Sustainability Series- Part 3 (Pesticides)
The Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Pesticide Regulation
This article is part three of a five-part series exploring the environmental challenges inherent in the existing model of cannabis legality. Previously, we addressed concerns regarding the ecological impacts of packaging waste in the production of cannabis products. This article will analyze the use of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides in the recreational cannabis market.
Agricultural pesticide use is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Owing to the federally prohibited status of cannabis and its by-products, states have had to devise policies regulating the use of potentially harmful chemicals on cannabis plants without the benefit of rigorous data that classically informs pesticide policy. This has resulted in a diversification of testing protocols between neighboring states. For instance, California and Oregon each outline different requirements for the testing of residual pesticides in recreational cannabis products, such that some pesticides are only tested in one state and not the other. Washington State is unique since I-502 does not designate any mandatory pesticide screening requirements for recreational products. WAC 246-70-050 and WAC 314-55-102 dictate “quality assurance testing” for cannabis products sold in retail dispensaries, which include laboratory testing for “potency analysis” (cannabinoid profile), moisture analysis, foreign matter, microbial contaminants, mycotoxins, residual solvents, and heavy metals. While testing for these undesirable by-products is extensive, the lack of pesticide testing leaves Washington consumers in the dark.
The application of pesticides on cannabis products is especially concerning, since smoking is the most common method of ingestion. The health effects of smoking pesticides are still unknown due to a lack of clinical research, which presents yet another hurdle in the regulation and legalization of cannabis. Meanwhile, cannabis grow operations delicately maintain hundreds of thousands- sometimes millions- of dollars worth of cannabis crops. From a producer standpoint, the application of relatively inexpensive pesticides that could potentially save thousands of dollars in lost yields is a no-brainer. Thus, even in states where cannabis pesticide application is strictly regulated, cannabis material is frequently tainted with residual pesticides. Increased popularity of extracts, such as dabs or vape cartridges, are of particular concern because the residual pesticide contaminants may potentially be concentrated along with the cannabinoids.
In California, laboratory tests of cannabis samples reveal alarming amounts of chemicals in the medical marijuana sold in dispensaries. Throughout a thirty day period in October of 2016, 84.3 percent of cannabis samples tested at Steep Hill Labs in Berkeley tested positive for pesticides. In 2018, Sequoia Analytical Labs, a Sacramento-based pesticide testing company, made headlines when they were busted for falsifying reports on nearly 700 batches of cannabis, claiming the batches passed tests for 22 pesticides. Clearly, even pro-cannabis states with strict pesticide laws and testing requirements, such as California, are struggling to curb the widespread application of pesticides. The lack of testing requirements in Washington altogether is therefore rather alarming. To address these concerns, cannabis regulators in Washington state held a digital public hearing in 2020 to collect comments from stakeholders about proposed rules that would require the addition of pesticide testing for all cannabis products. According to an LCB study, the agency estimates it will cost producers and processors $3,450 per month, or $41,400 annually, to comply with the new rules.
A state industry group, the Washington Sungrowers Industry Association, claims the costs are estimated at $400 per test.” The new rules will be implemented in August 2021, if approved.
The lack of pesticide screening requirements in Washington State include environmental and public health risks (which are closely interrelated nonetheless). Existing best practices include the application of biologically derived pesticide products (e.g., microbial pesticides or compost tea), along with the implementation of integrated pest management methods (e.g., the introduction of predatory insect species). Unfortunately, the lack of proper and consistent analytics testing prevents Washington cannabis buyers from ever being completely assured of the cleanliness of their herb. Until proposals that mandate pesticide screening are fully implemented, customers must rely on the willingness of producer/processors to accurately and honestly disclose pest control methods.