Cannabis Regulatory Agency Summarily Suspends Licenses of Candid LLC dba Layercake Farms

Today the CRA sent out notification that Candid LLC dba Layercake Farms a processor in Corunna, MI had been suspended due to a lack of appropriate GMP inventory control regarding inventory of distillate and lack of appropriate notification of the Agency regarding facility expansion activities, and again related to surveillance cameras.

Enforcement is increasing - please be mindful of your cannabis businesses in Michigan. The industry requested enhanced enforcement activities - feel free to reach out it you need help, these kinds of things will continue hitting many people until the pendulum of enforcement swings back.

February 3, 2023 – In order to ensure the health, safety, and security of the public and integrity of the state’s marijuana establishment operations, today the Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) issued formal complaints and announced summary suspensions of the medical and adult-use processor licenses held by Candid Labs, LLC dba Layercake Farms 2, LLC, located at 1850 Parmenter Road in Corunna.

Based on its investigation of the conduct alleged in the formal complaints, the CRA determined that the safety or health of patrons or employees is jeopardized by Candid Labs’ continued operation and that the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action.

“Our licensees are expected to act within the laws and rules that govern the cannabis industry,” said CRA Executive Director Brian Hanna. “The conduct alleged in the formal complaints is a risk to public health and safety and must not happen in Michigan’s regulated marijuana industry and market. It is important that all licensees realize that strong and consistent enforcement actions are now the norm at the CRA and that we will never stop working to protect the public.”

The CRA’s formal complaints allege that on October 6, 2022, CRA staff visited Candid Labs’ medical grower facility to discuss the malfunctioning of its video surveillance system. When CRA staff entered the video room, they observed that 38 cameras were inoperable and showing black screens. CRA staff observed some video footage, but the footage cut to a black screen numerous times for long periods of time. Candid Labs stated that they have a rat problem and that rats had chewed through the video wires.

While on the premises, CRA staff also observed Candid Labs’ medical and adult-use processor business that is co-located on the same premises. During this visit, CRA staff observed numerous examples of non-compliance with Michigan marijuana regulations.

CRA staff observed five tall, cylindrical glass jars with green lids each labeled with “Labyrinth Xtracts Ultra Fine Distillate Oil” and a “Hempire State Growers Hudson Valley New York” sticker inside the yellow storage trailer. CRA staff observed that the tall cylindrical jars were filled to the top with what appeared to be marijuana distillate and were without Metrc tags.

CRA staff also reviewed Candid Labs’ submitted floor plan for licensure and discovered that a yellow storage trailer was added to their medical marijuana processor facility, and that they failed to have the yellow storage trailer inspected by the CRA or receive CRA approval prior to bringing it onto the facility grounds.

Several potential violations were found inside a trailer used by Candid Labs to process marijuana distillate. While inside the processing trailer, CRA staff observed four pots containing what appeared to be marijuana crude and observed nine tall cylindrical jars of what appeared to be marijuana distillate without statewide monitoring system (Metrc) tags. Because the marijuana crude and distillate lacked Metrc tags and could not be tracked in the statewide monitoring system, CRA staff asked Candid Labs’ employees to confirm the source of the products. Candid Labs’ employees maintained that the products were made from biomass kept on the licensed premises.

CRA staff subsequently requested that the marijuana crude, distillate, and biomass undergo testing to determine their chemical profiles. Contrary to Candid Labs’ previous explanation – and as more thoroughly alleged in the formal complaints – the results of the testing revealed that the biomass could not have been used to create the marijuana crude or distillate found in the trailer. When asked by CRA staff, Candid Labs was unable to provide a credible explanation for this discrepancy.

The formal complaints allege 13 regulatory violations against Candid Labs’ medical processor license and 15 regulatory violations against Candid Labs’ adult-use processor license. Candid Labs may request a hearing to contest the allegations in the formal complaints. State law also provides for a hearing to determine whether the summary suspensions should remain in effect.

In addition to the formal complaints which required emergency action, the CRA has previously served Candid Labs another formal complaint, dated 8/10/22, in which twelve regulatory violations have been alleged.

6 Likes

"the results of the testing revealed that the biomass could not have been used to create the marijuana crude or distillate found in the trailer. "

I could they determine this?

2 Likes

Sure. All the biomass would have had specific information entered into the system - either from testing or from strain specific information that had been averaged and aggregated by the system or inputted by the strain creator.

That would then say what molecules would be available with a “maximum total amount” that could be calculated, plus specifics like, how much CBG, CBG, THC, etc. were present. If the distillate products for instance, were all CBG but the biomass records didn’t show any CBG, that would be pretty apparent. If the distillate products for instance, were all D8 but they were not listed as hemp products and there were no records at all of an approved R&D project for conversion of CBD into other products, that would be pretty obvious as well.

Its also possible that the biomass didn’t show any signs of having gone through extraction processes (these are kind of apparent as well, usually…) in which case, it would again be pretty obvious.

Another example - you say that all that cannabis in those trash bags is material that has already been extracted and is waste. You have no record of it being extracted, you have no record of the material existing previously, you have no record of the waste today. The material is still coated in trichomes - so either you’re terrible at extraction, or you haven’t actually done anything with the material, and you don’t have records of where it came from.

Regardless - if the biomass was “waste” that had been used on extraction - and they were trying to correlate the “distillate” that was there with the biomass that was present, it seems like the total quantities of the mass balance were off as well.

This comes up a lot when I go in to see licensed operators. Often their estimates about how much they should be producing are off (even though amazing spreadsheets exist for this…and you can track/trend you own stuff to confirm it…) and so they are making less than they say they should be.

Same could happen here. You say - oh yes, those 50lbs of material waste there, that’s what we extracted those 15 kilos of distillate from. So they don’t need tags because they are “waste” and that distillate is 100% made on the premises and did not come from New York. But you cannot make 15 kilos of distillate from 50lbs of biomass… that would be a potency of 66% THC with ZERO waste. You know?

4 Likes

Sounds like they were slanging converted hemp cannabinoids that they bought in NY then saying they produced it in MI