The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA) gathered public feedback this week on proposed regulations, which are set to implement legislation passed earlier this year. While the changes are a result of laws signed by Governor Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma’s marijuana industry has voiced concerns, especially regarding pesticide regulations and new operational requirements for businesses.
On Tuesday, dozens of medical marijuana business owners, operators, and industry representatives gathered to discuss four bills that have triggered the proposed rule changes. The legislation passed earlier this year, including House Bill 3361 and Senate Bills 758, 1635, and 1939, mandates updates in various areas of marijuana regulation, but many in the industry believe these updates may put unnecessary pressure on businesses.
A key point of contention during the public meeting was the proposal to expand the controlled pesticide list and adjust the allowable thresholds for pesticide residue in marijuana products. Many laboratory representatives, including Jeffery Havard of Havard Industries, a local testing laboratory, voiced concerns over the practicality of these new rules. They argued that the threshold limits are so low that it creates a “pass or fail” situation for testing, leaving little room for error. This, they believe, could lead to more problems in the testing process than the intended regulation is supposed to solve.
Stricter Pesticide Regulations Spark Industry Debate
One of the primary concerns voiced by testing laboratories was the difficulty in maintaining the newly proposed limits for pesticide residues in marijuana products. These labs argued that the levels outlined in the proposed rules are extremely stringent, potentially making it harder for growers and processors to comply.
“Many labs have expressed that the proposed limits are too low and would make it nearly impossible to produce products within these guidelines,” said one industry expert. Some even suggested that OMMA should consider creating an “approved pesticide list,” which would provide clarity and prevent unnecessary annual restrictions on pesticide use.
“We need reasonable standards for pesticide residue,” said Havard. “Human error has to be accounted for in these thresholds. Sometimes, lab tests will pick up minute traces of pesticides that are simply a result of the testing process. This can unfairly penalize growers.”
Several participants also pointed out that the rules could have unintended consequences for smaller growers, especially those without the resources to invest in more advanced equipment to meet these tough standards.
Pre-Packaging Mandate Faces Pushback
Another point of significant concern was a proposed rule that would require medical marijuana products to be pre-packaged before they are sold. While many business owners understand the intent behind the rule—ensuring product safety and proper labeling—it’s a major hurdle for growers who may not have the infrastructure for this kind of packaging.
“You’re asking us to become a fully operational production and packaging facility overnight,” one grower said during the meeting. “This rule could disproportionately affect smaller operations that don’t have the capacity to handle packaging on top of cultivation.”
The issue stems from the costs and logistical challenges of packaging marijuana products, which can be time-consuming and expensive. Smaller operations, particularly those in rural areas, may struggle to comply with the rule, which could lead to a shift in the market toward larger, more well-equipped growers.
Proposed Employee Background Check Changes Draw Criticism
In addition to pesticide and packaging concerns, OMMA also proposed changes to employee background checks, requiring fingerprinting for all employees working in the medical marijuana sector. This rule change has met with mixed reactions. While the intent is to ensure safety and prevent criminal activity within the industry, some business owners expressed concerns over the potential costs and administrative burden of managing fingerprinting for large workforces.
Furthermore, other proposed rule changes include new documentation requirements for license renewals, adjustments to commercial license transfer rules, and additional provisions for background checks. These additional administrative changes have some businesses worried about the growing paperwork burden and the strain it could put on their already stretched resources.
Transparency and Trust: Key Issues for the Industry
One of the main concerns raised during the public comment session was the need for OMMA to be more transparent, particularly with the new state-run laboratory scheduled to open in February. Many industry insiders hope that this lab will help ensure the integrity of testing processes and hold “bad actors” accountable. However, they worry that without transparency in its operations, the lab could lose the trust of the industry it is meant to serve.
“We’re hopeful that the new lab will play an important role in regulating this industry,” Havard said. “But transparency in its operations is crucial for building trust. Without it, we’ll just have another government agency imposing rules without understanding the realities of the market.”
Adria Berry, the executive director of OMMA, responded to the concerns by emphasizing that public comment is an integral part of the rule-making process. She assured attendees that anyone who submitted feedback—whether in person or online—would receive a written response.
OMMA’s Next Steps: Feedback and Revisions
The next steps for OMMA involve reviewing the public feedback received during this session and deciding whether to make changes to the proposed rules. The rules will then be submitted to the Legislature for review by February 1.
As the industry continues to navigate the shifting regulatory landscape, many medical marijuana business owners hope that OMMA will work more closely with them to ensure that the new rules strike a balance between safety and operational practicality. They also hope for more advocacy at the Capitol to prevent additional “bad changes” that could harm the state’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry.
