Challenges and Considerations in OCS Addressing THC Inflation

The recent initiative by the OCS Ontario Cannabis Store to confront the pervasive issue of THC inflation within the cannabis industry deserves commendation for its proactive stance. However, while this step signifies progress, concerns linger regarding its potential adverse impacts on smaller licensed producers and the efficacy of its implementation.

The concern primarily revolves around the possible repercussions for smaller producers, already grappling with survival in a competitive landscape. It's evident that the push for combatting THC inflation has been propelled by larger licensed producers, ostensibly struggling to match the superior quality of products cultivated by craft growers. Instead of focusing on product enhancement, these entities have pursued lobbying efforts to sway regulatory measures in their favor. It been clear from the being of legalization that Big Corporate Weed wants control over this industry, from the production side and the retail side.

Below are some of my concerns that I hope OCS has considered prior to making the announcement of THC testing.

Firstly, there's a query regarding why the responsibility to address THC inflation falls upon the OCS, whose core role is the wholesale distribution of cannabis products. Product labeling I believe typically falls within the jurisdiction of Health Canada. Should the program falter and result in producer bankruptcies, it might unfairly direct blame towards the OCS.

Below are some of my other concerns.

The cannabis wholesaler is keeping the specific threshold secret to help protect against producers intentionally seeking to come in under.

In the interest of fostering equitable conditions, transparency in regulations becomes imperative, as any confidential information is prone to leaks, potentially skewing the competitive landscape. OCS has had multiple issues with data leaks, Do they really want to have the responsibility to keep a such a secret? We know that these secrets will get leaked. The playing field should be fair to give all producers a chance to comply.

The program will only apply to new SKUs entering the OCS warehouse and will not currently include products sold through flow-through.

This leans towards hurting new entrants in the market. What about the SKUs that are playing the THC inflation game? ?Do you continue to let them break the rules? Why not include the products that are on flow through?? Will it not encourage THC inflation cheats to sell on the flow through system rather than general listing. OCS has been struggling to get more retailers to buy through flow-through, will this help drive up sales of flow through items?

The OCS will cover the cost of testing, which will be done through a third-party lab, Sigma Analytical Services. Any products within an acceptable range of variance (± 15%) will be released for sale.?(Note, “± 15%” refers to the variance from the label claim, it does not refer to actual percentage points. For example, a product labeled at 20% THC could be allowed to fall with about 17-23% THC, because 15% of 20% is 3%).

The selection of Sigma Analytical Services as the sole third-party lab tasked with final adjudication of THC percentages warrants scrutiny. Was there a request for tender process for this? The absence of clarity regarding their selection process and the potential for bias or undue influence raises concerns about fair and impartial judgment.

The example formula OCS gave was a bad example. The issue with THC inflation is not happening on products at 20% THC. It is happening on products that are about 34% or above for dried flower and 45 for infused pre-rolls.? At 34% the range of variance ((± 15%) is 5.1. This means the product labeled at 34% can fall between a low of 28.9% to a high of 39.1%.? This is a 10 point swing. It’s far too much. On products labeled 45% the variance would be 6.75, making the acceptable range from a low of 38.25% ?to a high of 51.75%. The swing here is 12.65. Again far too much. How are consumers and retailers supposed to trust the results when the variance is 15%? It’s far too high.

If a producer had a product that tested at 29.% by a reputable lab, they could be tempted to label it at 34% . This could increase the THC inflation game rather than solve the problem.

?If disputed, the OCS will send it back to the same third-party lab for more testing. If it fails again, the product will be sent back to the producer at their cost.?

If disputed, the OCS will send it back to the same third-party lab for more testing. If it fails again, the product will be sent back to the producer at their cost.?

Consideration should be given to an appeals process involving alternative labs to ensure unbiased evaluation, similar to seeking a second opinion in medical matters. If disputed, Any appeals should always be send to a separate lab for a second opinion. Just like You don’t go back to the same doctor for a second opinion, you don’t go to the same lab to expect a different result.

By deciding on Sigma Analytical is the final arbitrator of THC percentages, OCS is essentially saying all the other labs licensed by Health Canada are not credible. It seems like collective punishment for all other labs. This is not fair because there are plenty of great labs across the country. If I owned a lab, I would be offended.

The issue with THC inflation is not just a lab issue, they only test what sample is given to them to test. We know the THC range fluctuates depending on which part of the plant you choose to test. Producers pick the best and most potent buds to test when submitting for lab tests.

Can we not think of different ways to label products instead of by exact THC percentage? In my opinion since cannabis is a natural plant you can’t ever have consistent THC percentage throughout an entire batch. Each plant is different and will produce slightly different results.

Can we not get rid of the THC percentage on the label? Or have a different system that just labels it as low, medium or high THC. We don’t test and compare other fruits or vegetable for their exact sources of nutritional value. Imaging if banana producers started labeling the percentage of potassium in their batch to compete with each other. We would consider that crazy but we are doing it with weed.

At the end of the day, this is not an issue that can be fixed through regulation. This issue demands a multifaceted approach that transcends mere regulatory intervention. It necessitates concerted efforts toward educating and empowering stakeholders to discern quality beyond THC metrics. This would enable a more nuanced understanding and appreciation of the diverse attributes of cannabis products.

Ultimately, the prevailing fixation on THC levels may oversimplify the evaluation of cannabis products. While regulatory measures are pivotal, they should be complemented by educational initiatives aimed at fostering a deeper comprehension of cannabis among consumers and retailers. Such measures would empower stakeholders to appreciate the varied qualities of cannabis, moving beyond the mere focus on THC levels.

?We have to stop focusing on THC levels, that’s the lazy way of selling. The good retailers and producers know a good product when they see it, they understand the cannabis plant much better than the government who are trying to regulate it.