Is irradiated cannabis really a thing? If you\u2019re in Canada, the answer is likely \u201cyes,\u201d and the practice is catching on in throughout the US where marijuana is legal. Even while cannabis producers and the irradiation industry keep assuring us that it\u2019s safe as a means to \u201cremediate\u201d harvested flower\u2014reduce bacteria, molds and other pests\u2014they point to decades of employment of irradiation to extend the shelf-life of food products and keep them free of bugs and pathogens.<\/p>\n
Cannabis consumers should be aware, however, that food irradiation has never lived up to industry expectations since it was approved for widespread use in this country in the 1980s. And some consumer advocacy voices are skeptical that this is the way for the cannabis industry to go.<\/p>\n
Irradiated cannabis got some rare media coverage when\u00a0Forbes<\/a>\u00a0ran a write-up on the practice April 30. The piece focused on the example of\u00a0EOS Farms, a licensed producer in Massachusetts, which uses an irradiating device supplied by\u00a0Rad Source Technologies\u00a0of Georgia. Rad Source is one of the top producers of such devices for the US cannabis industry, with clients in several states, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Michigan, Illinois and Washington.<\/p>\n The article cites proponent assertions that for immuno-compromised patients, i.e. cancer survivors, remediation techniques such as irradiation \u201ccould be the difference between a safe smoke and a life-threatening fungal infection.\u201d<\/p>\n It also notes the special imperative for such remediation in Massachusetts, which has\u00a0stringent regulations<\/a>, limiting the total amount of bacteria and other life forms in cannabis. This is in contrast to states such as California, that just bar or restrict\u00a0specified harmful bacteria and molds<\/a>\u00a0like e. coli and aspergillus.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The story notes other widely used remediation methods, such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide. But EOS Farms went with irradiation because of its supposed lack of \u201cresidual effect\u201d\u2014leaving the terpene and cannabinoid profile intact.<\/p>\n The article acknowledges consumer wariness of \u201cnuclear weed,\u201d but portrays a high probability that such critics have themselves smoked irradiated cannabis\u2014if unknowingly.<\/p>\n The cannabis industry has adopted the practice of irradiation from the food industry\u2014where there has similarly been no lack of criticism.\u00a0<\/p>\n Food irradiation is the process of exposing boxes or pallets of food products to high-energy gamma rays, electron beams or X-rays (all of which are millions of times more powerful than standard medical X-rays) to break apart the bacteria, spores and insects. The source is generally the artificially produced (not naturally occurring) radioactive isotope\u00a0cobalt-60<\/a>. It doesn\u2019t actually make the food radioactive (barring any mishap).\u00a0<\/p>\n Rad Source markets its products as \u201cnon-nuclear irradiator solutions\u201d\u2014meaning that devices such as its\u00a0420 Cannabis Remediation System<\/a>\u00a0utilize an\u00a0electric photon generator<\/a>\u00a0rather than a radioisotope such as cobalt-60. The device doesn\u2019t produce any radiation when not in use, and there\u2019s reduced risk of contamination either through mishap or in disposal.<\/p>\n However, this is a comparatively recent innovation and it\u2019s still the same X-rays that are emitted from the device\u2014\u201cnon-radioisotopic\u201d might be the better term than \u201cnon-nuclear,\u201d strictly speaking. Concerns about disposal\u00a0were raised<\/a> after the Goi\u00e2nia accident<\/a> in Brazil in 1987, when discarded radiological materials were found and handled by local residents, resulting in the deaths of four people and the contamination of some 200.<\/p>\n Irradiators that use cobalt-60 fall under the\u00a0oversight of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission<\/a>, and this method has long been the norm in the industry. The process has been around for the past 60 years but was for the first three decades largely\u00a0under study by the US Army<\/a>, and only slowly taken up for study by the commercial sector. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA)\u00a0permitted<\/a>\u00a0the use of irradiation for potatoes and wheat in the 1960s, but it wasn\u2019t widely adopted.\u00a0<\/p>\n At first, the process was explicitly portrayed as a commercial use for nuclear waste products. It was the US\u00a0Energy Department, which produces nuclear weapons<\/a> for the Pentagon, that funded the irradiation test facilities and provided them with radioactive isotopes. A 1982 editorial boosting food irradiation in the Toronto Globe & Mail<\/em>, cited in a study\u00a0on the website of the International Atomic Energy Agency<\/a>, explicitly stated: \u201cAcceptance of gamma processing would mean a great deal to the troubled nuclear industry, which is aggressively marketing the process as a means of selling the by-products of nuclear research.\u201d<\/p>\n Irradiation was only\u00a0approved by the FDA<\/a>\u00a0for general use in the US food industry in 1986. This approval was met with protest by many consumer advocates, who noted\u00a0studies finding<\/a>\u00a0that radiation can\u00a0reduce nutrients<\/a>\u00a0and create \u201cunique radiolytic products<\/a>\u201d in the treated organic material. Formaldehyde has been found to form in irradiated starch, benzene in meat, peroxides in plant tissues and formic acid in sucrose. These are of varying toxicity (benzene is a carcinogen), and the quantities produced were found to be acceptably small by the FDA. But\u00a0studies also found<\/a>\u00a0that irradiation can paradoxically\u00a0increase<\/em>\u00a0the susceptibility of treated foods to carcinogenic aflatoxins.<\/p>\n In 1986, the FDA regulators approved to require that all irradiated foods must display the international symbol for irradiation. The\u00a0FDA website states<\/a>: \u201cLook for the Radura symbol along with the statement \u2018Treated with radiation\u2019 or \u2018Treated by irradiation\u2019 on the food label.\u201d<\/p>\n The Radura was certainly designed by slick PR pros. It\u2019s an innocuous stylized image of a flower in a circle, with no hint of any symbology (e.g., the atom, the radioactivity warning sign) popularly associated with radiation. And, significantly, there were loopholes: Ingredients in processed foods, and all spices, are exempt from the labeling requirement.<\/p>\n Yet, you\u2019ve probably never seen the Radura in any supermarket. Why? Consumer advocacy group\u00a0Food & Water Watch<\/a>\u00a0offers some possible reasons. They report that consumer feedback indicated that taste and texture were both negatively impacted, especially in irradiated meats. And there was apparently reluctance to purchase even irradiated vegetables.<\/p>\n A 2006\u00a0Food & Water Watch report<\/a>\u00a0on the state of food irradiation found \u201can industry in free fall.\u201d It stated that \u201cthe food irradiation industry appears dead in the water\u2014at least for now. Very few irradiated items are actually sold to consumers, representing a virtually invisible fraction of food sales nationwide.\u201d<\/p>\n The report noted that what had been the industry\u2019s leading company, SureBeam,\u00a0filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy<\/a>\u00a0(complete liquidation, not reorganization) in 2004.\u00a0<\/p>\n In approving the process, the\u00a0FDA itself noted<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cirradiation causes certain changes in foods\u2026that\u2026can affect the flavor or texture\u2026in a way that may be unacceptable to some consumers.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed the industry\u2019s own\u00a0Food Irradiation Update Newsletter<\/a>\u00a0reports that of irradiated food products marketed in the US in 2010, spices accounted for the overwhelming majority\u201480,000 tons out of 103,000. Not coincidentally, we may assume, that<\/em> product doesn\u2019t have to be labeled.<\/p>\n After the 2001 anthrax terror attacks, in which deadly spores were mailed to Congressional offices, incoming mail at targeted federal buildings in Washington, DC was treated with massive doses of radiation\u2014far greater, it must be noted, than those typically used in the food industry. Mailroom handlers\u00a0started complaining<\/a>\u00a0of skin irritation, headaches and nausea, as well as tingling, bleeding and a metallic taste in their mouths. These reports dealt a further blow to food irradiation\u2019s public image.<\/p>\n Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the\u00a0Center for Food Safety, reached by Cannabis Now, states flatly: \u201cStores didn\u2019t want to display that symbol.\u201d<\/p>\n Generally skeptical of the practice, he also stresses that any handling of radioactive materials poses risks. \u201cYou don\u2019t want workers being irradiated, in addition to the problems with the food.\u201d<\/p>\n Hanson ultimately believes the entire mentality represented by irradiation and other forms of remediation is backwards. \u201cWe believe there are ways to keep our food safe without irradiation,\u201d he says. \u201cKilling the pathogens after they\u2019re in our food is the wrong approach. The FDA should be working to make sure the pathogens don\u2019t get into our food in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n A similar perspective is advanced by Kyle Baker, co-founder of Illinois-based\u00a0Ecobuds, an industrial hygiene service for indoor cultivation facilities, and its newly launched sibling company\u00a0CleanTheory, offering similar expertise for hydroponic horticulture.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Baker acknowledges that irradiation \u201cis generally regarded as safe\u201d and is an \u201cacceptable form of pathogen removal\u201d along with alternatives such ozonation\u2014exposing product to ozone. But he adds: \u201cThere\u2019s degradation of materials in any type of remediation. Ozonation creates formaldehyde from organic compounds, which you don\u2019t want to breathe in. Even irradiation isn\u2019t fully successful without a very large dose, thereby decreasing product quality. By definition, remediation means the product didn\u2019t meet quality standards acceptable for market.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Baker continues. \u201cThe ultimate control mechanism is prevention or avoidance,\u201d he says. \u201cThat\u2019s why our focus is making sure facilities are clean, using Good Manufacturing Practice. We need GMP standards for the cannabis industry to make sure we\u2019re putting out product as safely as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n For Baker\u2019s business, this means treating equipment and facilities (not the actual product) with chlorine dioxide, and consulting on best practices. \u201cWe make sure clients change the filters in HVAC systems, and supply them with equipment to increase filtration, increase the air changes per hour. This is what helps clients have less disease and a safer product that complies with standards and is safe for employees.\u201d<\/p>\n Baker sees this in terms of managing the \u201cbioaerosol process system\u201d\u2014the relationship between soil, water, air and light\u2014to replicate natural conditions.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the outdoors, lightning strikes create ozone that kills airborne bio-aerosols. There are natural things that occur on Earth that keep a check on antagonists. We try to recreate that balance, for instance, by making sure fertigation systems are clean,\u201d he says, referring to irrigation systems that also deliver fertilizers.<\/p>\n The Phoenix-based Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS) is working to build an eventual federal framework for a legalized industry. FOCUS is in a formal partnership in this endeavor with the Association of Food & Drug Officials (AFDO), an organization that\u00a0dates back\u00a0to the establishment of federal regulation of these industries with passage of the 1906\u00a0Pure Food & Drugs Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n Lezli Engelking, president of FOCUS since its 2014 founding, has this blunt assessment about irradiated cannabis: \u201cMy assumption is that it\u2019s way more common than it should be.\u201d<\/p>\n In Engelking\u2019s view, an overemphasis on remediation reflects the vacuum in federal regulation.<\/p>\n \u201cUsually, there\u2019s a federal agency that provides guidelines for an industry\u2014whether it\u2019s the FDA, EPA or USDA,\u201d she says. \u201cBut cannabis is only regulated at the state level, without any federal oversight. With voter initiatives, states had to build programs from scratch, often by people with no background in cannabis. So, there weren\u2019t any guidelines, just testing requirements. Cannabis producers have more rules and regulations than the oil and gas industry, but no official guidelines for how to conform to them. If the product doesn\u2019t meet standards, small farmers who can\u2019t afford to sacrifice a harvest have to remediate. But remediation is reactive in nature. If they did things right the first time, they wouldn\u2019t have to remediate.\u201d<\/p>\n The lack of federal oversight also means that irradiated cannabis policy is left to the states\u2014few of which seem to have provided much clarity. Nevada attempted to impose labeling of irradiated cannabis with the Radura. But Rad Source petitioned the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board to drop this requirement, noting that the FDA labeling rule only applies to food, not drugs\u2014and arguing that cannabis is a drug, not a food. The requirement was\u00a0indeed dropped<\/a>.<\/p>\n Engelking also notes that while the FDA categorizes irradiation as \u201cgenerally recognized as safe\u201d (GRAS<\/a>), \u201cit\u2019s recognized as safe for\u00a0the way its being used<\/em>. But if you\u2019re smoking flower that\u2019s been treated, it\u2019s different from food. There\u2019s a lot of research on this in the food industries, but not the cannabis industry. When you combust and inhale something, it\u2019s a different reaction, and there\u2019s not a lot of good data yet. We need better data on whether irradiated cannabis changes the chemical profile of the flower, and whether it impacts the terpene and cannabinoid profile, too.\u201d<\/p>\n She concludes by emphasizing what she said a few minutes ago: \u201cIf operators knew how to prevent growing cannabis with mold or pests, they wouldn\u2019t even have to go through that step.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The absence of unified national standards is especially critical where the question of organic certification is concerned. USDA standards\u00a0don\u2019t consider irradiated foods organic<\/a>. But of course, there\u2019s no legal organic certification for the cannabis industry in the US because of its federally prohibited status.\u00a0<\/p>\n One of the few studies on the effects of irradiated cannabis was undertaken in 2016 by Dutch\u00a0researcher\u00a0Arno Hazekamp and published in the journal\u00a0Frontiers in Pharmacology<\/a>. It found: \u201cThe effect of gamma-irradiation was limited to a reduction of some terpenes present in the cannabis but keeping the terpene profile qualitatively the same. Based on the results presented in this report, gamma irradiation of herbal cannabis remains the recommended method of decontamination, at least until other more generally accepted methods have been developed and validated.\u201d<\/p>\n In an implicit acknowledgement of continued consumer wariness, the study noted that the corporate euphemism game is continuing in Canada: \u201cTo cushion the impact on their customers, the obscuring term \u2018cold pasteurization\u2019 was introduced when, in fact, gamma irradiation treatment was applied.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Federal legalization has made cannabis irradiation far more widespread in Canada than the US. Health Canada<\/a> officially recommends irradiated cannabis as a method of marijuana remediation.\u00a0Canadian cannabis regulations<\/a>\u00a0do mandate that edibles made from irradiated bud be labeled\u2014although not smokable or vape products. Yet, in a seeming contradiction, Canada\u2019s\u00a0food irradiation regulations<\/a>\u00a0are far more restrictive than those in the US\u2014only potatoes, onions, wheat and flour may be irradiated.<\/p>\n Clearly, many more studies are needed. But Ronnie Cummins, international director of\u00a0Organic Consumers Association, tells Cannabis Now: \u201cWe wouldn\u2019t recommend allowing irradiated cannabis to be considered organic. USDA rules on organic production and labeling, the culmination of a decades-long mass grassroots-based consumer and farmer campaign, prohibit the use of GMOs, toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sewage sludge and irradiation in organic production.\u201d<\/p>\n Pointing to his group\u2019s \u201cWhat\u2019s Wrong with Food Irradiation<\/a>\u201d page, Cummins says: \u201cIrradiation of foods, fiber and cannabis products, utilizing the waste products of the nuclear industry, pose serious risks for human health and the environment, and serve to legitimize the dangerous practices of the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries. The Organic Consumers Association urges cannabis growers to avoid irradiation and instead to certify their products as \u2018USDA Organic\u2019\u2014thereby guaranteeing consumers that their cannabis is free of GMOs, toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sewage sludge and irradiation.\u201d<\/p>\n The post Irradiated Cannabis is Real: Now What?<\/a> appeared first on Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Is irradiated cannabis really a thing? If you\u2019re in Canada, the answer is likely \u201cyes,\u201d and the practice is catching on in throughout the US where marijuana is legal. Even while cannabis producers and the irradiation industry keep assuring us that it\u2019s safe as a means to \u201cremediate\u201d harvested flower\u2014reduceContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":190,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[50,16230,16231,1170,6861,16232,16233,16234,16235,16236,536],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55157"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/190"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55157"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55157\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55158,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55157\/revisions\/55158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Origins in the Military-Industrial Complex<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Consumers Say \u201cNo\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Preventative Principle<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Is <\/strong>Irradiated Cannabis Organic?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
\nRead More: Irradiated Cannabis is Real: Now What?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"