Should Cannabis Be Organic?
The term “organic” can be found widely used in the cannabis space, in website copy, advertising, and in casual conversations. Organic is a term that is, perhaps, most often associated with the produce at certain high-end grocery stores or at the local farmers’ market. But what does it mean in relation to cannabis?
Even though a lot of cannabis is grown in high-tech greenhouses by technicians in lab coats and is regulated like nuclear waste, let us not forget that this just a plant that grows quite well at your local farm or in your backyard garden. It seems like cannabis could, and should, be organic, right?
What Does “Organic” Mean?
Organic is often used as a synonym for adjectives like green, natural, healthy, not-made-in-a-laboratory and not-covered-in-nasty-chemicals. But what we are talking about here is the kind of organic you find on food labels in the grocery store: USDA Certified Organic.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets very specific rules to determine what plant and food products can be labelled organic. The produce must be grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances includes most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic does not mean that no pesticides were used – there is a list of permitted substances that organic farmers may use to combat pests and disease, but they are deemed to have sufficiently low-risk to the health of humans and the environment. The organic certification also prohibits the use of genetically modified organisms. The rules defining what can be called organic are determined by the federal government.
At this point you may see the problem: the federal government decides what is and is not organic. And the federal government still insists that cannabis is illegal. This means that cannabis cannot be certified organic. Do not expect the feds to be handing out organic certifications for something that you cannot legally grow, own, or sell. The issue goes beyond the legal/illegal status. Because cannabis is still a Scheduled drug, the EPA has not done the kind of pesticide testing that it does for every other kind of produce that humans consume in order to find out (via scientific experiments) what pesticides in what quantities are safe for what modes of consumption. This is a reason to proceed with caution as the EPA is well suited to carry out such research, whereas the state agencies are not. As we will see below, the states are not authorizing the use of pesticides on cannabis based on new research, but rather by making assumptions based on the existing pesticide labels.
(On a side note, with the federal legalization of hemp, we are now starting to see USDA certified organic hemp products, but that’s a story for another day. The regulation of consumable hemp and CBD products is convoluted and rapidly evolving.)
Determining what chemicals and pesticides are okay to use on a particular plant is not simple. We must look at how the plant will be used by people. Cannabis is particularly complicated because of the many ways it can be consumed: from smoking the raw flower, to cooking with flower, to making extracts and concentrates (using various solvents or solventless) for smoking, topicals or ingesting (eating, drinking, tinctures, etc.). Different methods of consumption can make a big difference with pesticide safety. A chemical that is safe to eat might be dangerous to burn and inhale.
Does the government regulate what chemicals and pesticides can be used on cannabis?
The federal government does not; it can currently only tell you not to grow or possess cannabis. So that leaves everything up to the state governments (which typically let the feds do the heavy lifting of pesticide testing and labelling). Since every legalized state currently exists in its own isolated regulatory bubble, it shouldn’t be surprising that there are significant differences between state cannabis policies and guidelines when it comes to pesticide application.
The bud you buy in Oregon may have different pesticides applied to it than the flower in Massachusetts. Let’s take a quick look at the differences in a handful of adult-use states:
Massachusetts is very strict. The Commonwealth takes the position that it will only approve pesticide uses that the EPA has approved (which is zero for cannabis). Massachusetts’ official policy says “Currently, EPA does not allow the use of a registered pesticide on marijuana or hemp. The Department is not aware of any registered pesticide that has a label that would allow for use on marijuana or hemp under either federal law or M.G.L. c. 132B. Because of this, the use of pesticides on marijuana or hemp is prohibited in Massachusetts.” (Note that Massachusetts, like other states, does permit the use of 25(b), or minimum risk, pesticides. These substances are considered to present such minimal risk to human health and the environment that they do not require EPA registration.)
Colorado has taken a different approach and has developed a list of hundreds of approved pesticides based on “broad label statements that do not prohibit use on cannabis” and “the product’s active ingredient is exempted from the requirement of a tolerance.” If a pesticide is exempted from a tolerance, then it is considered safe enough that the EPA does not have to set maximum limits on how much can be used. Colorado prohibits pesticides that are not approved for use on tobacco, to address the smoking issue.
California uses yet another method. Instead of publishing and updating a list of approved pesticides, California sets out the rules (which are essentially the same as Colorado’s standards) and publishes a short (and incomplete) list of prohibited pesticides, then leaves it up to the cultivator to make sure their favorite pesticide doesn’t violate state regulations.
Oregon maintains a list of approved pesticides which must be (1) exempt from a tolerance by the EPA, (2) intended for unspecified food crops, and (3) passed a pyrolysis test (i.e., it’s okay to burn it).
Washington uses similar criteria for its list of approved chemicals, but that state does have some additional categories for uses prior to planting and post-harvest.
Nevada has published a relatively short list (a little more than 1/10 the size of CO, CA, and WA) of approved pesticides.
Alaska employs essentially the same criteria as Colorado and Oregon, but the list only has about ¼ the number of approved pesticides.
What are the Alternatives if Organic Certification is Unavailable?
Attempting to fill the regulatory holes and inconsistencies, various third-party organizations have stepped up and are working to create labels and certifications that can take the place of “organic” or even signify something else altogether. Depending on where you live, you may have seen labels like Biodynamic, Regenerative, Demeter, Dragonfly Earth Medicine, Certified Kind, Clean Cannabis, Clean Green, and more. Many growers and advocates are pushing for cultivation techniques that go beyond the requirements of organic and encompass more expansive standards of human and environmental health and sustainability. Meeting the standard organic requirements is merely the first-step to obtaining certification through some of these other programs.
Biodynamic principles involve concepts of self-sufficiency, sustainability, and ecological diversity. These values stand in some degree of tension with the indoor cultivation practices that predominate in Massachusetts’ adult-use market, where the intent is often to seal off the grow room from any contact with the environment, rather than integrate with the environment in a sustainable way. Clearly, this is also in contrast with the rich agricultural traditions of Massachusetts, particularly places like the Connecticut River valley.
Perhaps the more fundamental problem is not the unavailability of the USDA Organic label, but rather that economic forces in the regulated market and consumer expectations based on indoor flower do not presently align with the underlying assumptions of any of these certifications: We are not separate from the world and we will suffer when we pretend otherwise, and we will flourish when we respect that connection to the earth and to other people.
Here at the Uproot Legal Blog, we believe that Massachusetts cultivators can find motivation in prohibition’s many downstream consequences to grow quality cannabis using methods that are both economically profitable as well as environmentally beneficial – literally improving the world by growing weed. With this expansive vision, we question whether “organic” is, in fact, a dated label that fails to address the breadth and complexity of today’s world. We ask: What is the appropriate adjective for the weed of the future? What will it look like? Who will grow it?