357 Hemp Logistics has created the Consortium for Accurate Testing of Cannabis and Hemp (CATCH) to identify laboratories working toward the betterment of Cannabis sativa, intermediate materials, and finished products analyses. They obviously need accurate testing if they’re moving material across state lines.
We were recently asked to join the consortium and agreed to become a member, so now begins the effort to work toward harmonization.
What is this program? I am confused by this article.
I don’t see anywhere in the article how this program is meant to improve testing. Where are the clearly defined outcomes?
What metrics and acceptance criteria are used to determine if a lab can enter this “program”? They don’t even touch on precision RSD values, accuracy recovery values, proficiency testing z-scores, etc…
Not a big brain, just a bigbone inexperienced lab technician, which seems to already exclude me from the consortium.
I am just curious about the selection criteria. Almost all of the criteria mentioned in the article are already ISO 17025 requirements.
I believe the selection criteria to develop over time and allow for labs to work toward achieving those criteria. Early on they will be simplified as you have read in the article. Then I expect us all to set increasingly rigorous criteria, so we achieve the goal of the consortium.
The two of us probably have the same goals for testing in this industry, so why not join?
I added you on LinkedIn awhile back. I don’t think you have accepted yet.
Well for one, ISO 17025 certification as a requirement definitely separates the wheat from the chaff. The “metrics and acceptance criteria” for ISO 17025 is well defined, so there you have it.
The goals and defined outcomes of the consortium are pretty straightforward, imo.
@kcalabs We have GCMS and LCMS up n running but in EU. Half year plan is to go for ISO.
Can we join this cause… Its our main intent to have harmonization of sometype as we can only help each otherdo better things and identifymore problems that arise every day.
Let me know if theres anything we can do to connect the dots…
Not in my opinion. ISO 17025 requires the use of validated methods but give no acceptance criteria. You could technically validate a horrible method with precision RSD of 25% and recovery values 60% and still consider it a validated method. This would probably be listed as an observation during an ISO audit but wouldn’t come up as a nonconformity.
I didn’t think so until kca clarified about collectively increasing the criteria.
I couldn’t agree more. DEA registration means nothing about the quality of your methods. Just that you have the security measures in place to deal with controlled substances. ISO in theory is a great model but even a lab generating awful data could fake their way through an ISO audit.