• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
Eco Friendly CBD OIL

Eco Friendly CBD OIL

The Best Eco Friendly CBD Oil

  • Home
  • CBD Health
  • Cannabis News
  • Contact

CBD OIL

How Rare Cannabinoids Will Impact Investing

February 16, 2021 by CBD OIL

There is a significant increase in demand for all cannabinoid products across the board—including CBD, THC, CBG and THCV—from recreational users, consumer packaged goods and pharmaceutical companies. And the next great race is on for the hottest arrival to scientific cannabis therapeutics: rare cannabinoids.

Research shows rare cannabinoids are poised to be the future of cannabis investing, providing better health benefits in addition to impacting the pharmaceutical, CPG, nutraceuticals, cosmetics and pet care markets significantly. According to recent reports, the biosynthesis of rare cannabinoids will be a $25 billion market by 2025 and $40 billion by 2040.

The companies that will revolutionize this market are ones with the highest quality and lowest prices, which means that biosynthetic cannabinoid companies will be the leaders in investment and capturing market share. We will also see a major consolidation in this market amongst the grow, harvest and extraction companies, increasing efficiencies and driving down costs.

What are rare cannabinoids and why should we care?

Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV)

Rare cannabinoids such as CBG, CBN, THCV, THCA and others have significantly better and more specific health benefits than just CBD on its own. Biotech companies like ours, Biomedican, which has a patent-pending biosynthesis platform, can produce pharmaceutical grade, non-GMO, bioidentical, synthetic cannabinoids with 0.0% THC at 70-90% less cost. Producing 0.0% THC means that rare cannabinoids can be added into nutraceuticals, CPG and cosmetics/lotions with zero changes in current cannabis regulations. Also, we produce the same exact product every time (not possible through plants), which is extremely important for pharmaceutical companies conducting clinical trials.

Why are rare cannabinoids important?    

The human body contains different cannabinoid receptors that help regulate critical processes, including learning, memory, neuronal development, appetite, digestion, inflammation, overall mood, sleep, metabolism and pain perception. This considerable involvement of cannabinoid receptors, critical to many physiological systems, underscores their potential as pharmaceutical targets.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), just one of hundreds of cannabinoids found in cannabis.

Pharmacological research has uncovered several medical uses for cannabinoids, which bind to cannabinoid receptors. They’ve been shown to help with pathological conditions such as pediatric epilepsies, glaucoma, neuropathic pain, schizophrenia and have anti-tumor effects as well as promote the suppression of chemotherapy-induced nausea. This ongoing research is becoming more prevalent and has the potential to uncover therapeutic uses for an array of cannabinoids.

In addition to the medical field, other prominent sectors have adopted the use of cannabinoids. There is an increasing demand for cannabinoids in inhalables, the food industry and in hygienic and cosmetic products. Veterinary uses for cannabinoids are also coming to light. The use of naturally occurring cannabinoids reduces the need for synthetic alternatives that may produce harmful off-target effects. 

So how does this affect the investing market?

Where there is demand, significant and growth investments follow. All the major players from nutraceuticals, CPG, cosmetics and pet care companies are driving the demand for rare cannabinoids. We are seeing a major investment shift from commodity-based prices for cannabis and CBD to the new biosynthesis technology which offers significantly better health benefits and higher profit margins. Those unique qualities of rare cannabinoids open an enormous opportunity to create new drugs and food supplements for treating various medical conditions and improving the quality of life. This creates a massive global opportunity for all companies in these categories differentiating their products from competitors.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD)

There will be big winners and losers in these markets, but at the end of the day, the highest quality and lowest cost producers will capture most of these markets. Biomedican has the highest quality, highest yields and lowest cost of production in the industry. Which we believe will make us the clear leader in the biosynthesis rare cannabinoid markets.

Which rare cannabinoid to invest in first?

Early reports indicate THCV (not to be confused with THC) could contain a variety of health benefits: it may help with appetite suppression/weight loss, possibly treat diabetes as well the potential to reduce tremors and seizures caused by conditions like multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and ALS.

There has been an explosion of interest in THCV due to its potential health benefits. We are seeing major players in the nutraceutical, health food and pharmaceutical industries clamoring to add THCV to their product lines. Companies can now produce THCV through biosynthesis, creating a pharmaceutical-grade, organic, bioidentical compound at 70-90% less than wholesale prices. This is exactly what the largest players in the market want: a pharmaceutical-grade, consistent product at significantly less cost. The current prices and quality have limited THCV production, but new breakthroughs in biosynthesis have solved those issues, so we expect a tsunami of orders for THCV in 2021.

Filed Under: Cannabis News

Your State-by-State Guide to Cannabis Cultivation Business Application and Licensing Fees

February 16, 2021 by CBD OIL

Finding out what any particular state is charging prospective cannabis growers to get into the business can be daunting at times. Some states make their fees easy to find and easy to digest. Others can take some time digging through page after page on various websites.

Note, too, that some states are not always accepting any new marijuana cultivation business license applications. Those windows of availability open and close at different times in each state.

With that, here are the cultivation business application and licensing fees for the 33 states that allow medical cannabis and, in some cases, adult-use cannabis businesses. We will update this post as fee structures change in U.S. state-regulated markets; let us know what additional application and licensing information you’d like to see on this post.

 

RELATED: Interactive Marijuana Legislation Map

 

Editor’s note: This post was originally published in 2015. It was last updated in February 2021.

Alaska 

New application fee: $1,000

Standard cultivation facility license: $5,000 (Renewal: $7,000)

Limited cultivation facility license (500 square feet or less): $1,000 (Renewal: $1,400)

Product manufacturing facility license: $1,000

Concentrate manufacturing facility license: $1,000

 

Arizona 

Application fee: $5,000 ($1,000 of which is refundable if unsuccessful in the application process)

Initial registration fee: $5,000

Annual registration renewal fee: $1,000

In Arizona, medical marijuana nonprofit dispensary licensees are permitted to grow marijuana. The fee for medical marijuana nonprofit dispensary licensees to move into the new adult-use market is $25,000. 

 

Arkansas 

Annual cultivation license fee: $100,000

Performance bond: $500,000

 

California 

Annual license application fees:

Specialty Cottage Outdoor $135

Specialty Cottage Indoor $205

Specialty Cottage Mixed-Light Tier 1 $340

Specialty Cottage Mixed-Light Tier 2 $580

Specialty Outdoor $270

Specialty Indoor $2,170

Specialty Mixed-Light Tier 1 $655

Specialty Mixed-Light Tier 2 $1,125

Small Outdoor $535

Small Indoor $3,935

Small Mixed-Light Tier 1 $1,310

Small Mixed-Light Tier 2 $2,250

Medium Outdoor $1,555

Medium Indoor $8,655

Medium Mixed-Light Tier 1 $2,885

Medium Mixed-Light Tier 2 $4,945

Nursery $520

Processor $1,040

Annual license fees:

Specialty Cottage Outdoor $1,205

Specialty Cottage Indoor $1,830

Specialty Cottage Mixed-Light Tier 1 $3,035

Specialty Cottage Mixed-Light Tier 2 $5,200

Specialty Outdoor $2,410

Specialty Indoor $19,540

Specialty Mixed-Light Tier 1 $5,900

Specialty Mixed-Light Tier 2 $10,120

Small Outdoor $4,820

Small Indoor $35,410

Small Mixed-Light Tier 1 $11,800

Small Mixed-Light Tier 2 $20,235

Medium Outdoor $13,990

Medium Indoor $77,905

Medium Mixed-Light Tier 1 $25,970

Medium Mixed-Light Tier 2 $44,517

Nursery $4,685

Processor $9,370

 

propagation

Interested in getting into the cannabis industry?

Check out our Startup & Expansion Guide!

Colorado 

New application fee: $4,000

New application for converting medical cultivation facility to adult-use: $1,750

Annual renewal fee (1,801 to 3,600 plants): $1,100

Annual renewal fee (3,601 to 6,000 plants): $1,800

Annual renewal fee (6,001 to 10,200 plants): $3,300

Annual renewal fee (10,201 to 13,800 plants): $5,300

 

Connecticut 

Initial application fee: $25,000

Cultivation license registration fee: $75,000

Annual cultivation license renewal fee: $75,000

 

Delaware 

Application fee: $5,000

Certification fee: $40,000 (paid every two years)

 

Florida 

Application fee: $60,830

In Florida, medical marijuana treatment centers (MMTCs) are authorized to cultivate, process, transport and dispense medical marijuana. A “supplemental licensing fee” of $174,844 was rescinded in 2018.

 

Hawaii 

Application fee: $5,000

Annual licensing fee: $75,000

In Hawaii, medical marijuana dispensary licensees are permitted to grow, process, transport and dispense marijuana. The state does not offer a cultivation license.

Illinois 

For early approval adult-use: Non-refundable permit fee: $100,000;

Cannabis business development fund fee: 5% of total sales between July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 or $500,000, whichever is less.

For new entrants to the market: Craft growers have to pay a non-refundable application fee of $5,000 and a license fee of $40,000

 

Louisiana 

No cultivation licensing process. Two cannabis companies have successfully placed bids for growing permits awarded to Southern University and Louisiana State University.

 

Maine 

Application fee: $300 per patient (caregiver model)

Annual cultivation license fee: $300 per patient

 

Maryland 

Application fee: $6,000

Annual cultivation license fee: $125,000

 

Massachusetts 

 

Michigan 

State license application fee: $6,000

Class A license fee (500 plants): $150,000

Class B license fee (1,000 plants): $300,000

Class C license fee (1,500 plants): $500,000

Processor license fee: $300,000

 

Minnesota 

Application fee: $20,000

Minnesota requires vertical integration, and has thus far licensed two companies.

 

greenhouse cannabis

Interested in greenhouse cultivation?

Check out our Greenhouse Design ebook!

 

Missouri 

Cultivation license application fee: $10,000

Missouri began accepting medical marijuana business license applications in January 2019. As of early 2021, the state is no longer accepting applications.

Read more about Missouri’s medical marijuana industry regulations from Reynolds and Gold here.

 

Montana 

Annual caregiver license fee (up to 10 patients): $1,000

Annual caregiver license fee (11-49 patients): $2,500

Annual caregiver license fee (50 or more patients): $5,000

 

Nevada 

Application fee: $5,000

Annual license fee: $30,000

 

New Hampshire 

Application fee: $3,000

Annual licensing fee: $40,000 or $80,000 (depending on geographic area)

In New Hampshire, alternative treatment centers (ATCs) are authorized to grow, process and dispense medical marijuana.

 

New Jersey 

Application fee: $20,000 ($18,000 refundable to unsuccessful applicants)

In New Jersey, alternative treatment centers (ATCs) are authorized to grow, process and dispense medical marijuana.

 

New Mexico 

Application fee: $10,000 ($9,000 refundable to unsuccessful applicants)

Annual license fee: $30,000 for first 150 plants, and $10,000 for each additional 50 plants (up to a 450-plant limit)

 

New York 

Application fee: $10,000

Initial registration fee; $200,000

 

North Dakota 

Application fee: $5,000

Annual licensing fee: $110,000

 

Ohio 

Application fee: $2,000 (up to 3,000 square feet of cultivation area for a Level-I cultivator license), $20,000 (up to 25,000 square feet of cultivation area for a Level-II cultivator license)

Initial license fee: $18,000 (Level I), $180,000 (Level II)

Annual license renewal fee: $20,000 (Level I), $200,000 (Level II)

 

Oklahoma 

Application fee: $2,500

 

Oregon 

Application fee: $250

Annual licensing fees:

Micro Tier I – $1,000

Micro Tier II $2,000

Tier I $3,750

Tier II $5,750

Medical Canopy: $100

 

Pennsylvania 

Application fee (nonrefundable): $10,000

Application fee (refundable if application is not successful): $200,000

Annual license renewal fee: $10,000

Proof of funds: $2 million, with $500,000 liquid in applicant’s bank account

 

Rhode Island 

Application fee: $5,000

Annual license fee:

Micro-license (up to 2,500 square feet): $5,000

Class A (2,501 to 5,000 square feet): $20,000

Class B (5,001 to 10,000 square feet): $35,000

Class C (10,0001 to 15,000 square feet): $50,000

Class D (15,001 to 20,000 square feet) $80,000

Utah 

Application fee: $500

 

Vermont

Annual fee of $25,000 after the first year of operation

 

Washington 

Application fee: $250

Annual license fee (Tier 1, 2, 3): $1,480

 

West Virginia 

Application fee: $5,000

Annual license fee: $50,000

 

Filed Under: Cannabis News

THC Remediation of Hemp Extracts

February 16, 2021 by CBD OIL

Remediation of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (d9-THC) has become a hot button issue in the United States ever since the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) released their changes to the definitions of marijuana, marijuana extract, and tetrahydrocannabinols exempting extracts and tetrahydrocannabinols of a cannabis plant containing 0.3% or less d9-THC on a dry weight basis from the Controlled Substances Act. That is because, as a direct consequence, all extracts and tetrahydrocannabinols of a cannabis plant containing more than 0.3% d9-THC became explicitly under the purview of the DEA, including work-in-progress “hemp extracts” that because of the extraction process are above the 0.3% d9-THC limit immediately upon creation.

The legal ramifications of these changes to the definitions on the “hemp extracts” marketplace will not be addressed. Instead, this article focuses on the amount of d9-THC that is available in the plant material prior to extraction and tracks a “hemp extract” from the point it falls out of compliance to the point it becomes compliant again and stresses the importance of accurate track-n-trace protocols at the processing facility. The model developed to support this article was intended to be academic and was designed to follow the d9-THC portion of a “hemp extract” through the lifecycle of a typical CO2-based extract from initial extraction to THC remediation. A loss to the equipment of 2% was used for each step.

Initial Extraction

For this exercise, a common processing scenario of 1000 kg of plant material at 10% cannabidiol (CBD) and 0.3% d9-THC by weight was modeled. This amount, depending on scale of operations, can be a facility’s total capacity for the day or the capacity for a single run. 1000 kg of plant material at 0.3% d9-THC has 3 kg of d9-THC that could be extracted, purified, and diverted into the marketplace. CO2 has a nominal extraction efficiency of 95%, meaning some cannabinoids are left behind in the plant material. The same can be said about the recovery of the extract from the equipment. Traces of extract will remain in the equipment and this little bit of material, if unaccounted for, can potentially open an operator up to legal consequences. Data for the initial extraction is shown in Image 1.

Image 1: Summary Data Table for Typical CO2-based Extraction of Phytocannabinoids

As soon as the initial extract is produced it is out of compliance with the 0.3% d9-THC limit to be classified as a “hemp extract”, and of the 3 kg of d9-THC available, the extract contains approx. 2.8 kg, because some of the d9-THC remains in the plant material and some is lost to the equipment.

Dewaxing via Winterization and Solvent Removal

Dewaxing a typical CO2 extract via winterization is a common process step. For this exercise, a wax content of 30% by weight was used. A process efficiency of 98% was attributed to the wax removal process and it was assumed that 100% of the loss can be accounted for in the residue recovered from the equipment rather than in the removed waxes. Data for the winterization and solvent recovery are shown in Image 2 and 3.

Image 2: Summary Data Table for Typical Winterization of a CO2 Extract
Image 3: Summary Data Table for Solvent Removal from a CO2 Extract

Two things occur during winterization and solvent removal, non-target constituents are removed from the extract and there is compounded loss from multiple pieces of process equipment. These steps increase the concentration of the d9-THC portion of the extract and produce two streams of noncompliant waste.

Decarboxylation & Devolatilization

Most cannabinoids in the plant material are in their acid form. For this exercise, 90% of the cannabinoids were considered to be acid forms. Decarboxylation is known to produce a mass difference of 87.7%, i.e. the neutral forms are 12.3% lighter than the acid forms. Heat was modeled as the primary driver and a process efficiency of 95% was used for the conversion rate during decarboxylation. To simplify the model, the remaining 5% acidic cannabinoids are presumed destroyed rather than degraded into other compounds because the portion of the cannabinoids which get destroyed versus degrade into other compounds varies from process to process.

Devolatilization is the process of removing low-molecular weight constituents from an extract to stabilize it prior to distillation. Since the molecular constituents of cannabis resin extracts vary from variety to variety and process to process, the extracts were assumed to consist of 10% volatile compounds. The model combines the decarboxylation and devolatilization steps to account for complete decarboxylation of the available acidic cannabinoids and ignores their weight contribution to the volatiles collected during devolatilization. Destroyed cannabinoids result in an amount of loss that can only be accounted for through a complete mass balance analysis. Data for decarboxylation and devolatilization are shown in Image 4.

Image 4: Summary Data Table for Decarboxylation and Devolatilization of a CO2 Extract

As the extract moves along the process train, the d9-THC concentration continues to increase. Decarboxylation further complicates traceability because there is both a known mass difference associated with the process and an unknown mass difference that must be calculated and justified.

Distillation

A two-pass distillation was modeled. On each pass a portion of the extract was removed to increase the cannabinoid concentration in the recovered material. Average data for distilled “hemp extracts” was used to ensure the model did not over- or underestimate the concentration of the cannabinoids in the distillate. The variables used to meet these data constraints were derived experimentally to match the model to the scenario described and are not indicative of an actual distillation. Data for distillation is shown in Image 5.

Image 5: Summary Data Table for Distillation of a Decarboxylated and Devolatilized Extract

After distillation, the d9-THC concentration is shown to have increased by 874% from the original concentration in the plant material. Roughly 2.2 kg of the available 3 kg of d9-THC remains in the extract, but 0.8 kg of d9-THC has either ended up in a waste stream or walking out the door.

Chromatography – THC Remediation Step 1

Chromatography was modeled to remove the d9-THC from the extract. Because there are several systems with variable efficiency rates at being able to selectively isolate the d9-THC peak from the eluent stream, the model used a 5% cut-off on the front-end and tail-end of the peak, i.e. 5% of the material before the d9-THC peak and 5% of the material after the d9-THC peak is assumed to be collected along with the d9-THC. Data for chromatography is shown in Image 6.

Image 6: Summary Data Table for d9-THC Removal using Chromatography

After chromatography, a minimum of three products are produced, compliant “hemp extract”, d9-THC extract, and noncompliant residue remaining in the equipment. The d9-THC extract modeled contains 2.1 kg of the available 3 kg in the plant material, and is 35% d9-THC by weight, an increase of 1335% from the distillation step and 11664% from the plant material.

CBN Creation – THC Remediation Step 2

For this exercise, the d9-THC extract was converted into cannabinol (CBN) using heat rather than cyclized into d8-THC, but a similar model could be used to account for this scenario. The conversion rate of the cannabinoids into CBN through heat degradation alone is low. Therefore, the model assumes half of the available cannabinoids in the d9-THC extract are converted to CBN. The entirety of the remaining portion of the cannabinoids are assumed to convert to some form of degradant rather than a portion getting destroyed. Data for THC destruction is shown in Image 7.

Image 7: Summary Data Table for THC Destruction through Degradation into CBN

Only after the CBN cyclization step has completed does the product that was the d9-THC extract become compliant and classifiable as a “hemp extract.”

Image 8: Summary Data Table for Reconciliation of the d9-THC Portion of the Hemp Extract

Throughout the process, from initial extraction to the final d9-THC remediation step, loss occurs. Of the 3 kg of d9-THC available in the plant material only 2.1 kg was recovered and converted to CBN. 0.9 kg was either lost to the equipment, destroyed in the process, attributable to the mass difference associated with decarboxylation, or was never extracted from the plant material in the first place. All of these potential areas of product loss should be identified, and their diversion risk fully assessed. Not every waste stream poses a risk of diversion, but some do; having a plan in place to handle waste the DEA considers a controlled substance is essential. Without a track-n-trace program following the d9-THC and identifying the potential risk of diversion would be impossible. The point of this is not to instill fear, instead the intention is to shed light on a very real issue “hemp extract” producers and state regulators need to understand to protect themselves and their marketplace from the DEA.

Filed Under: Cannabis News

Virginia Is Moving Quickly on the Governor’s Cannabis Legalization Proposal. But What Happens Next?

February 16, 2021 by CBD OIL

Virginia, once a conservative stronghold, positioned itself to make history this month by becoming the first traditionally “Southern” state to legalize cannabis, possibly as soon as this summer. On Feb. 5, both chambers of the state’s General Assembly passed their own legalization bills that would also establish a state-run market and licensing system.

But Virginia is running into some of the same challenges as other states pursuing legalization: disagreements over license types, penalties for minors and the timing of the law’s implementation. Industry advocates are also concerned that more conservative elements of the state legislature will prevent equitable legalization in Virginia.

What’s happened so far?

Part of the state’s decriminalization bill signed by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam in May 2020 directed the legislature to create a work group to study the possibility of legalization. Last month, Northam unveiled a legalization bill co-sponsored by multiple state legislators.

Two separate state legislative bills to legalize cannabis—HB2312 in the House and SB1406 in the Senate—have already passed. But the differences between the two bills must be resolved into a single resolution for Northam to sign. And that’s where things get tricky.

Where are things now?

“We’re at crossover. … The next thing that comes is conference,” said Chelsea Wise, founder of advocacy group Marijuana Justice, in a phone interview with Cannabis Business Times and Cannabis Dispensary.

She explained that the conference stage will involve private meetings between delegates from both the House and the Senate to resolve issues between the two bills, as well as changes to Northam’s initial legislation.

“We have two different versions of the bills and they are very different,” Wise said. She highlighted the ideological contrasts between the state’s relatively progressive House and its more conservative Senate. “[The State Senate] thinks we are moving too fast too soon.”

Wise and others have highlighted several key issues that need to be addressed for the state to achieve equitable legalization.

Social equity funding

Under the bill’s current structure, 30% of tax revenue from legal cannabis sales in Virginia would go to the state’s Cannabis Reinvestment Fund, a program to provide scholarships, training and workforce development opportunities in areas hit hardest by prohibition. Wise and other advocates like the ACLU of Virginia believe that figure is not high enough.

“We have taken livelihood from people, and that means we owe people money. … Only allocating 30% of the tax revenue to our reinvestment fund is an offensive offer,” she said. “We are pushing for 70% of those tax revenues to go back into the communities for grants, loans, for programs. … If we can’t even allocate at least a majority of the tax revenue to the people we have harmed now for generations, we are not actually serious about reconciling anything with Black people here in Virginia.”

Underage penalties

Early versions of the bill required that people who are under 21 and caught with cannabis must pay a fine and attend mandatory substance abuse classes. Some believe that the penalty for underage possession should be in line with the state’s penalties for underage possession of alcohol, currently punishable by a Class 1 misdemeanor. Other legislators believe that type of alignment is too harsh.

“We need to get that kid into some help, into some counseling—not jail,” said State Sen. Creigh Deeds, speaking about minors who are caught with cannabis.

State oversight of the industry

Northam has been vocal about wanting to achieve legalization during his term, which ends in January 2022. But the clock is ticking: State law in Virginia mandates that governors cannot serve consecutive terms, giving Northam less than a full year.

Northam’s plans are complicated by state senators calling for extra time to create a new commission specifically to regulate Virginia’s cannabis industry. Under Northam’s initial proposal, that role would fall to the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC), which regulates and operates Virginia liquor sales through state-run stores.

“I think we’re taking a responsible course. This is something that won’t happen overnight,” said State Sen. Adam Ebbin, sponsor of the Senate’s legalization bill.

“This thing is a 1,000-pound monster with tentacles that reach everywhere,” agreed State Sen. Scott Surovell during a subcommittee hearing. 

“We are supportive of the idea of an independent agency versus the ABC,” Wise said. “Our ABC is mostly law enforcement, like many others, … but the fact that it’s going to take so long is an issue.”

Legalization start date

Both the House and Senate bills wouldn’t allow recreational sales in Virginia until 2024. But Marijuana Justice and other advocacy groups are asking the General Assembly to speed up the legalization of simple possession in order to cut down on the number of Virginians getting arrested for cannabis. Virginia passed a decriminalization bill last year reducing the penalty for possessing an ounce or less to a $25 fine. Under legalization, that same amount would be completely legal, while possessing between an ounce and five pounds would result in a fine.

Like many other states, people of color in Virginia—particularly African-Americans—are arrested for cannabis far more frequently than other races.

Data from Virginia State Police indicates that while Black people comprise less than 20% of the state’s population, they account for over 45% of first-time cannabis arrests and nearly 53% of all subsequent offense arrests for possession of marijuana.

“If this legislation is to prioritize stopping the harm of arresting Black Virginians four times the rate of white Virginians for marijuana crimes—if we really want to stop that, we need a July 1 enactment date of legalization,” Wise said.

Vertical integration

Under the vertical integration model, a single company owns every part of the cannabis business, including grows and dispensaries. Supporters of vertical integration generally argue that it keeps costs down for consumers, adds efficiency to the market and upholds capitalistic principles. Opponents say vertical integration shuts out small operators who can’t afford to spend six or seven figures in licensing fees and overhead.

In Virginia, Northam’s initial proposal allowed for vertical integration, which is currently mandated in the state’s limited medical cannabis program. The House bill limits the practice by restricting companies to only one type of license. The Senate’s version allows for vertical integration but charges a $1-million licensing fee to help support the state’s cannabis equity programs.

Wise said that the debate doesn’t have to be black and white. She believes the state can benefit from vertical integration in the industry’s early stages, while providing opportunities to small entrepreneurs as things grow.

“What we’ve been really talking to the legislators about is yes, banning vertical integration—with some exceptions,” she said. “The medical industry is setting up, they could be the first providers, with some guardrails … [like] a sunset provision that once adult-use sales start, the would be backed out of the market.”

What happens next?

Once the General Assembly is able to work out the issues between the two versions of the bills, a final version will be created and voted upon. After approval, it will be sent to Northam’s desk to be signed into law.

Last week, Marijuana Justice and 23 other organizations—including prominent groups like the ACLU of Virginia, Minorities 4 Medical Marijuana, and the Drug Policy Alliance—sent a letter to governor Northam and state legislators laying out specific criteria to “legalize in a way that rights the wrongs of the disparate impact the War on Drugs has had on Black and Brown communities.”

“I would say that we would probably know more at the end of February, at least where the bills are [after] conference,” Wise said. “From there, we’ll decide if this bill is what we want or not what we want. I think we are going to see a big fight, just like every other state.”

 

Filed Under: Cannabis News

The Green Lady Dispensary Navigates First Year in Nantucket in the Age of Social Distancing: The Starting Line

February 16, 2021 by CBD OIL

Virginia, once a conservative stronghold, positioned itself to make history this month by becoming the first traditionally “Southern” state to legalize cannabis, possibly as soon as this summer. On Feb. 5, both chambers of the state’s General Assembly passed their own legalization bills that would also establish a state-run market and licensing system.

But Virginia is running into some of the same challenges as other states pursuing legalization: disagreements over license types, penalties for minors and the timing of the law’s implementation. Industry advocates are also concerned that more conservative elements of the state legislature will prevent equitable legalization in Virginia.

What’s happened so far?

Part of the state’s decriminalization bill signed by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam in May 2020 directed the legislature to create a work group to study the possibility of legalization. Last month, Northam unveiled a legalization bill co-sponsored by multiple state legislators.

Two separate state legislative bills to legalize cannabis—HB2312 in the House and SB1406 in the Senate—have already passed. But the differences between the two bills must be resolved into a single resolution for Northam to sign. And that’s where things get tricky.

Where are things now?

“We’re at crossover. … The next thing that comes is conference,” said Chelsea Wise, founder of advocacy group Marijuana Justice, in a phone interview with Cannabis Business Times and Cannabis Dispensary.

She explained that the conference stage will involve private meetings between delegates from both the House and the Senate to resolve issues between the two bills, as well as changes to Northam’s initial legislation.

“We have two different versions of the bills and they are very different,” Wise said. She highlighted the ideological contrasts between the state’s relatively progressive House and its more conservative Senate. “[The State Senate] thinks we are moving too fast too soon.”

Wise and others have highlighted several key issues that need to be addressed for the state to achieve equitable legalization.

Social equity funding

Under the bill’s current structure, 30% of tax revenue from legal cannabis sales in Virginia would go to the state’s Cannabis Reinvestment Fund, a program to provide scholarships, training and workforce development opportunities in areas hit hardest by prohibition. Wise and other advocates like the ACLU of Virginia believe that figure is not high enough.

“We have taken livelihood from people, and that means we owe people money. … Only allocating 30% of the tax revenue to our reinvestment fund is an offensive offer,” she said. “We are pushing for 70% of those tax revenues to go back into the communities for grants, loans, for programs. … If we can’t even allocate at least a majority of the tax revenue to the people we have harmed now for generations, we are not actually serious about reconciling anything with Black people here in Virginia.”

Underage penalties

Early versions of the bill required that people who are under 21 and caught with cannabis must pay a fine and attend mandatory substance abuse classes. Some believe that the penalty for underage possession should be in line with the state’s penalties for underage possession of alcohol, currently punishable by a Class 1 misdemeanor. Other legislators believe that type of alignment is too harsh.

“We need to get that kid into some help, into some counseling—not jail,” said State Sen. Creigh Deeds, speaking about minors who are caught with cannabis.

State oversight of the industry

Northam has been vocal about wanting to achieve legalization during his term, which ends in January 2022. But the clock is ticking: State law in Virginia mandates that governors cannot serve consecutive terms, giving Northam less than a full year.

Northam’s plans are complicated by state senators calling for extra time to create a new commission specifically to regulate Virginia’s cannabis industry. Under Northam’s initial proposal, that role would fall to the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC), which regulates and operates Virginia liquor sales through state-run stores.

“I think we’re taking a responsible course. This is something that won’t happen overnight,” said State Sen. Adam Ebbin, sponsor of the Senate’s legalization bill.

“This thing is a 1,000-pound monster with tentacles that reach everywhere,” agreed State Sen. Scott Surovell during a subcommittee hearing. 

“We are supportive of the idea of an independent agency versus the ABC,” Wise said. “Our ABC is mostly law enforcement, like many others, … but the fact that it’s going to take so long is an issue.”

Legalization start date

Both the House and Senate bills wouldn’t allow recreational sales in Virginia until 2024. But Marijuana Justice and other advocacy groups are asking the General Assembly to speed up the legalization of simple possession in order to cut down on the number of Virginians getting arrested for cannabis. Virginia passed a decriminalization bill last year reducing the penalty for possessing an ounce or less to a $25 fine. Under legalization, that same amount would be completely legal, while possessing between an ounce and five pounds would result in a fine.

Like many other states, people of color in Virginia—particularly African-Americans—are arrested for cannabis far more frequently than other races.

Data from Virginia State Police indicates that while Black people comprise less than 20% of the state’s population, they account for over 45% of first-time cannabis arrests and nearly 53% of all subsequent offense arrests for possession of marijuana.

“If this legislation is to prioritize stopping the harm of arresting Black Virginians four times the rate of white Virginians for marijuana crimes—if we really want to stop that, we need a July 1 enactment date of legalization,” Wise said.

Vertical integration

Under the vertical integration model, a single company owns every part of the cannabis business, including grows and dispensaries. Supporters of vertical integration generally argue that it keeps costs down for consumers, adds efficiency to the market and upholds capitalistic principles. Opponents say vertical integration shuts out small operators who can’t afford to spend six or seven figures in licensing fees and overhead.

In Virginia, Northam’s initial proposal allowed for vertical integration, which is currently mandated in the state’s limited medical cannabis program. The House bill limits the practice by restricting companies to only one type of license. The Senate’s version allows for vertical integration but charges a $1-million licensing fee to help support the state’s cannabis equity programs.

Wise said that the debate doesn’t have to be black and white. She believes the state can benefit from vertical integration in the industry’s early stages, while providing opportunities to small entrepreneurs as things grow.

“What we’ve been really talking to the legislators about is yes, banning vertical integration—with some exceptions,” she said. “The medical industry is setting up, they could be the first providers, with some guardrails … [like] a sunset provision that once adult-use sales start, the would be backed out of the market.”

What happens next?

Once the General Assembly is able to work out the issues between the two versions of the bills, a final version will be created and voted upon. After approval, it will be sent to Northam’s desk to be signed into law.

Last week, Marijuana Justice and 23 other organizations—including prominent groups like the ACLU of Virginia, Minorities 4 Medical Marijuana, and the Drug Policy Alliance—sent a letter to governor Northam and state legislators laying out specific criteria to “legalize in a way that rights the wrongs of the disparate impact the War on Drugs has had on Black and Brown communities.”

“I would say that we would probably know more at the end of February, at least where the bills are [after] conference,” Wise said. “From there, we’ll decide if this bill is what we want or not what we want. I think we are going to see a big fight, just like every other state.”

 

Filed Under: Cannabis News

New Mexico House Health and Human Services Committee Passes Equity-Focused Legalization Bill

February 15, 2021 by CBD OIL

<![CDATA[

Gathered before a legislative crossroads, the New Mexico House Health and Human Services Committee made its intent clear on cannabis legalization: Social equity is going to be part of the process.

Today, the committee advanced House Bill 12 to the House Tax Committee, while ultimately tabling a similar legalization bill (House Bill 17) that did not include specific equity language. It was a clear signal to advocates and residents that the state is getting serious about developing a robust cannabis program.

The Drug Policy Alliance has regularly cited H.B. 12 this year as a favorable bill that might usher in a more progressive state marketplace. 

“Legalization must be responsive to the lives of New Mexicans, not solely business interests, and that means centering social justice, as the H.B. 12 introduced by Rep. Martinez, Rep. Andrea Romero and Rep. Deborah Armstrong does,” Emily Kaltenbach, senior director for Resident States and New Mexico for the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a public statement. “New Mexicans are absolutely ready to see marijuana legalization become a reality in the state, but they have made it clear that repairing the damage done by the drug war is non-negotiable. Any legislation considered this session must reinvest back into communities most harmed by drug prohibition, particularly Hispanic/Latino, Black and Native populations in New Mexico.”

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “nearly three out of four New Mexicans approve of cannabis legalization with provisions in place to ensure tax revenue is reinvested back into communities, including 94% of Democrats, 93% of Independents and 46% of Republicans.”

]]>

Filed Under: Cannabis News

NORML Calls Upon President Biden to Pardon Non-Violent Federal Cannabis Offenses

February 15, 2021 by CBD OIL

Vertically integrated, multistate operator (MSO) Cresco Labs and its co-founder Joe Caltabiano have ended a multifaceted dispute in a Canadian court after Cresco alleged in a lawsuit that Caltabiano engaged in inappropriate behavior and created a “toxic work environment” while working at Cresco and breached his contract with the company, which he left last year.

On Jan. 29, Cresco filed a civil suit in British Columbia’s Supreme Court against Caltabiano, who was Cresco’s president and a member of its board of directors, and against Ken Amann and Choice Consolidation Corp. (Though it operates in the U.S., Cresco has an office in Vancouver, B.C., and is publicly traded on the Canadian Securities Exchange.)

By Feb. 4, the case was discontinued.

“The claims outlined in the lawsuit have been resolved through a mutual settlement agreement and Cresco has successfully mitigated the regulatory issues referred to in the complaint,” Cresco spokesperson Jason Erkes told Cannabis Business Times and Cannabis Dispensary in a Feb. 11 email. “The lawsuit has been discontinued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.”

“This lawsuit was quickly dismissed on Feb. 4,” Shawna McGregor, a publicist who represents Caltabiano, told CBT and CD in a Feb. 12 email. “Had it proceeded, Mr. Caltabiano and Choice Consolidation Corp would have denied the allegations as untrue. Like all legitimate organizations, Choice Consolidation Corp. has every right to exist and operate within the U.S. cannabis marketplace.” 

In its suit, Cresco claimed that Caltabiano bullied and intimidated female employees at the company and “sought to embarrass his female employees at every turn.”

The company also alleged that Caltabiano and Amann, Cresco’s former chief financial officer and a former senior employee, “misused confidential information belonging to Cresco, including information about existing Cresco investors, and information about Cresco’s business plans and M&A targets” to benefit a separate, competing venture, the special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) Choice Consolidation.

RELATED: SPACs Are Changing the Cannabis Market M&A Landscape

In addition, Cresco alleged, “Caltabiano routinely directed subordinates to act without proper regard for regulatory compliance, and he personally showed disregard for regulatory compliance.” Cresco stated that it had to spend large sums of money to remedy a regulatory issue in Illinois that occurred because of “Caltabiano’s misconduct,” though the suit did not specify what the alleged misconduct was. Illinois regulators could not be reached for comment by CBT and CD‘s deadline.

The lawsuit also claims that when Cresco attempted to remove Caltabiano from various licenses, he “refused to cooperate, and advised Cresco that he would assist with such process only if he received substantial compensation for doing so.”

“In the face of Caltabiano’s intransigence, Cresco took steps to remove Caltabiano from various of its licenses in the absence of Caltabiano’s cooperation,” it states. “Aware that this was happening, Caltabiano actively intervened with applicable state authorities in Ohio and Arizona in an effort to retain or reinstate his position on Cresco’s licenses in those states. His active interference occurred as recently as January 22, 2021.” Regulators from both states declined comment for this story.

The Jan. 29 filing stated that Caltabiano “also enabled inappropriate, harassing and abusive language by male employees under his direct supervision towards female employees of Cresco.”

Female employees came forward with “numerous complaints,” which Cresco “confirmed through internal and externally led investigations, of harassing conduct by male employees within Caltabiano’s area of responsibility,” according to the complaint.

“Caltabiano repeatedly engaged in inappropriate, abusive, harassing and misogynistic conduct directed towards female employees of Cresco,” the lawsuit alleged. “While Caltabiano ‘managed’ … many of the employees through fear, bullying, and intimidation, he repeatedly belittled female employees for minor performance issues, made demeaning remarks about female employees’ appearance and personal characteristics, and sought to embarrass his female employees at every turn.”

Cresco planned to terminate Caltabiano for cause and, in February 2020, placed him on administrative leave, according to the suit, which then states that he resigned on March 2, 2020.

“Caltabiano continued as a director of Cresco until June 2020,” the complaint states. “He resigned as a director immediately before Cresco published its management information circular, knowing that the circular would disclose that he was not being nominated for re-election as a director of Cresco.”

 

Filed Under: Cannabis News

Cresco Labs Ends Lawsuit Against Co-Founder Joe Caltabiano

February 15, 2021 by CBD OIL

<![CDATA[

Vertically integrated, multistate operator (MSO) Cresco Labs and its co-founder Joe Caltabiano have ended a multifaceted dispute in a Canadian court after Cresco alleged in a lawsuit that Caltabiano engaged in inappropriate behavior and created a “toxic work environment” while working at Cresco and breached his contract with the company, which he left last year.

On Jan. 29, Cresco filed a civil suit in British Columbia’s Supreme Court against Caltabiano, who was Cresco’s president and a member of its board of directors, and against Ken Amann and Choice Consolidation Corp. (Though it operates in the U.S., Cresco has an office in Vancouver, B.C., and is publicly traded on the Canadian Securities Exchange.)

By Feb. 4, the case was discontinued.

“The claims outlined in the lawsuit have been resolved through a mutual settlement agreement and Cresco has successfully mitigated the regulatory issues referred to in the complaint,” Cresco spokesperson Jason Erkes told Cannabis Business Times and Cannabis Dispensary in a Feb. 11 email. “The lawsuit has been discontinued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.”

“This lawsuit was quickly dismissed on Feb. 4,” Shawna McGregor, a publicist who represents Caltabiano, told CBT and CD in a Feb. 12 email. “Had it proceeded, Mr. Caltabiano and Choice Consolidation Corp would have denied the allegations as untrue. Like all legitimate organizations, Choice Consolidation Corp. has every right to exist and operate within the U.S. cannabis marketplace.” 

In its suit, Cresco claimed that Caltabiano bullied and intimidated female employees at the company and “sought to embarrass his female employees at every turn.”

The company also alleged that Caltabiano and Amann, Cresco’s former chief financial officer and a former senior employee, “misused confidential information belonging to Cresco, including information about existing Cresco investors, and information about Cresco’s business plans and M&A targets” to benefit a separate, competing venture, the special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) Choice Consolidation.

RELATED: SPACs Are Changing the Cannabis Market M&A Landscape

In addition, Cresco alleged, “Caltabiano routinely directed subordinates to act without proper regard for regulatory compliance, and he personally showed disregard for regulatory compliance.” Cresco stated that it had to spend large sums of money to remedy a regulatory issue in Illinois that occurred because of “Caltabiano’s misconduct,” though the suit did not specify what the alleged misconduct was. Illinois regulators could not be reached for comment by CBT and CD‘s deadline.

The lawsuit also claims that when Cresco attempted to remove Caltabiano from various licenses, he “refused to cooperate, and advised Cresco that he would assist with such process only if he received substantial compensation for doing so.”

"In the face of Caltabiano’s intransigence, Cresco took steps to remove Caltabiano from various of its licenses in the absence of Caltabiano’s cooperation,” it states. “Aware that this was happening, Caltabiano actively intervened with applicable state authorities in Ohio and Arizona in an effort to retain or reinstate his position on Cresco’s licenses in those states. His active interference occurred as recently as January 22, 2021.” Regulators from both states declined comment for this story.

The Jan. 29 filing stated that Caltabiano “also enabled inappropriate, harassing and abusive language by male employees under his direct supervision towards female employees of Cresco.”

Female employees came forward with “numerous complaints,” which Cresco “confirmed through internal and externally led investigations, of harassing conduct by male employees within Caltabiano’s area of responsibility,” according to the complaint.

“Caltabiano repeatedly engaged in inappropriate, abusive, harassing and misogynistic conduct directed towards female employees of Cresco,” the lawsuit alleged. “While Caltabiano ‘managed’ … many of the employees through fear, bullying, and intimidation, he repeatedly belittled female employees for minor performance issues, made demeaning remarks about female employees’ appearance and personal characteristics, and sought to embarrass his female employees at every turn.”

Cresco planned to terminate Caltabiano for cause and, in February 2020, placed him on administrative leave, according to the suit, which then states that he resigned on March 2, 2020.

“Caltabiano continued as a director of Cresco until June 2020,” the complaint states. “He resigned as a director immediately before Cresco published its management information circular, knowing that the circular would disclose that he was not being nominated for re-election as a director of Cresco.”

 

]]>

Filed Under: Cannabis News

Byers Scientific Announces New Company Structure to Deliver Innovative and Sustainable Industrial-Scale Odor Mitigation Solutions

February 15, 2021 by CBD OIL

Name: Philip Goldberg

Location: Frederick, Md.

Title: CEO, Green Leaf Medical

One word to describe your cultivation style: Intelligent

Indoor, outdoor, greenhouse or a combination: Indoor

Can you share a bit of your background and how you and your company got to the present day?

Green Leaf Medical was formed in 2014 by myself and my brother, Kevin Goldberg. I had been running an advertising agency I started from the ground up in 1998 and Kevin was working at a law firm he founded shortly after graduating from Catholic University School of Law in 1995. After forming the company in 2014, we spent the next two years positioning Green Leaf to secure one of a limited number of licenses to cultivate medical cannabis in Maryland. In August of 2016, we were notified that our application had been approved and that we had received the highest score out of 146 applicants for cultivation. We then began the arduous task of raising capital to construct our 42,000-square-foot cultivation facility. We raised approximately $9 million through the sale of equity. The construction took 12 months and when it was completed, we had a state of the art, fully automated cultivation facility. We began cultivating in September 2017 and had our first harvest in January of 2018. At this point, we developed the gLeaf brand that is associated with all our products. The facility currently produces approximately 1,000 pounds of dry cannabis per month. From there, we acquired the first extraction and dispensary licenses issued in the state.

While working to build our brand in Maryland, we submitted an application for one of the limited number of cannabis licenses being issued in Pennsylvania. We won a license in the South-Central region, where we had purchased the former Seaton Leather manufacturing facility. This facility had been the largest employer in the area and economically devastated the community when it shut down nearly a decade prior. We raised an additional $13 million to convert the first 100,000 square feet of the 275,000-square-foot facility into a state-of-the-art cultivating and extraction facility. The facility became operational in April of 2019 and currently produces approximately 1,700 pounds per month of dry cannabis. In late 2019, we sold the facility to Innovative Industrial Properties for $13 million in a sale-leaseback transaction that would free up capital to continue expansion.

With Pennsylvania and Maryland operational, we turned our focus to Ohio. We were successful in winning a dispensary license in Warren, Ohio, where we serve hundreds of patients per day.

Next, we applied for one of five vertical licenses being issued in Virginia. We were successful in winning a license in Richmond, Va., and used the proceeds of the sale-leaseback in Pennsylvania to fund the buildout of an 82,000-square-foot cultivation, extraction and retail facility. Ultimately, we executed on a $20 million sale-leaseback with Innovative Industrial Properties, which completed the construction of the Richmond facility and provided us with growth and operational capital. The Richmond facility can produce 2,200 pounds of dry cannabis per month.

Finally, we recently began construction of the remaining 175,000 square feet of space in our Saxton, Penn., facility. Again, we funded this expansion through an additional sale-leaseback with Innovative Industrial for $30 million. We are building a triple stacked LED grow that will add 5,000 additional pounds per month to the existing 1,600 we are currently producing in Pennsylvania.

All told, our operations in the Mid-Atlantic region reach a population of approximately 34 million. Our facilities and current buildouts will allow Green Leaf to produce nearly 10,000 pounds of cannabis per month.

What tool or software in your cultivation space can you not live without?

Automated irrigation and environmental controls are definitely important, along with our proprietary inventory control and gLeaf live marketplace.

What purchase of $100 or less has most positively impacted your business in the last six months?

Buck boosters for our grow lights. Buck-boost transformers are small, single-phase transformers designed to reduce (buck) or raise (boost) line voltage up to 20%. These units boost the wattage of our grow lights from 1,000 watts to 1,150 watts. The units cost around $125 retail; however, our in-house engineers, Alan and Glenn Mountain, were able to build our own buck boosters for around $40. This has had a measurable, positive impact on our yields.

What cultivation technique are you most interested in right now, and what are you actively studying (the most)?

We are currently migrating to LED in flower so that we can stack our production and lower our energy costs. We are also focusing on perfecting tissue culture.

How has a failure, or apparent failure, set you up for later success? Do you have a “favorite failure” of yours?

It seems like every day there are new lessons to learn, whether it is undersized dehumidification, improperly placed floor drains, rolling benches that weren’t properly leveled or a hundred other things. One of my favorites would be the time a water line ruptured in one of the first flower rooms we constructed, flooding the floor. We thought it was no big deal because we were “smart” enough to include trench drains in our design. It wasn’t until we started pushing water toward the drains that we realized the floor was not sloped appropriately to move the water to the drain, rendering the “smart” trench drains useless. You can bet that on every construction project after that we made sure the slope was correct!

What advice would you give to a smart, driven grower about to enter the legal, regulated industry? What advice should they ignore?

Ignore nothing. There is always something to learn from other operators. Having said that, trust your instincts and develop your own style. There is no one “right” way to grow. Be prepared to get up early and stay late. Appreciate that producing construction plans, raising capital, growing quality cannabis and reducing your cost per pound is only part of running a successful operation. Even if you do everything else right, if you aren’t focused on your employees and corporate culture, it can all fall apart. At the end of the day, your success and happiness will in large part depend on the success and happiness of your employees.

How do you deal with burnout?

I try to keep a good balance between work, family and friends.

How do you motivate your employees/team?

The interaction and communication between our managers/leads and our employees is critical to motivating the team. We also have employee appreciation parties, we offer matching 401k, 90% health care coverage, free mental health services and more.

What keeps you awake at night?

Everything! Employee health due to COVID, plant health, financial well-being of the company, status of pending applications, compliance audits, inventory audits, etc.

What helps you sleep at night?

Having faced so many challenges over the past six years, I have come to realize that there is no problem that can’t be fixed. I may need to bring in someone smarter than me to think through the issue, but with the right people, we can overcome just about anything.

Editor’s Note: This interview has been edited for style, length and clarity.

 

Filed Under: Cannabis News

Why Science Will Drive Future Business Growth— And How To Leverage the Phenomenon

February 13, 2021 by CBD OIL

Over the past three decades, the principal driver of business has undoubtedly been technology. Whether it’s the latest consumer product launch, the newest startup taking the investment world by storm, or developments in efficiencies, tech has been seen as the lightning rod of business growth.

Although tech is still running strong, entrepreneurs and investors who are serious about finding the next big wave of growth should turn to the field that stands to be one of the greatest drivers of growth over the next decade: science. Those who embrace this early and successfully harness this vast potential to create new growth will be the winners of the new science economy.

While science was, not too long ago, the engine of global business growth, for the past few decades, it has lived in the long shadow cast by tech. But today, with a warming and increasingly crowded planet creating major issues ripe for business disruption, a number of cultural, political, environmental, and demographic forces are combining to create a perfect storm for science-based businesses.

In just the past few years alone, we’ve seen scientific research create entirely new industries where there were none before. For example, according to a report by Allied Market Research, the artificial meat industry will grow to $8.6 billion in 2026, from $4.1 billion in 2017–notching a global, industry-wide CAGR of nearly 8% between 2019 and 2026.

Artificial meats are only one small drop in an ocean of science-fueled growth. In fact, the span of this new frontier is virtually limitless, ranging from materials science research creating ultra-thin solar panels and electric car batteries, to genetic research powering companies like 23andMe. And with the rate of scientific advance compounding, the areas that science will open to business exploration will see an exponential rise in coming years.

Just as importantly, we’re seeing progress in the domain of transferring scientific knowledge and discovery from the lab to commercial applications. We’re learning how to connect scientific advances with market gaps, gauge risk related to bringing new science-based applications to market, and train scientists to work in business innovation.

As the CEO of three science-based business ventures, I’ve seen how powerful this model can be—and just how much potential lies in its development. At my current company, Creo, we’ve been able to put an advanced new twist on the quite fundamental process of fermentation to develop microbial strains that produce rare cannabinoids, without the need for any plants whatsoever. In leveraging scientific advances in biosynthesis in this way, we’re solving problems at market, legislative, environmental, and social levels. Our fermentation-derived cannabinoids don’t run afoul of federal laws, don’t involve the substantial environmental costs of a large crop, and, given all this, will make these powerful ingredients accessible to many more people.

Putting science at the center of a business model also offers a unique competitive edge. The high degree of knowledge and expertise required to develop and market science-based solutions enables companies to carve out highly defensible niches for themselves. For the startups that drive innovation, this kind of breathing room from competition is crucial.

So how should entrepreneurs go about leveraging science for growth?

In my experience, these steps are critically important:

Create Real Fusion

Business leaders need to do more than create partnerships with scientists that have complementary skills. They have to build organizations that intertwine science and business. This is about science-minded entrepreneurs working in synergy with practically minded scientists to create the kind of interplay between science and business that can truly impact the world.

Embrace the Importance of Your Role 

Your work will bring you into close contact with incredibly smart people. Researchers may awe you with their technical knowledge. Scientists can make you feel intellectually stunted by comparison. It’s easy to be intimidated by such expertise. But don’t. Just like you need these brilliant scientists, technologists and researchers need you too. Your work of commercializing these complex breakthroughs could not be done without their work, but they could not do it alone either.

Translate the Science into Human Terms 

Science operates in the idealized world of controlled experiments. Yet humans exist in the imprecise, messy world of real life. Understanding that to be successful the science needs to work for real people in their everyday life is foundational to successful commercialization.

Think About Constraints Early

Your idea is going to get tested by practicalities along the way. Materials for product production might be scarce or unsuitable. Manufacturing tolerances may require a change of plans. If you work in a linear or sequential fashion, you might find yourself continually backtracking to rework your idea to meet real-world constraints. To avoid these U-turns, consider the practical constraints as early as possible–start with the end in mind.

It’s clear that science is going to come roaring back to the frontlines of commerce and industry. Those looking to grasp the future will do well to embrace this unfolding reality.

Roy Lipski is Co-Founder & CEO of Creo, an ingredient company with a proprietary platform for producing natural rare cannabinoids without the cannabis plant.

Image Credit: Gerd Altmann

Image Source: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/artificial-intelligence-brain-think-3382507/

Filed Under: CBD Health

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 69
  • Go to page 70
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to page 72
  • Go to page 73
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 116
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

  • Home
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service