Industry and staff clash over sampling, homogenization and scope as CCB implements SB157

Carson City — The Cannabis Compliance Board’s second workshop on implementing Senate Bill 157 turned into a technical standoff as commercial laboratories, industry representatives and staff debated how Nevada should apply sampling, homogenization and retention rules tied to the statute’s new lot‑size definitions.

Adam Fulton, speaking for a group of commercial labs, told the board that the draft rule’s fixed 60‑gram composite — divided into three 20‑gram components for testing, retesting and retention — "is scientifically invalid" when applied uniformly across different lot sizes. "The minimum threshold is 0.88%," Fulton said, and applying a 20‑gram component to a 15‑pound lot, he said, "drops the viability to 0.29%." He urged the board to update the sampling table so that required sample sizes scale proportionally with lot size to maintain statistical validity.

Fulton also pressed staff on how homogenization and retention would work in practice. He argued each analytical event "must homogenize a full 60 g component" before subdivision, which could mean producing a larger composite for each analytical event. Fulton warned returning retained material to cultivators raises liability and chain‑of‑custody concerns: "If we return a sample and then they sell it and there's some issue...who's responsible?" he asked.

Industry representative Will Adler of Silver State Government Relations, representing GTI, urged the board to focus the workshop on the bill’s core purpose — defining lot sizes and gram counts — rather than using the session to adopt broader ASM technical standards. "The addition of almost every other regulatory add‑on feels like a pretty active attempt to actually not address that one core issue," Adler said. He and others warned that expanding the scope beyond what was discussed in the Legislature could invite rejection by the Legislative Commission and require rework.

Staff counsel Cara Kronhite said the draft regulations were written to "align with" ASM standards as directed by SB157 and that several provisions (including chain‑of‑custody and sample‑identification language) will be reinstated or clarified as adopted by reference. On homogenization she told the meeting, "by homogenization we don't mean grinding and mixing it all together ... it would just be mixing them all together," adding staff will clarify the language to make clear what mixing is required and when. Kronhite also said the Board had considered mechanisms for retention and return and was working with stakeholders to address liability and custody concerns.

Lake Martin of the Nevada Cannabis Association urged the board to use stakeholder input to craft workable rules for both cultivators and labs and cautioned that perceived misalignment with stakeholder concerns could result in the Legislative Commission rejecting the proposed regulations. "I just think it's a missed opportunity if we're not utilizing that input in coming together with regulations that work for both cultivators and labs," Martin said.

Board staff acknowledged unresolved practical questions — notably how retained material would be stored, who would keep custody, and what costs would change if laboratories were required to homogenize larger composites. Participants agreed to submit technical papers and legal opinions for staff review; Adler offered to email an LCB opinion that, he said, allows the Board to align with ASM standards selectively rather than adopting them wholesale.

Next procedural steps: staff said they expect one or possibly a final workshop before submitting proposed rules to the Legislative Commission, and they will update the draft text to clarify homogenization (mixing vs. grinding), chain‑of‑custody and retention/return procedures and to review the sampling table proposals provided by laboratories. The workshop adjourned after staff confirmed there were no further public commenters.

Why it matters: The choices the Board makes on sampling methodology and how broadly it incorporates ASM standards could affect laboratory operations, cultivator product handling and the legal defensibility of Nevada’s testing rules. Stakeholders warned that insufficiently clear or misaligned rules risk regulatory delay if the Legislative Commission rejects them.