this rule that also references beneficial uses of medical cannabis…and a lot of what we'll be discussing today revolves around patient safety and protection. But we also can consider product requirements that are believed to increase health benefits to medical cannabis patients as well.”
    • Walker further promised to “send out a document with the themes and notes that we hear from this meeting,” and stressed that feedback would still be accepted if people wanted to further clarify their remarks.
    • WSLCB staff discussed the implementation of HB 1453 and application of the tax exemption in a webinar on July 29th.

• DOH officials offered context around several questions they had for attendees before gathering feedback on sampling size, testing intervals, end product testing, pesticide action levels, terpenes, and alignment with Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) rules.
  • Sampling Sizes (audio - 3m). Wong relayed that DOH, WSLCB, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) had differing requirements for sample sizes which resulted in “a lot of confusion” for licensees and laboratories. The draft would “align our sample size requirements with the LCB,” he told the group, and “in terms of analytical chemistry…a larger proportion of the sampled materials is always going to be better than less.” Wong continued, “we can achieve a larger proportion by either keeping the sample sizes [the] same and decreasing the maximum size of the lots, or we can keep the lot size the same and we increase the sample size.” Walker chimed in to say there was “a table that basically outlines what is in LCB’s rule for sample size requirements. So our proposal is to align with that.”
    • Vicki Christophersen, Washington CannaBusiness Association (WACA) Executive Director and Lobbyist (audio - 2m)
      • Christophersen remarked that “this is an area that is one, we're struggling to wrap our heads around.” She appreciated the work of staff, and supported “the idea of consistency between you and LCB,” but felt it would be easier for her to understand “graphically…try to illustrate what we're looking at.” Seeing all the testing needs arranged together would be useful, she said, “whether it’s potency, whether it's for your products…are there ways between the LCB and DOH that we could make…testing more streamlined and efficient.” Christophersen urged staff to stay in contact with WSLCB counterparts “to see if alignment could be created across all testing” and called for laboratory representation in the discussion.
    • As several questions were posted in the chat box seeking to understand why DOH leaders were proposing sampling size alignment, Johnson mentioned the difference in lot size as a key difference between the sampling protocols of different agencies. “DOH requires quite a bit more sample, especially when you get onto the higher ends of your lot sizes,” he indicated, raising a concern on the “technical testing side of stuff [that when a] representative sample gets sent into the laboratory, it gets homogenized and tested as one.” Johnson said, “the worry is that if you have a very low level contaminant like a microbiological, you run the risk of diluting that contaminant out with such a large sample size.” So besides aligning requirements between agencies, which would “streamline the testing asks for the laboratory and the sampling of the product,” he said the proposed DOH approach would permit “somebody to add on heavy metal testing after they've gotten” other tests completed. Johnson hoped staff could get feedback on “the possibility of capping a maximum lot size for DOH product at 25 pounds. So we would still maintain the sampling sizes of that lot [which was currently] 15 grams for a 25 pound sample.” If they adopted the drafted change, “a producer would still be able to essentially produce a 50 pound lot, but they'd have to…chop it in half and say, this is lot ‘A’ this is lot ‘B,’ 25 and 25. And then those two get tested” (audio - 8m).
      • Micah Sherman, Raven Co-Owner and Washington Sun and Craft Growers Association (WSCA) Board Member and National Craft Cannabis Coalition (NCCC) Member, wondered if officials were “saying that we would need to go from our current 17 or 19 grams [and add] an additional 15 grams just for the heavy metal test?” Johnson related this to the “total sample getting sent in…if we cap at 25 and we merge with LCB sampling requirements, that 25 pound is a 15 gram sample that gets sent to the lab.” They aimed to avoid diluting samples “if a microbial contaminant is at a low level,”
      • Johnson explained, “let's say you got a 50 pound lot and you want to do DOH required test, and you separate that 50 pounds into two 25 pound lots, and then submit two separate samples for all of the tests.” However, “if you didn't want to do DOH compliant testing, you could do one 50 pound lot, just submit to LCB. But we're trying to get a little more testing on the product for patient safety.” Sherman clarified if staff assumed more testing “regardless of the application…creates safer products for patients.” Wong answered that a “larger proportion of the sample is more accurate and then the accuracy is what…makes it safer.” However, Sherman countered that “the problem is that if the lot’s too big and the sample gets too big, then it goes the other way and it becomes less accurate?”
      • Wong commented, “the way it's written now the larger the lot sizes, the smaller proportion of the sample size that is required.” Sherman felt this was the “easier path” and better approach, even as he recognized his business didn’t create lots that size. “But…talking to my members about this, it seems like they probably prefer a bigger sample and a bigger lot that match to the LCB sizes just because it will make things administratively more coherent,” he concluded.
      • Caitlein Ryan, The Cannabis Alliance Executive Director, was grateful for the clarification and stated she’d heard similar sentiments from her members.
    • Nick Mosely, Confidence Analytics CEO (audio - 5m).
      • Avoiding commenting on cannabis flower sample and lot sizes as he preferred them to be the same between agencies, Mosely noted, “I don't think larger sample size dilutes microbial contaminants, I think it actually increases your chances of discovering them.” His concern was over edibles and a “new table for metals, heavy metals limits in what you're calling ingestible products” in section 4 which didn’t have sample sizes outlined in section 3.
      • Johnson reviewed the draft “that says keep as is two grams per batch of finished concentrates extracts or intermediate products…I believe the two gram would apply to…non ingestible as well.” Mosley viewed edibles as end products, and said two grams wouldn’t be enough, advising “probably for edibles you want to introduce something…in the vein of units, how many units of the edible are we getting?” Johnson replied that “the only stuff that's needed on end product [was] potency testing for a handful of stuff. So is, would this be for creating a requirement for sample size for that end product potency testing and a water activity is also done on infused edibles…would that be basically be required sample size for that?”
      • Wong called some WSLCB rules “disjointed” due to “this weird intermediate category” where a licensee might add terpenes to a previously tested product which would necessitate a new test. He preferred all cannabis items be “tested at the end stage,” but “for sample sizes for edibles, you've got to be specific to edibles, not to end products.”
  • Testing Intervals (audio - 4m). Johnson offered more examples around the differences between intermediate and end product testing. He went over the “testing workflow” for cannabis flower which received “pretty much the whole smorgasbord minus residual solvents. Looking at the workflow for processors, Johnson mentioned that end product testing had been required by WSLCB, and if DOH rules were different, officials could be “duplicating all of that testing.” Another option was doing “the whole smorgasbord and basically double up the sample size that they've already submitted for this intermediate product,” he said. Even conducting end product heavy metals (HM) testing meant “doubling the amount of sample essentially, or more that the producer is sending in because they need to do all this LCB required intermediate level tests.” Furthermore, if requiring “mycotoxin screening only when microbial screening is allowed, you'd be losing these three mycotoxin tests for hydrocarbons, CO2 and ethanol extractions,” Johnson explained, as the compounds were more “stable” than microbes and could survive the extraction process meriting repeated testing.
    • Mosely regarded mycotoxins as needing testing whenever microbial tests were required, and observed “nothing in your rules negates that” (audio - 1m).
    • Sherman believed that a second sample would be required to test heavy metals in end products, and since all end products got tested for potency the intermediate potency question was moot “as long as [the product] was in-house.” He added that “I think a lot of times people don't retest the individual batches of different flavorings. But that's more of an issue in an execution, not in rule.” Mosely added that consumers only encountered end products, and that intermediate product testing amounted to “double jeopardy” for licensees (audio - 3m).
    • Matthew Friedlander, Skagit Organics Founder and Chief Operating Officer (COO) argued that many processors conducted intermediate testing of potency to know how much to add to end products, but that HM testing should only be performed on end products (audio - 1m).
  • End Product Testing (audio - 1m). “One of the things we've chatted [about was] the possibility of something being a hot sample, like let's say it's over action levels for heavy metals, at an intermediate level,” said Johnson. If that got “put into an end product and diluted down enough to a point where it goes underneath those action levels,” DOH officials would still be “a little uncomfortable with that.”
    • Friedlander appreciated their concern, but felt customers would be ingesting products which had passed testing requirements (audio - <1m).
    • Wendy Hull, Fairwinds CEO (audio - 1m).
      • Remarking that her business conducted intermediate-level testing, Hull described flower they’d purchased which didn’t test ‘hot’ yet had contaminates above action levels once distilled into oil precluding use in end products.
    • Hull asked about “interference” in end product testing, wondering if a baseline could be established to determine whether contamination came from cannabis versus another ingredient. Mosely felt this was more “in LCB’s lane” as it related to testing end products, saying the presence of pesticides in an edible’s other ingredients could show up in testing even though it hadn’t been present when testing cannabis inputs. He had little concern of HM interference, and pointed out “there's a table in here with heavy metals limits for edibles and it is higher than for inhalables” he regarded as “in line with general food safety guidelines for heavy metals” and other states’ cannabis markets. Mosely commented that Washington State "stands apart" with intermediate testing (audio - 2m).
    • Douglas Henderson, Painted Rooster Cannabis Company CEO (audio - 2m).
      • Explaining that his business produced “2,800 cans per batch,” Henderson shared that final product HM testing “going to add $100 in cost to each of my final tests. I really don't want to do that, especially since I've already tested for the heavy metals in my cannabis input products…we've already done our due diligence with all the suppliers of all of our ingredients to ensure that it's…free of any contaminants at all.” If an input was hot for HM in intermediate testing they wouldn’t use it, he told the group, but ultimately “the end level cost…is prohibitive to us for that testing, but we're very confident that we're heavy metal free, in addition to being pesticide free and free of other microbial contaminants.” Henderson wondered about separating infused beverages from other products when it came to some HM testing requirements.
    • John Kingsbury, Cannabis Alliance Patient Committee Chair (audio - 3m).
      • Kingsbury argued that Henderson “trusts his process. But that's not why testing happens. It doesn't happen for the good actors, that happens, because of the bad actors.” Since DOH certification of compliant cannabis items was voluntary, Kingsbury indicated higher testing costs might be the trade off for a business being able to sell a cannabis product without the 37% excise tax due to HB 1453.
      • Henderson maintained that his beverages had “miniscule amounts” of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in them to begin with (2.5 milligrams per can). He asked for a “way to bypass [end product testing] by providing that information to the DOH on a single time basis to make sure that they feel comfortable? Or even randomized testing? That would be better and wouldn't put as much of a burden on us.”
    • Sherman brought up that only doing end product testing meant potential for “a dynamic where if people have concentrate that they know is contaminated, and it would make sense to sell it to an edibles manufacturer, because it wouldn't show up at a higher percentage in the end products.” He called this a “perverse incentive that we should try to avoid and all this because like the dilution would be pretty extreme.” Friedlander stressed he wasn’t calling for “zero intermediate testing" since he bought oils from other companies to make some products, but “it doesn't seem to make sense to test that if [processors] don't want to until the very end, to ensure…the product going to the consumer is safe to ingest” (audio - 3m).
  • Action Levels (audio - 3m). Johnson related HM testing to the action levels discussion as “one of the recommendations that we've put in was…creating two separate action levels, one for ingestible, one for non ingestible.” Focusing on routes of administration, he asserted, allowed them to consider what part of the body would be impacted, a person’s lungs for inhaled items, or their liver when metabolizing ingested ones. Johnson added this was an approach used by the U.S. Pharmacopeia which had different guidance on contaminants based on routes of administration. Referring to WAC 246-70, he said action levels had been made “based on a maximum intake of product or contaminated product…the original rule set is based on five grams of intake of the product in the day. And other states as well as U.S. Pharmacopeia…their base level is a ten gram per day.” He felt “some higher end users” would reach this level of intake through various products, and that by setting action levels based on a ten gram a day intake, “you're actually lowering that action level of the product, because you're allowing, your denominator is now allowing that person to intake more product.”
    • Mosely was on board with the plan for two action limits based on route of administration, agreeing since the “metabolic route is different, it makes sense.” While he understood the reasoning behind setting a ten gram daily dose, “I'm just not sure it belongs in the rule…almost like you're suggesting that ten grams is a daily dose, which is…actually insane if you think about it.” Moreover, the maximum daily dose was “not actually utilized in any calculation by people who are adhering to these rules…ten grams is actually irrelevant to our adherence to these rules.” Johnson agreed that maximum dose shouldn’t be in rule and the intention of DOH staff had been “by basically increasing what we think is a protective number of the amount of consumption that one may consume in a day…to develop action levels. It makes those action levels a little more stringent.” He noted that WSLCB rules had referenced DOH action levels, but “they have it in a little bit better format and units. And they actually do not call out in their table like we do in our rule set based on max of five grams a day” (audio - 4m).
    • Amber Wise, Medicine Creek Analytics Scientific Director (audio - 3m).
      • Pushing for alignment with WSLCB rules, Wise felt using the same verbiage as that agency would help make it “not so confusing of like, what type of products people are sending in or labeling.” Johnson contrasted the wording used by WSLCB rule in comparison to California, finding it would “help to…define each of these…six end products that LCB has.” Wise emphasized how “I've answered a lot of questions about what kind of product categories things go into or don't go into. And if we have two different sets of language, it's just going to increase the confusion.”
    • Kingsbury asked how HM impacted the body and hoped to see a lower limit on lead in DOH compliant products. He appreciated the need to align DOH rules with WSLCB, yet cautioned “if you're using the same nomenclature that's good, but it can't align completely if you adopt…a tighter standard for DOH product” (audio - 3m)
  • Intermediate Testing (audio - 3m). Prompted by Walker to consider additional questions, Johnson delved deeper into the distinction between intermediate and end product testing. He was curious if there were “more benefit at intermediate level or is the[re] more benefit at end product?” Johnson reasoned that intermediate testing established a “fork in the road for a processor who's making…an end product that's not flower.” Knowing of any heavy metals contamination at an intermediate level let a licensee choose “if it's super duper clean, you can make an inhalable you can make an ingestible…whatever you want. If it's above the action level for inhalable yet it is below the action level for an ingestible like an edible, then you would not be able to create an inhalable end product, but you would be able to create an ingestible end product.” Intermediate testing created knowledge and an opportunity, he believed, while “if it's on the end product testing, then there is no fork in the road, and you're really…limited to what that result is on the end product.” Johnson added there wasn’t “necessarily a right answer.”
  • Terpenes (audio - 2m). Wong described terpenes in cannabis as “biologically active, both in conjunction with cannabinoids and in and of itself.” Labs already tested for terpenes voluntarily, he continued, “but by formally mandating the testing, it will require labs to bring up that methods and that methodology up to the same quality standards as all other mandatory tests.” This would make terpene results open to validation and proficiency testing as well as auditing, yet the compounds didn’t have established action levels as their presence in cannabis products wasn’t considered a “contaminant.” While terpene testing had been entirely the provenance of the labs which conducted it, Wong wondered, “when should we test? What should we test? And should there be limits?” Additionally, he found several states had a “list of ten” terpenes to test for, understanding “labs like lists to go off of, but as long as other analytes are going through the same QC [quality control] processes as…additional analytes they can be added to the screen, too.”
    • Mosely wondered if the idea had been mentioned to WSDA counterparts who were taking on laboratory accreditation responsibilities, since “they don't currently have plans for accrediting to the terpene test.” Wong relayed the WSDA cannabis testing laboratory quality standards that were adopted on April 17th included WAC 16-309-230, “a provision for additional analytes,” which was how they planned to classify terpenes (audio - 1m).
    • Sherman recognized why terpene testing was “a somewhat useful thing,” yet wondered about “making the claim that this is improving the quality of these products.” Saying his business had terpene testing done on their crops, “I've probably done as much, seen as much terpene testing as, as, as anybody and I have a lot of doubts…we should be telling people that this is the information that…is gonna make it better for you” (audio - 14m).
      • Kingsbury agreed that while evidence of “therapeutic benefits of terpenes is lacking, I can tell you, it is nearly universal among the patients I know, including myself, that we like that information.” He regarded terpene test results to be less of a therapeutic statement, and more “providing that information so that the patient can decide, [and] it is a big part of my selection process.” He further noted anecdotally, “things like limonene will aggravate my neuropathic pain a lot and have other effects,” summarizing that listing terpenes "shouldn't be optional on DOH products.”
      • Chuck Olivier, Dimebag Scale Company Owner, agreed with Kingsbury’s assessment of the benefit of terpene testing, and felt the draft language from DOH was an “elegant solution.” He said as patients “try and learn about cannabis and find their way to integrate cannabis into the medical situation, they're very quickly presented with terps as a way to figure things out.” Olivier had also found that terpene results were “a very good check against strain name” in an industry where plants and products could be labeled under almost any cultivar title. He’d also encountered businesses which made terpene claims without having conducted tests, leaving him wanting accountability for the practice.
      • Sherman was appreciative of hearing people’s experiences, but noted other compounds like flavonoids contributed to a plant's chemovars and impacted people’s response to various cultivars, cautioning against “too much emphasis on one particular thing in a really complicated situation that we don't understand completely.” He remained doubtful how much regulation was needed around terpene testing, and had several questions about where to “draw the line” in including compounds in cannabis testing and labeling. “I've stopped talking about terpenes in the way that I used to because I've learned more about the situation and I don't think it's as clear as it once was, or maybe it was never that clear,” Sherman remarked.
      • Ryan respected the "really important point that you're bringing up" although her organization had been among those recommending terpene testing be included in order to be “a little bit more specific” about what was in a cannabis plant or product and give “a little bit more information for patients to be able to make decisions” when considering DOH compliant cannabis. She questioned whether including terpene testing closed the door on future research showing other plant components had medical utility, “or is this one step in the right direction, that, of course, is going to require further refinement?”
      • Kingsbury repeated that terpene listing helped patients know about a product even as he recognized “a huge gap" in what was understood about the impacts of cannabis therapeutics. He encouraged rules to require “the top three be listed unless we think there's more room on the label or unless the processor makes a different choice about adding more terpenes.”
    • Wise brought up that including a QR code on labels which linked to certificates of analysis (COAs) would also benefit patients. “I understand, it's hard to fit whatever requirements already on the label…but it's pretty clear that people, patients or otherwise, are not able to access COAs at the store. And making that QR code on medical products would solve a ton of these issues.” Walker agreed that was a “topic for the next workshop that we work on with labeling” (audio - 2m).
  • Alignment with WSLCB Rules (audio - 1m). Walker referred to the discussion document which attempted to “distill down comments or recommendations that we got” on their rule draft. “Based on what we've heard and how we've evaluated it we…have a proposal out right now for the testing of pesticides, mycotoxins, microbiological testing, and solvents screening to follow LCB and consider higher standards in a future rulemaking.”
    • Kingsbury observed that the intention seemed to be to improve the administration of the medical cannabis program, and added that Alliance members had wanted to “make the costs and the inconsistencies between LCB and DOH protocols to be a lot less daunting in order to provide more products, to make it less scary for producers.” He felt the existing sample sizes and testing had become “too onerous.” Johnson clarified that Kingsbury was on board with the sample size recommendation, including the “sampling size differences that are currently in there.” Kingsbury found that acceptable: “we don't want to have…destruction and then no remediation which I understand…is dictated on the LCB side” (audio - 10m).
      • Ignoring cost considerations, Mosely was troubled by the administrative challenges posed by smaller lot sizes. He offered the example: “I've got a 50 pound lot for LCB… I have to split that lot into an A and a B, and get two heavy metals tests. So now administratively when I sell that…and the retail store really wants to have high fidelity in the documentation because they can face attacks…if they do this wrong. So now I've got in this scenario, I've got three different COAs for what I'm really treating as one lot. And so how am I managing all of that documentation in a way that is easy for a budtender to look at and say, ‘Okay, this is clearly compliant.’” Johnson said in that situation Mosely “wouldn't be sending in…an LCB sample and then subdividing that out or anything you'd be essentially sending in two separate…15 grams samples, and running full, essentially, like full panel for A and full panel for B.” Mosely clarified that they wouldn’t be sending in the WSLCB sample size, but insteading sending in the DOH size, which alleviated his concern, although it “doubles the cost on any lot that's larger than 25” pounds.
    • Speaking to the cost concern, Sherman acknowledged how “a fixed cost differentially affects people that are operating at different scales, and at different prices of production.” He felt the larger tests were “only applicable to a certain scale of growing that's producing that much,” and “it would be actually pretty informative if we could start to understand…what the percentage of, of lots are at different sizes and try to have a better understanding of that spread because I don't have a sense of it.” The price point for cannabis was also a consideration as he indicated “sun grown flower has a lower price point, it's harder to absorb these sorts of testing costs on, on the lower price point.” Sherman hoped officials would keep disproportionate costs in mind, as it was “harder to absorb costs at lower price points for medical products” for smaller growers. He also felt this was “making it administratively easy. So that the process is at least simple, and we don't have a lot of extra compliance costs and confusion.”

• Attendees had several questions for DOH representatives, such as the goal of the rulemaking project, testing intervals, and department authority around storage of certificates of analysis (COAs).
  • Jim MacRae, Straight Line Analytics, began with an early question about whether the rule project improved, or even maintained, product safety standards for patients (audio - 2m).
  • Brooke Davies, WACA Deputy Director, inquired if a copy of the testing flowchart was available. Johnson indicated staff “would love to have a nice little concise table get put out but…we need to talk to some other [WSLCB] folks before that does go out public” since it included DOH interpretation of that agency’s rules (audio - 1m).
  • “Grandma” Cat Jeter wanted clarification on a comment in the chat box by a DOH staffer that batches sometimes left processors before they’d received all testing results. She wondered how consumers were assured “that the sales aren't made prior to test results coming back? Or if they come back inadequate” (audio - 2m).
    • Johnson answered that the practice was “not allowed for LCB” and testing results should be available for retailers “upon that purchase.” If there were reports of that occurring, especially for DOH compliant products, “that is something to bring up to the LCB and maybe even the enforcement side of LCB.”
  • Considering DOH authority around COAs, Mosely claimed retailers had been “really reticent to be giving this tax exemption away unless they really feel like everything is buttoned up.” He advocated for “a little bit of COA requirements [contributing towards] a robust chain of custody that can be relied on easily and simply to ensure…compliant products are in fact compliant” (audio - 7m).
    • Walker didn’t offer specifics but confirmed their team was considering their options. While the rules included a "bright line" on COAs, “we need to do some consultation with our legal staff to help us decipher where that line is exactly.” Mosely read the rules as requiring consultation with WSLCB officials, “but I don't see why that precludes you at all from actually just doing that consultation and writing it into your rules.”
    • When Angell asked for his recommendation, Moseley indicated that Alliance members had recommended that COAs be “more structured and uniform across labs so that it's easier for retail, retail stores and budtenders at the counter [to have] a very clear and easy way to distinguish” if HM testing had been done. Angell replied that was part of their discussion documents and they would meet with interested parties and counsel from the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (WA OAG) to get further input on both the “overlap” and "separation" in COA formats.
    • Johnson stated that this was an issue that they’d tackle in a future discussion on compliant packaging and labeling. He wasn’t sure DOH could dictate COA appearance, but they may require consistent lot numbering on COAs and packaging. “And while we would be tinkering with COAs in this scenario, we would be… increasing that transparency and providing, essentially being able to provide those COAs to someone that's interested.”
    • Kingsbury asked that if the WA OAG determined DOH lacked authority over COAs “I'd like to know who does" in order to petition for rulemaking. “I think this is a really important component because of the amount of live lab shopping that we know happens. I am constantly, constantly surprised,” he added.
  • Sherman had an idea about a DOH data repository for COAs, suggesting “when we transfer stuff internally, we have a sort of API, a JSON standard that we've developed that allows for interoperability between our traceability systems.” Embedding COA information in a similar program would allow staff to “create an API where DOH product had to send that, that JSON to your guys's API, it would incorporate that information.” This could allow for creation of a database exclusively “of all the DOH tested product, present that information publicly, and it would actually be quite simple for you guys to do that, and might…allow for something more sophisticated than just a particular format of the COA” (audio - 1m).
  • Jeter remarked that “twice now I've heard someone say that it is the patient or…consumer's responsibility to check that the product is aligned by batch number with the COA. That can not be, that is failing the first level of consumer protection” (audio - 1m).

• Walker brought the conversation to a close and highlighted future actions around the rulemaking project such as when the window for public comment would conclude.
  • The next workshop would be centered on “labeling standards, logo design, hopefully address the excise tax, getting the policy we have codified.” She promised to publish a summary of what staff had heard, and encouraged people to sign up to follow DOH rulemaking updates (audio - 1m).
  • Kingsbury offered his appreciation for the diligence staff had taken in their rulemaking work: “speaking as a patient, it has not always been that way” (audio - 1m).
  • Walker sent out a follow up for the meeting on July 29th inviting anyone “to send more detailed comments or ideas for rule language” to her email by Friday, August 16th.

Information Set