Cannabis science and product development are intrinsically linked, yet most industry conferences treat them as separate worlds. Recognizing this disconnect, MJ Unpacked founders George and Kim Jage are rewriting the playbook for cannabis industry events and integrating science education into the heart of their conference.
“It’s easy to get caught up in the bright, shiny object of a new industry and lose sight of the foundation needed to build it—science,” says George Jage.
RELATED: ‘One community’: weed and alcohol align at Denver conference
That’s why the event launched a robust science track at last year’s show, aiming to bridge the gap between academia and commerce and accelerate the industry’s growth with evidence-based innovation.
In an interview, Jage elaborated, “Mature industries have a closed loop where research can be commercialized and then fund more research. Why keep this separate from the commercial market?”
To bring that vision to life, MJ Unpacked invited and hosted six academic institutions to participate and share their current research and educational programs—including the State University of New York, the University of Maryland, Stockton University, Hudson County Community College, and Borough of Manhattan Community College. Jage emphasizes the importance of product developers staying plugged into the latest research and collaborating with the scientists behind it.
Natural Product Chemists Weigh In On Cannabis Medicine
Natural products chemist Riley Kirk, PhD., led a fireside chat with Duncan Mackie, PhD., Director of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics at Bud & Mary’s and a faculty member at the University of Colorado. They discussed the complexity of studying cannabis from a pharmaceutical perspective.
While the FDA favors single-compound drugs, cannabis is inherently polypharmacological, which complicates its path to approval. To navigate this, Mackie’s lab uses cellular biosensors to study isolates, full-spectrum formulations, and specific cannabinoid ratios.
“One of the first things we do is remove THC so we can better understand what minor cannabinoids are doing,” Mackie explained.
Drawing inspiration from traditional Chinese medicine, his team deconstructs the plant to identify active components, then reconstructs those into consistent, drug-like formulations.
“If you take Tylenol on Monday, it needs to act the same on Tuesday,” Mackie said from the stage. “Cannabis should be no different if it’s going to be treated like a medicine.”
RELATED: ‘All ships rise’: Hall of Flowers levels up for 2025
Mackie emphasized that while standardizing the whole plant may never be fully possible due to natural variability, formulation-level consistency is achievable and essential for clinical use. His lab’s sleep formulation, currently in clinical trials at the University of Iowa, is an example—precisely dosed and backed by data on absorption, metabolism, and drug interactions—laying the groundwork for future FDA submissions.
Shedding light on his recent interactions with the FDA, Mackie revealed just how unprepared the agency still is when it comes to evaluating cannabis-based therapeutics.
“They looked at my application like deer in the headlights,” he said, referencing his 100-page investigational new drug (IND) submission that includes clinical toxicology and safety data.
Despite the thorough science, Mackie noted the agency seemed unsure how to proceed—partly due to cannabis’s outdated Schedule I status and the long-standing deference to DEA oversight.
“The DEA has already approved what we’re doing. Now it’s the FDA’s move.”
While people often report vastly different effects from various cannabis strains or isolated compounds, this variability doesn’t always show up as clearly in animal studies. Mackie referenced research like Dr. Josh Kaplan’s work on CBD, which suggests that cannabinoids may only show significant benefits in individuals who actually need them—highlighting the importance of patient-specific factors. This reinforces the complexity of cannabis therapeutics and the need for personalized approaches in both clinical and preclinical research.
Mackie also pointed out a historical flaw in how drugs like Ambien were tested—initially only in men, which led to inappropriate dosing for women and dangerous consequences like next-day drowsiness and car accidents.
“Ambien was the first drug in U.S. history where the FDA eventually acknowledged the need for a separate male and female dose,” he said.
These are the nuances Mackie now teaches in his pharmacology courses—reminding future scientists that both gender inclusivity and plant-based therapeutics must be taken seriously in modern drug development.
Despite the growing popularity of rare and minor cannabinoids—like CBDV, CBE, and CDR—we still know very little about how they work in the body.
“People are already consuming these, but we don’t even know basic things like starting dose or what they’re signaling at the cellular level,” Mackie explained.
RELATED: Does this federal ban impact cannabis? It depends
His lab begins by removing THC from full-spectrum extracts and isolating each remaining compound using advanced chromatography. These isolates are then screened against a panel of receptors—including CB1, CB2, GPR55, and TRPV1—to determine how they interact with various cellular pathways.
“We’re building a foundational map of cannabinoid signaling,” he said, pointing to their use of a complex biosensor array to track G protein and beta-arrestin activity.
According to Mackie, without this groundwork, scientific understanding of cannabis remains “like building a house without a foundation.”
Alternatively, Dr. Riley Kirk, whose research focuses on pharmacognosy—the study of bioactive compounds from natural sources—underscored the importance of embracing the full spectrum of compounds in the plant. Her work explores the synergistic effects of cannabinoids and terpenes and the need to preserve the plant’s complexity to achieve scientific rigor.
“You can’t treat this like a single-compound pharmaceutical and expect the same outcome,” she noted.
The Industry’s Responsibility for Consumer Safety
As the cannabis industry works to mitigate crop contamination to ensure safe consumption, remediation techniques like ionizing radiation and ozone treatment are increasingly used. However, critics argue these methods may degrade valuable volatile organic compounds, contributing to the plant’s unique flavor, aroma, and experience.
From the audience during the “Unpacking Cannabis Remediation” panel, chemist and Harvard postdoctoral fellow Jeff Rawson raised concerns about the chemical integrity of remediated cannabis. He questioned the claim that these methods leave the flower’s chemical profile largely unchanged—particularly pointing to sulfur-based compounds that create the sought-after “gassy” aroma.
“Show me that beta-caryophyllene didn’t just become caryophyllene oxide,” Rawson challenged, noting that sulfur compounds are extremely oxidation-prone and often exist in such trace amounts that conventional testing might miss subtle but meaningful changes.
Moderator Kyle Boyer, a scientist at Bio-Rad Laboratories, reinforced this point, highlighting the lack of routine testing for these volatile sulfur compounds.
“From a testing perspective, why invest in a new instrument if consumers don’t understand what it measures?” he asked, underscoring the industry’s need to better educate consumers.
RELATED: ‘Junk science’: flawed testing leads to overturned cannabis convictions
The panel agreed that remediation labeling should clearly disclose post-treatment chemical data—even if the numbers are technically accurate, they may not tell the whole story.
“It’s not about lying,” one panelist said. “It’s about whether consumers are getting the full picture.”
The Hidden Risks in Vape Products
Shawna Vreeke, PhD, DABT, and Director of Toxicology at True Terpenes, discussed the importance of toxicology in the cannabis industry for her presentation on the risk of inhalation compared to oral ingestion and the need for safer vape formulations. Vreeke cited examples like Vitamin E acetate and MCT oil, which caused severe health issues in 2019.
She advocated using ASTM standards to assess toxicological risks and suggested alternatives to harmful ingredients. Vreeke also stressed the dire need for better regulations and industry compliance to ensure long-term consumer safety.
As the second-largest category in cannabis, vapes expose millions of consumers to exogenous ingredients, which are enhanced with additives like MCT oil or synthetic terpenes; vape formulations can include a wide range of ingredients that are often invisible to the consumer. This lack of transparency makes setting ingredient limits even more critical.
Unfortunately, regulations around these additives vary widely by state and often lack scientific grounding. Misconceptions persist, such as assuming “natural” equates to “safe,” and regulators sometimes reference irrelevant data sources—like the FDA’s inactive ingredient list for oral drugs—that are not appropriate for inhalable cannabis products.
RELATED: ‘It’s scary’: mystery compounds showing up in some pot products
The risk is not theoretical. Vitamin E acetate, the compound linked to the 2019 vaping crisis that caused multiple deaths, could have been flagged had manufacturers conducted a toxicological review. It breaks down into ketene, a known acute inhalation hazard, and accumulates in lung tissue, potentially leading to fatal lipid pneumonia. Similarly, MCT oil—still used in some vape products—has been shown to impair breathing and may have similar long-term effects.
Other cases include cannabis edibles that use herbal extracts linked to liver toxicity despite multiple studies warning of the risks. The core message: even natural or cannabis-derived compounds, when isolated or used in unnatural ratios, can pose serious health risks. And yet, there are currently no standardized action limits for these ingredients as there are for heavy metals or pesticides.
Vreeke emphasized the need for manufacturers to take proactive responsibility by conducting toxicological reviews, setting safe usage thresholds, and prioritizing consumer safety over convenience or profit. Without this level of scientific due diligence, the industry risks repeating past mistakes—and jeopardizing the trust of its consumers.
True Terpenes conducted a toxicological review of competitor vape products and revealed that many contain ingredients with known health risks—some posing both short- and long-term dangers. Although there haven’t yet been widespread consumer health issues, Vreeke warns we shouldn’t wait decades to understand the long-term effects.
Vreeke stresses, “There are alternative chemicals that can impart these same flavor notes that have a much safer proton,” and added that ensuring product safety should be the responsibility of all manufacturers.
She urged industry-wide adoption of ASTM standards and a shared commitment to consumer health and the cannabis industry’s longevity. More research is needed on how vape ingredients behave when heated, including potential interactions and the formation of new, possibly toxic compounds.
Scientific Discovery is Advancing Product Development
Twinkle Paryani, an R&D chemist at Abstrax Tech, gave a presentation on a study they conducted that detailed the complexities of cannabis aroma and the role of volatile organic compounds and olfactory receptors. Over 350 olfactory receptors exist in the human body, leading to diverse responses to different aromas. The study used advanced analytical techniques, including 2D GC and multiple detectors, to identify key aroma compounds like sulfur-containing compounds and esters.
The research found that these compounds, not terpenes, significantly influence aroma perception. These newly identified compounds can be used in products, creating terpene blends for various markets.
RELATED: Major psychedelic event announces speakers, programming tracks
Cannabis is uniquely aromatic and capable of producing both unpleasant and pleasant scents. While terpenes are thought to be the source of these smells, research shows that terpenes alone don’t account for the plant’s skunky, gassy, or diesel-like aromas. Traditional labs typically use one-dimensional gas chromatography to analyze volatile compounds, which misses many chemically diverse aroma contributors.
Paryani’s team used advanced technology to address the issue and used rosin as their sample matrix for better consistency and to preserve the flower’s aroma profile.
“We discovered a wealth of chemical information that hadn’t been explored before,” said Paryani.
They accurately identified the trace-level compounds that give cannabis its smell, many of which are not terpenes but lesser-known volatile organic compounds that can still have a huge odor impact.
Paryani posed the question- “Garlic and cannabis produce the same compounds. Since they are aromatically similar, could they also have similar health benefits if consumed the same way?”
That’s something that hopefully we can research now that we know that these compounds exist in cannabis, definitively. Paryani ended with, “In conclusion, we validated that terpenes are independent of the very specific, unique, and distinct cannabis attributes and that these key minor flavorants, fatty acids, sulfur compounds, and esters drive differences in both genetically similar and genetically diverse cannabis.”
Illuminating the future of cannabis
The science presented at MJ Unpacked highlights the need for cannabis product innovation to align with credible research and prioritize consumer safety. From deconstructing the plant for pharmaceutical consistency, identifying new compounds, and questioning the safety of remediated and inhalable products, the message was clear—science must lead, not follow, market trends. The industry has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to make science the foundation for building a legitimate, trusted, and sustainable cannabis industry.
*This article was submitted by a guest contributor. The author is solely responsible for the content.