Should Connecticut change mold and yeast levels in cannabis?
As the state considers whether to adjust the required mold and yeast levels in medical cannabis products, patients and others remain concerned about the proposed change and are calling for stricter testing standards.
The public comment period ended last week on the state Department of Consumer Protection’s proposed changes, which would set the total limit at 100,000 colony forming units per gram, and wouldn’t allow any detectable levels of harmful breeds of mold in the Aspergillus family.
As Connecticut prepares to launch its recreational cannabis program, the change would mean increasing the levels for one lab, while the other facility would need to lower its amount after gaining state approval last year for more mold and yeast in its products.
While the medical and recreational programs have separate sets of regulations, testing standard changes will be reflected in both programs, said Kaitlyn Krasselt, a Department of Consumer Protections spokesperson.
The proposal came in December after medical marijuana patients complained about the state approving a request from AltaSci Labs last year to raise its limits from 10,000 units per gram to 1 million.
The approval occurred via email, and patients weren’t notified of the change.
State officials and AltaSci’s lab director have said the Aspergillus requirement makes the products safer.
The other lab, Northeast Laboratories, left its limit at 10,000 units per gram.
Some of Connecticut’s 54,000 medical marijuana patients have expressed concerns over transparency and the safety of the products after learning the state approved the change for AltaSci Labs.
At least two medical marijuana patients who submitted public comments said they have mold allergies. A third who didn’t mention an allergy wrote about getting sick from the products.
“This is medicine, it should have strict standards and the companies producing it need to be held to those standards,” one comment read.
“I am deeply concerned for my health due to the recent update to the mold limit that was behind closed doors,” another person commented.
Others expressed concerns about transparency and communication regarding the state Department of Consumer Protection and the Medical Marijuana Program.
“I think CT DCP & CT MMP really need to improve communication with producers, dispensaries & patients,” one comment read. “Poor communication will limit potential for CT MMP. Poor communication hurts patients.”
Officials from both of the state’s labs that test cannabis products also submitted comments.
Garrett Johnson, Northeast Laboratories president and director of operations, submitted a comment in support of the change.
AltaSci lab director Jose Zavaleta suggested a handful of changes, including that a third party such as a research institution or university verify testing methods are valid and labs retain samples for three months after testing instead of disposing them.
Fine Fettle, a Connecticut dispensary, and Willow Industries, a company that creates technology for microbial decontamination, suggested lowering the limit for total yeast and mold count from 100,000 to 10,000 colony forming units per gram.
Milan Patel, founder and chief executive officer of testing company PathogenDx, also suggested a change from 100,000 to 10,000 units per gram as well as maintaining testing for Aspergillus molds and E. Coli, among other microbes.
Sherman Hom, director of regulatory affairs for Medicinal Genomics, submitted two letters suggesting changes to testing procedures.
The state Department of Consumer Protection has not yet reviewed the comments to consider whether changes need to be made, Krasselt said.
“This is not something we’re wanting to drag out — we’re wanting to get it done quickly, albeit thoroughly and do it well,” Krasselt said.
Attorneys with experience in drug control and drug control agents will likely review the comments. If needed, they may consult researchers and outside experts, she added.
After the department considers the comments and makes any changes, the proposal will go to the Attorney General’s office for review.
If approved, it goes to the Legislative Regulations Review Committee, which has 45 days to put it on the agenda, Krasselt said.