Lab Testing Standardization and CATCH

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.

Here is a link to the announcement: 357 Hemp Logistics Launches Consortium for Accurate Testing of Cannabis & Hemp (CATCH); Selects KCA Labs as First Member

More to come.

14 Likes

Congratulations! I look forward to seeing what comes from this

Excited to see new members join this consortium — definitely seems like high standards are in place!

Who would y’all suggest tests as accurately or close to that of @kcalabs ?

Curious to hear what the community thinks.

2 Likes

XD can I have that answer but for Oklahoma

I know ElSohly and Rose City both offer GC/MS cannabinoid testing, but rose city won’t do intake via mail without DEA forms

1 Like

El Sohly isn’t really a commercial lab… I could definitely bring them in though, I am sure they would be interested.

@kcalabs - thoughts?

I agree that mass spec analysis of cannabinoids should be one of the considerations.

2 Likes

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…

3 Likes

It’s yahoo business, they only focus on buzz words to send stock directions.

Congratulations on being the first choice @kcalabs

It is not a “program” it is a consortium.

Maybe it could benefit from a big brain, such as yourself, joining and adding to the discussion amongst like-minded individuals.

The mission is in the name.

2 Likes

Can I have a seat? I’ll be the neutral referee

2 Likes

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.

4 Likes

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.

3 Likes

Found the chair I want.

5 Likes

@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…

Best!

4 Likes

Iso is a joke, DEA registration is a joke @bigbone.

3 Likes

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.

5 Likes

Yeah I shoudl clarify ISO is great, just no oversight for people in our industry which leads to shortcuts and breaking the SOPs.