Missouri’s Division of Cannabis Regulation revokes facility manufacturing license ‘due to credible and imminent threat’

Image by Kimzy Nanney

Originally published on KMBC.com/By JoBeth Davis

KANSAS CITY, Mo. —

The Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation has revoked the licensing of a marijuana manufacturing facility months after issuing a recall citing “a credible and imminent threat to public health or public safety.”

The organization announced a public product recall for nearly 63,000 manufactured marijuana items distributed by Delta Extraction, LLC, in August 2023.

At the time, the state said the products involved failed to meet compliance standards; however, no adverse reactions had been reported.

RECALL: View the full list here.

On Thursday, the state announced it has revoked the manufacturing license of Delta Extraction, LLC, effective immediately.

Officials noted in August that records in the statewide track and trace system indicated inversion of marijuana products at the facility, as well as practices permitting marijuana products to enter the regulated market without being compliantly tested.

After challenging an initial suspension, state officials said Delta Extraction admitted to sourcing THC-A from outside the Missouri cannabis program, converting the THC-A to THC, and selling that THC within Missouri’s regulated marijuana market.

According to state regulations, THC sourced from unregulated cannabis can pose a risk to public safety.

“While Delta Extraction’s use of out-of-state cannabis in our regulated system has been well-publicized and is a critical issue, DCR also found numerous other violations of rules at this facility,” Amy Moore, director of the DCR, said.

Other rule violations listed by the state include failing to comply with seed-to-sale tracking requirements and falsifying related data, issues with compliancy testing and packaging, and additional facility and product security violations.

Full list of violations leading to the marijuana manufacturing license revocation:

1. The Licensee failed to ensure that all marijuana product sold in Missouri originated from marijuana grown and cultivated in a licensed cultivation facility located in Missouri which is a violation of 19 CSR 100-1.100(4)(I) and cause for revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.020(3)(A)3.
2. The Licensee failed to ensure that all tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) in marijuana product is derived from marijuana cultivated by a Missouri licensed cultivator, which is a violation of 19 CSR 100-1.170(2)(E) and cause for revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.020(3)(A)3.
3. The Licensee failed to comply with seed-to-sale tracking requirements and falsified seed-to-sale tracking data, which is cause for revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.130(2)(E)2.
4. The Licensee failed to ensure all product in its facility is traceable in the statewide track and trace system at all times, which is a violation of 19 CSR 100-1.130(1)(E) and cause for revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.130(2)(E)2.
5. Due to falsification of tracking data, the Licensee failed to ensure all marijuana product from its facility is compliantly tested before transfer to a dispensary facility, which is a violation of 19 CSR 100-1.170(2)(B) and cause for license revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.020(3)(A)3.
6. Due to falsification of tracking data, the Licensee also packaged marijuana in a false and misleading manner, which is a violation of 19 CSR 100-1.120(1)(A) and cause for license revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.020(3)(A)3.
7. The Licensee failed to maintain security of marijuana product and the facility by failing to comply with required security measures and failing to maintain required security equipment, which is a violation of 19 CSR 100-1.090 and cause for license revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.020(3)(A). Specifically:
   1. The Licensee did not receive or failed to act upon the failure notification system required by 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(C)9 that provides notice of a failure in the electronic video monitoring system;
   2. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(A) by failing to have or maintain devices or a series of devices to detect unauthorized intrusion.
   3. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(C)2 by failing to maintain remote access connection.
   4. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(C)3 by failing to have electronic video monitoring of the facility in all required areas. For example: the Licensee was using unapproved areas of the facility, where electronic video monitoring had not been inspected or was non-existent.
   5. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(C)8 by failing to store video camera recordings for at least sixty (60) days in a secure location or through a service or network.
   6. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(D) by failing to have or maintain controlled entry to limited access areas, including maintaining records of entry for at least one (1) year.
   7. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(E) by failing to have a method of immediate, automatic notification to alert local law enforcement agencies of an unauthorized breach of security at the facility.
   8. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(1)(H) by failing to have windows, within the limited access areas, designed to prevent intrusion.
   9. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.090(2)(E) by failing to take timely action to verify the security of marijuana product and the facility after receiving multiple unauthorized intrusion alarms for the office; office window open/closed, window tamper, office door open/closed, and motion within the office.
8. The Licensee failed to comply with 19 CSR 100-1.030(3)(A)4 (incorrectly cited in the Amended NOPR) and 19 CSR 100-1.090 as the Licensee did not request and receive DCR approval of changes to the use of spaces, which includes using the hallway for storage of marijuana product and using the area designated as the storage room for ethanol extraction. These areas were being utilized by the Licensee without the required notification, inspection, and approval by DCR to determine if the space is in compliance with 19 CSR 100-1, including critical security requirements. This unauthorized use of spaces is cause for revocation pursuant to 19 CSR 100-1.020(3)(A)3.