Maine marijuana growers are increasingly using radiation and other methods to remove contaminants from their products, a process consumers are likely in the dark about.

Despite a state policy requiring remediated products to be labeled as such, Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy is not enforcing that rule.

In response to a complaint by a dispensary owner in late February, deputy director of operations Vern Malloch acknowledged, “we are not requiring labeling of remediated or treated product,” according to records obtained through a media request.

“We plan to issue guidance on this in the near future,” Malloch wrote.

Office of Cannabis Policy Director John Hudak also told lawmakers last year that the agency hasn’t enforced remediation labeling requirements since at least November 2024.

“The Office began receiving pushback from cannabis cultivators who did not want to label their cannabis if they ‘treated’ their cannabis with radiation or ozone prior to submitting the cannabis for mandatory testing,” Hudak wrote in testimony last year.

A spokesperson for the agency declined to answer specific questions Monday, but confirmed the agency stopped enforcing the rule after some growers raised concerns over the “misleading impact” that labeling treated cannabis has on consumers.

“Requiring label disclosure of the use of irradiation or ozone treatment implies a consumer risk that is not scientifically supported and is potentially misleading in its implication about potential harm from exposure,” Alexis Soucy, OCP’s director of media relations, wrote in an email.

Over the last couple years, several marijuana products have been subjected to recall because of high levels of mold, yeast and other contaminants. Unsafe levels of mold in cannabis can cause flu-like symptoms, including respiratory issues, sinus infections, headaches and dizziness.

But rather than tossing their product, growers can turn to a process called irradiation, often involving gamma rays or X-rays, to remove contaminants.

Supporters say it’s a safe way to reduce waste and prolong shelf lives. Mold and yeast grow naturally just about everywhere and many species are benign. Standard cannabis mold testing does not differentiate between harmful and harmless microbes.

Opponents, however, argue there isn’t enough research about remediating cannabis to say whether it’s safe or not. There is not much data on whether the various types of remediation are effective at killing microbes or are safe for consumers, most of whom don’t know about the practice.

“It’s a complex topic without many answers,” said Yasha Kahn, who co-founded MCR Labs, one of four licensed cannabis testing facilities in Maine. “Hopefully, the rescheduling can lead to more research.”

The federal government moved last week to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug. Decades-long restrictions on cannabis research will be lifted, which acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said will allow for studies into “marijuana’s safety and efficacy.”

Kahn, who operates several testing labs throughout New England, said irradiating cannabis has become increasingly prevalent in legal markets across the country and the world. It’s still debated whether irradiation works as well as it’s supposed to, he said.

‘THIS IS A FAIRLY NEW PROCESS’

There are numerous kinds of cannabis remediation, each with its own pros and cons. Growers most commonly use X-rays, gamma radiation or ozone gas to remove mold and microbes.

Radiation does not kill all the mold, yeast and other microbes present in cannabis outright, Kahn said. Certain species of mold, like harmful mycotoxins, can often survive remediation. Others can remain dormant for months following the procedure.

“Irradiation gets rid of mold’s ability to procreate, and not necessarily permanently,” he said. “You can take that same product and test it again, months from then, and there’s going to be mold growth.”

Some in the industry, like organic marijuana farmer Lizzy Hayes in Mercer, fear that having the option to remediate cannabis removes the incentive to grow clean cannabis. If you can simply use radiation to eliminate mold from harvested crops, she said, why would you put effort into growing mold-free products?

Part of the blame, according to Hayes, lies at the feet of Maine’s recreational cannabis testing regime. Unlike the state’s medical marijuana market, batches of recreational cannabis products must be tested for contaminants like mold, yeast and heavy metals before they can be put on a dispensary shelf.

But since the mold test only detects the presence of mold, not whether it’s harmful, Hayes said many growers save themselves the trouble and irradiate their cannabis by default rather than risking a failed test.

“When you have a regulatory system that incentivizes irradiation, it’s also making it so that customers don’t have access to as high quality of a product,” she said.

Some in the industry disagree. A bill was proposed last year to codify requirements around labeling treated cannabis and inspecting remediation equipment. It was ultimately defeated after many Maine cannabis growers testified in opposition to the bill.

“Radiation and ozone treatment methods are well-established, scientifically validated technologies commonly used in industries far beyond cannabis,” wrote Jacob Racioppi, owner of Goose River Cannabis in Unity. “In fact, they are standard in the food industry.”

Joel Pepin, co-founder of JAR Cannabis Company, owns and operates one of about a dozen X-ray machines in Maine’s cannabis industry. He estimated that about half of Maine’s recreational cannabis has been treated by similar methods. It would be overkill, he said, to require all of that product to be labeled over scientifically unfounded concerns.

“If we apply this same logic to other industries in Maine, then why doesn’t this bill also require dental patients to wear a shirt that says, ‘treated by X-ray’ after leaving the dental office?” Pepin testified.

Neither Racioppi nor Pepin responded to requests for an interview.

Lorri Maling, laboratory director at cannabis testing facility Nelson Analytical, seconded Pepin that remediating cannabis is “more in use now than it was a few years ago.”

While some opponents of irradiation claim the process reduces THC content and eliminates terpenes — the chemicals that give different cannabis strains unique scents and effects — Maling said there’s no data to back that up. Nor is there much data to back up many other conclusions about the effects of irradiating cannabis.

Most of the studies on the effects of irradiation have been on fruits and vegetables, she said, which have not shown any negative effects — though there’s no guarantee that any remediation method will kill all bacteria.

“This is a fairly new process for cannabis,” Maling wrote in an email. “I really cannot say that it is safe or unsafe for cannabis as there really is not enough data on this.”

Maine legislators approved a budget on April 9 that is designed to protect family planning and reproductive healthcare, providing millions in annual funding for those services, according to a press release from Planned Parenthood. The budget is part of bill LD 335, sponsored by Rep. Amy Kuhn, which was left as unfinished business by the legislature. However, the bill has taken a new shape in the form of a budget amendment, which means that Maine is on track to become one of the first states to build an allowance for reproductive healthcare into the state budget. 

If enacted, the budget amendment would provide $5 million annually for reproductive healthcare, regardless of federal spending decisions. This comes after the release of the Trump Administration’s budget plan for the 2027 fiscal year, which includes defunding access to birth control and abortions across the nation. According to News Center Maine, taxpayers would likely fill the gap to fund the budget if federal spending were to be reallocated. 

Gianna DeJoy, a PhD candidate in anthropology and environmental policy at the University of Maine, provided written testimony for LD 335 before it became a budget amendment. She expanded on the purpose of the bill over email with the Maine Campus.

“My understanding is that LD 335 itself was reported out of committee but received no action from the full House or Senate, so it was left as unfinished business when the legislature adjourned last week. However, I believe an amendment based on that bill was included in the final supplemental budget,” wrote DeJoy. 

She added that, despite the bill’s lack of final action, its core provisions were incorporated into the supplemental budget.

“So, the budget includes safety net funding for Title X providers, establishes a fund to maintain access to statewide family planning services and pledges $5 million to that fund, which is exactly what LD 335 had aimed to do,” wrote DeJoy. 

She noted that adding the bill to the budget was the most logical route, considering the controversial nature of the bill. She explained that legislators are more likely to vote favorably on a budget plan than on a bill of this type. 

“It makes sense for the spirit of that bill to sort of find new life as a budget amendment since it was directing spending, and because it can be easier for some legislators to vote on controversial issues when they’re folded into a bigger budget package,” wrote DeJoy.

She also mentioned that the bill was publicly supported by various groups and professionals. 

“I just know there was an incredibly wide range of voices that came out in support of the bill when it came up before committee — including LGBTQ advocacy groups, the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, professional associations for pediatricians, nurses, obstetricians and gynecologists, public health professionals,” wrote DeJoy. 

She added that if passed, the budget amendment is likely to benefit those who cannot afford reliable reproductive healthcare services.

“[The bill] just highlights how the services offered by Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood are critical to the health and wellbeing of many different populations,” wrote DeJoy. She added that a women’s health clinic “might be a lifeline for the community,” and particularly for people in “medically underserved” areas. 

DeJoy emphasized the need for Maine’s continued support for reproductive healthcare in light of a “hostile and unpredictable federal stance” toward funding such causes.

“This action reaffirms Maine’s position as a safe haven for reproductive rights,” wrote DeJoy.

Earlier this month, Maine was firmly on track to become the first state to institute a moratorium on AI data centers.

The state’s Democrat-controlled legislature officially passed a bill that would ban data centers that carry a load of 20 megawatts or more until November 1, 2027, and create a 13-member council to evaluate the impact of data centers. The bill had moved on to Governor Janet Mills for approval.

But this weekend, Mills vetoed the bill, and Maine joined a growing list of states that have tried and failed to instate a data center moratorium.

Mills’ opposition to the moratorium stems from a single data center project planned in a small town in Franklin County.

“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates,” Mills wrote in a letter announcing her veto decision. “But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region.”

The Town of Jay had been reeling from the job loss following the 2023 closure of a mill, and according to Mills, had been looking forward to the hundreds of temporary construction jobs and the several permanent positions that would be created by the data center that is planned for construction on the site of the old mill. Mills said that officials from the Town of Jay, Franklin County Commissioners and the regional Chamber of Commerce all sent letters to her expressing support for the data center project and asking for an exemption.

“I supported the exemption and would have signed this bill if it had included it,” Mills said.

Although she vetoed the bill, Mills announced that she would sign a separate bill that would block data center projects from participating in some state tax incentive programs and would still establish a council that would “examine and plan for the potential impacts of large-scale data centers in Maine.”

If it had passed, the Maine bill would have been the first significant regulatory outcome in the U.S. of rising public dissent against AI and the unprecedented data center buildout it has led to. Artificial intelligence has become a concept particularly unpopular in the public eye, in large part due to its negative impact on mental health, war, the environment, and the job market.

On top of that, local activists around the country are also staunchly against data center projects, worried about the soaring utility bills, water shortages, air pollution and increased local temperature often associated with the mega structures. In some instances, the opposition has even turned violent, like in Indianapolis, where a shooting took place at the home of a local politician who is in favor of a controversial local data center project. Just a few days after the Indianapolis incident, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s home in San Francisco was hit with a molotov cocktail.

A big tenet of the anti-AI data center push calls for moratoriums on new project developments to give researchers and policymakers time to catch up to the rapidly evolving technology and understand its true impact on local communities, human health, the economy, and the environment. Moratorium supporters claim that with a clearer understanding of AI’s impact, governments can introduce adequate guardrails to ensure the responsible development of these AI data centers.

Mills’ decision in Maine could soon be judged at the ballot box. The governor is running for the Democratic Senate seat in the upcoming Maine primaries, and is currently trailing her opponent Graham Platner in polls. Platner had recently told the press that he thinks Mills should sign the bill into law.