Innovating Individuality: How Novel Cannabis Formulations Are Changing Industry Strategies
Originally published in the Ninth Issue of Extraction Magazine as a companion piece to a Panel hosted at the Concentration Expo that CB moderated. Please cite as, Bone, CB “Innovating Individuality: How Novel Cannabinoid Formulas are Changing Industry Strategies” Extraction Magazine, July/Aug. 2019, Volume 2: Issue 9; pp. 11–14.
The cannabis industry is no longer just about THC, or even CBD. As more of the plant’s secrets are unveiled, the interest in minor cannabinoids and specific terpene combinations is becoming more meaningful. At Concentration 2019, a panel of some of the leading minds in the industry shared personal experiences and observations to discuss this growing interest in the field.
Participants addressed an array of issues surrounding the cultivation of cannabis; extraction of specific compounds; and the development of new products and processes for manufacturing cannabinoid products. Regulatory barriers are being rolled back while markets are opening up, making these issues timely and relevant for firms of all sizes. While the conversation at hand has been made available through Mace Media Group, this article summarizes and elaborates on the current shift in interest in the field of cannabis.
Each person who spoke on this panel is involved in product research and development, which gives great insight into identifying several persistent challenges across a plethora of sectors within the cannabis industry. Overall the greatest obstacle, and arguably easiest to overcome, is the lack of a shared lexicon when discussing cannabis. From convoluted cultivar names to regionally distinct nomenclature for products such as concentrates, there is a lack of uniformity which poses a prolific problem. In addition, an assumption is made that everyone shares the same experience and perspective. Aside from creating confusion that has hampered consumer education, the lack of agreed-upon industry terms creates an unstable basis for future developments. Arguably most deprecating is the lack of cohesive terminology in combination with the hastily created regulatory framework, which makes developing research grants, procuring materials, and publications nearly impossible.
One panelist, Bryant Jones, a cannabis-focused horticulturist at the University of Minnesota, explained this phenomenon well. Bryant’s concerns were widely shared across the panel, with the small caveat that various panelists approached solutions differently. Although it was not discussed in great depth, some organizations have made efforts to consolidate information and create a guide to accomplish this goal. Notably, the glossary developed by the National Environmental Health Association [1] exists as a comprehensive and noncommercial resource for the public and industry members alike. However, the nature of such a resource is largely predicated on the future of cannabis developments.
Randy Reed, of Olala, who provided the example of the “Cannabis Type” [2] classification system of cannabis, vehemently argued this point. Cannabis typing works through functional differentiation, with terpenoid clustering being the hallmark of Type 1 chemovars [3], has its roots in traditional etymological classifications, and has been a favored naming methodology of some cultivators since the 1970s. While there are merits and benefits to any number of approaches, intense efforts are needed to streamline efforts and improve overall communication between regulators, advocates, and consumers across the industry. Standardization of the current discourse discussed above was not the only call from these panelists. Indeed, across the conference, there was also a clear recognition of the need to create standardized testing and manufacturing practices to help spur continued growth. Ambiguous testing protocols create confusion in relation to the regulation and development of the industry. While the consequences of ambiguous language can be navigated intentionally, the consequences of inter-lab variability and bricolage of testing requirements are much more difficult. Mitigating uncertainty about the contents and quality of plants and products must be an immediate priority, as increasing scrutiny of unscrupulous manufacturing practices has been brought to the industry’s attention by regulators like the FDA [4] as well as civil action against firms across the globe. [5] Unless addressed, these issues present a risk of rejuvenating social stigma and hindering market access, growth, and opportunity. Without change, this will inevitably bring the “green wave” to a crashing halt.
Efforts are being made, industry-wide, to respond to these complicated dynamics, including coordinated lobbying efforts; the development of oversight groups; and the institution of international standards such as cGMP (certified good manufacturing practice) certification. As these efforts come together, firms must adapt and overcome them in strategic ways. This created one of the most spirited areas of discussion for the panel. The issue of creating high-quality, innovative products amidst heightened ambiguity can be broken down into two distinct paradigms: plant vs. property centered. This dynamic shares a mutual understanding of the cannabis “entourage effect” [6] — the synergistic effects of the many plant molecules within cannabis — but diverges in deciding the best way to deliver this effect. “Plant-Centered” manufacturers such as the CEO of Gen X Biosciences, Shea Alderete, and CSO of Abstrax Tech, Kevin Koby, aim to celebrate “what nature created” and preserve true plant ratios in their finished products. Conversely, Tristan Watkins, Ph.D., the CSO of Lucid Mood, is helping introduce the concept of select spectrum products which are proprietary blends and formulas derived from consumer and scientific research.
All of these individuals boast successful product lines and command a wealth of experience and knowledge when manufacturing, which makes these different approaches even more interesting. When pressed on these paradigms, similar rationales were supplied, as both groups saw themselves responding to insecurity in supply chain integrity and reliability. Plant-focused groups see the value of developing vertically-integrated operations and cultivator relationships in order to control plant production and minimize haunting variables such as chemovar drift to preserve a true plant ratio.
Dr. Watkins elaborated that the perceived benefit of formula-focused development was that it allowed for more creative sourcing options and product development opportunities. His reasoning was that his firm was not limited to what plants could be cultivated. Despite these differences, the panel was in universal agreement that effective product formulas and plant genetics are only one component of successful growth.
As recognized by all, the amount of research and current information about this plant and its potential medicinal, industrial, and agricultural treasures cannot be understated, nor can the long road to complete social acceptance. These barriers, combined with the broader social and market forces on development, point towards a future industry that will be data-driven. This perception is widely held beyond our panel [7], and leads us to nuanced and niche conversations about specific products and consumer classes. Even with limited time and a broad focus, panelists made an effort to spotlight trends they felt were worth tracking as the marketplace continues to mature. These observations offered tremendous hope that the aforementioned hurdles to growth and acceptance can be overcome.
For instance, Kevin and Bryant discussed opportunities for businesses to collaborate with universities for targeted research on cannabis. These partnerships help bridge the academic-industry gap that has been formed through the highly regulated nature of cannabis research while allowing companies to center data in their formulations.
Shea pointed to the concept of parallel industries, noting the application and development of terpenes alongside cannabis extracts and the potential for improved testing, sourcing, and product grading. Tristan and Randy both took consumer demographics to heart, with the former crafting functional vaporizer formulas for specific user groups, and the latter finding success in the “recreational market” through the novel sector of cannabis beverages. Throughout all of these endeavors, the panelists focused on developing a robust understanding of the product, process, or market through quantitative and comparative heuristics. Overall, the takeaways were optimistic for the panel and audience alike as global legalization of cannabis becomes an inevitable reality.
References
[1] Cannabis Advisory Workgroup. Cannabis 101: Glossary of Related Terms. Cannabis 101: Glossary of Related Terms, National Environmental Health Association, 2018.
[2] “Know Your Type: Cannabis Classifications.” Substance Cannabis Market, 6 Aug. 2018, Accessed June 11, 2019, www.substancemarket.com.
[3] Orser C. et al. “Terpenoid Chemoprofiles Distinguish Drug-type Cannabis sativa L. Cultivars in Nevada”, Nat Prod Chem Res, 2018, Volume 6: 304.
[4] Commissioner, Office of the. “FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Q&A.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 2 Apr. 2019.
[5] Drury, Adam. “Class Action Lawsuit Against Canadian Cannabis Producer Will Go to Trial”, High Times, January 23, 2019, accessed June 11, 2019.
[6] Russo E. B. (2019). “The Case for the Entourage Effect and Conventional Breeding of Clinical Cannabis: No “Strain,” No Gain”, Frontiers in plant science, Volume 9: 1969.
[7] Bingham, R. “What Should a Cannabis Business Create?”, BDS Analytics, 2018. Accessed June 11, 2019.
