The two main subjects up for discussion in DC were the appropriation bill that redefined “hemp,” and the movement of marijuana to Schedule III
This March, I traveled to Washington, D.C. to join my colleagues at the annual ACIL “P2” meeting. ACIL is the American Council of Independent Laboratories, a trade association representing independent, commercial scientific and engineering firms engaged in testing, product certification, consulting, and research and development to enhance public health and safety.
The Institute of Cannabis Science (ICS) is a member organization of ACIL in the Cannabis Science Section (CSS), and I was meeting with them to discuss policy. While the CSS is primarily comprised of independent testing labs, a couple of non-profit accreditation bodies are members, along with ICS.
I strode out of Union Station and straight into my ride OUT of D.C. The conference itself was held in a hotel in Arlington, VA, located with convenient access to both the Capitol area and Reagan Airport. I was arriving just in time for the “Procedural” meeting (the first “P” of P2) of the CSS, co-chaired by Josh Swider (InfiniteCAL) and Zachary Eisenberg (Anresco).
We had a lot to discuss, including several research projects which are in various stages of progress. The CSS has coordinated its member labs to conduct studies which illuminate the realities of commercial cannabis testing, including an investigation of the calibration standards used to measure THC, tests of the purity of products from online “hemp” markets, and studies of variance between buds.
The next day, many of the CSS members joined the Food Safety Section on a visit to the FDA. ACIL’s sister organization Independent Laboratories Association has developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FDA which allows us to do educational collaborations with their scientists. It felt special to get invited into the FDA, which strictly limits contact with most outside groups to protect its independence.
We listened to presentations about food safety research by scientists from FDA and our member labs. It was good science, although the topics themselves weren’t the most groundbreaking. The presentations were primarily about development of analytical methods in either chemistry or microbiology for food testing. What made the session groundbreaking was that we were exchanging scientific understanding directly with FDA subject matter experts.
That’s an incredibly important relationship to have established as the transition of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the drug enforcement act grinds forward. One early step of this process is for the FDA to provide definitions and standards which they might not have the expertise or resources to offer.
The final day of the conference brought us all to Capitol Hill for visits to congressional offices. We were there to educate, not to lobby, and we stuck to our expertise. The two main subjects for the CSS to discuss were the Nov. appropriation bill that redefined “hemp” to exclude many products sold under the moniker today, and the movement of marijuana to Schedule III. In each case, rather than urge particular actions, our goals were to clarify likely confusion. We met with staffers rather than Congressmen/women, because we sought productivity rather than photo ops.
I spent most of the day with Zach and his sister Amanda Eisenberg from Anresco, and Erik Paulson (InfiniteCAL). We visited the offices of Rep. Titus, Sen. Heinrich, Sen. Boozman, Sen. Alsobrooks, Sen. Wyden, Rep. Norton, Rep. Griffith, and Rep. Baird. These discussions were thoughtful, engaged, and grounded in true curiosity about how science could guide their policy decisions.
What stood out most was the level of attention being paid to the complexity of cannabis as a category. We spent a lot of time explaining the difference between naturally extracted cannabinoids and those synthesized by chemistry, and laying out how marketplaces under state regulation diverged from those not. The differences between product types, the role of laboratory testing, and the need for clear definitions were the closest we came to advocating any position.
Trips like this are a reminder that progress in cannabis science does not happen in isolation. It depends on ongoing dialogue between researchers, laboratories, regulators, and policymakers. At a time when we hear a lot of discouraging things about Washington, it felt amazing to have informed discussions with well-meaning people who are trying to get things done. I came away believing that cannabis policy is finally really moving at the federal level; lots of people suddenly need to have well-developed positions on subtleties of cannabis.
I am grateful to have been part of a group that brought both technical expertise and a collaborative approach to these conversations. It was a productive week, and based on what we heard, it is reasonable to expect continued developments in this space over the coming years.
Thank you to everyone who contributed their time, knowledge, and perspective, and especially the Mike Oscar and Kate Schramm of the ACIL government relations team.
