Thank you!
I’m not in the processing field on this project, but I appreciate it! Im working with an OEM to develop their systems. They have customers who desire the sCO2 chroma and our compliance standards will be pharma level. A lot of folks don’t realize that big pharma is a vulture in the rafters, and these systems should be prepared to meet those standards, especially so that they are not exclusive to the suits.
Absolutely, especially in the pharmaceutical realm. That’s a HUGE market and Big Pharma is a pack of vultures.
Compliance seems to slip through the crack for many people and processors. Regulations are coming and the more this market is adopted by the public, the more strict things will get. It’s inevitable.
Some processors are fine meeting their bottom line with what they have and are successful with it. Others see the compliance gap and are filling that void and preparing for the long-term. It will come down to recreational products and high-quality pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products.
neutracutical isn’t a real thing, just another marketing term
hydrocarbons only contain hydrogen and carbon…
Bingo. Thank you!
We’re in agreement on that. When I hear the claim that Thar uses hydrocarbon assisted CO2, it doesn’t immediately bring ethanol to mind, because nobody refers to ethanol as a hydrocarbon regularly.
I guess we can call it an anti-buzz word. Whether or not OP was trying to use it as such is up to the reader.
That’s my business and where I specialize; compliance in engineering.
I built and designed a fully automatic cGMP, GAMP5 and 21 CFR Part 11 ready automation software imbedded in the original control system of a massive sCO2 extraction system. My father was in controls engineering to the highest of standards (petrochemical, federal, steel mills, power generation, etc.) and I took what I learned there and applied it to hemp.
Compliance will destroy those that don’t start planning yesterday. Don’t let big pharma come in and wipe the independents off the board.
Let alone the fact that OSHA could be deployed on every single processor at any time when the government pleases. I guarantee that most of the processors handling explosives would get slapped with tens of not thousands of dollars in violations. I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes and the facility was only testing a skid, not processing. This is incredibly serious stuff and so many in this industry do not or will not understand those regulations, let alone adhere to them.
well, OP seems to like buzzwords, they have used at least 2 so far
and is trying to hard sell with the big pharma line
if big pharma comes after the canna industry spending a ton on CO2 shit isn’t gonna save anyone. Pharma has deep pockets and can simply pay a politician to put you out of business, no matter what fancy overpriced equipment you buy
It’s explosive and toxic. Vaporized, it can kill you. You can get your stomach pumped from drinking too much EtOH, but when it’s in your bloodstream your only recourse is dialysis, that is if you haven’t inhaled enough of it to kill you by the time you get your blood pumped through an external filter.
Handling the chemical is a completely different game, too. Better have a quality air handling system (at least $150,000 for a small room in a lab/hood) or a ridiculously oversized warehouse. Then comes the facility location and local fire codes. Then you’re paying for all of your equipment and instrumentation to be explosion proof. I can assure you that a purged control panel is far more expensive in comparison to a standard box. On top of that, you’re also looking at a lot more strict and lengthy calibration methods.
In lieu of the argument on the semantics of CO2 being referred to as “solventless”, I’d argue that calling EtOH an alcohol in the context of processing is equally as erroneous and misleading for consumers and processors.
You’re woefully misled in that statement. In terms of compliance alone, there is a distinct difference and cost for production.
there is no legal concept of a nutracutical in the usa. There are foods, drugs, and dietary supplements
the only mentions of the word on the fda website are in warning letters to companies
its a marketing buzzword
Lmao excuse me? You must be drinking too much hydrocarbons today because that makes absolutely no sense. (See what I did there? Did you drink gasoline, LPG or ethanol?)
Here’s part of an article from Cole Parmer, a giant in scientific equipment:
Typically, high-proof alcohols (190 and 200) have been used for extraction applications. Ethanol is emerging as one of the more popular solvents, because it is safe for infused edibles and compatible with any type of container. Ethanol also provides consistent results while being easily recoverable.
Absolutely they can, but the businesses of hemp and cannabis extraction/processing/post-processing call for very different needs.
Ethanol will give you advantages one place and sCO2 will give you advantages in another. It’s all about your customers and business plan.
Context is a bit different for you and I, then. In the explicit sense of misleading a lay person, there are opinions. In the context of trying to say one method Is superior to another, there are inconsistencies. In terms of semantics, there is a discussion to have, and you picked up on that.
Friend, the FDA may not regulate nutraceuticals, but the compliance regulations are there. The FDA isn’t the only regulatory commission.
Dietary supplements and nutraceuticals are synonymous. For example, general audit trailing and compliance standards should meet 21 CFR Part 11 guidelines, yet there are separate guidelines for nutraceuticals: 21 CFR Part 111; and for pharmaceuticals: 21 CFR Part 211.
eCFR :: 21 CFR Part 111 -- Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements is the guidelines for Dietary Supplements. The buzzword “nutraceutical” doesn’t appear in the document one time.
Anyone else get the impression that they are talking to a used car salesman?
the word didn’t even exist until 1989 when it was coined by Stephen L. DeFelice, and has been used ever since by him and those who wish to sell dietary supplements
and more than a few of DeFelice’s opinions are borderline quackery
There’s no need or room for ‘layperson semantics’ when you’re talking rigidly defined scientific nouns. Ethanol is absolutely an alcohol, note the hydroxyl group and the definition of an alcohol.
even the laity knows ethanol is an alcohol for that matter
a layperson would call YOU the moron for calling etho a hydrocarbon. Then they would take a shot and swallow, then another and light it on fire as they spit it at you…
Organic chemical names are thoroughly defined and regulated. Organic chemists love naming systems so much there are several of them.
Hydrocarbons have only carbon and hydrogen. Want to add oxygen? It’s going to end up an alcohol, ether, ester, keytone, lactam, etc.
That much is universally accepted.