Why We Don’t Deduct Points for Irradiation in the TDC Grading System

Recently, we received feedback from someone who was upset that our grading system doesn't deduct points for irradiated cannabis. Their concern stemmed from the fact that an irradiated product received a similar score to one grown using living soil, and they felt this was unfair. This is a great opportunity to delve into why irradiation is not directly factored into our sensory evaluation system.

What is Irradiation?

Irradiation is a remediation process used in the cannabis industry, as well as across agricultural supply chains, to eliminate mold, bacteria, and other microbes. In fact, many fruits and vegetables you buy in the grocery store have likely undergone some form of irradiation. It’s a common method for ensuring products meet safety standards, especially when mold or microbial contamination is a concern.

In cannabis, the effects of irradiation on quality have not been thoroughly researched, but existing studies indicate an average terpene reduction of around 20%. While cannabinoid levels can increase after irradiation, this may be due to the cannabis heating up and beginning to decarboxylate during the process. Although a higher THC number may seem desirable to some stakeholders in the industry, this increase is more likely indicative of degradation rather than improved quality, potentially compromising the overall sensory experience of the product; especially over time.

The Limits of Existing Research

Current research into irradiation and cannabis is relatively limited and often narrowly focused on chemical analysis rather than broader quality metrics. While we know it can alter terpene and cannabinoid levels, these studies don’t account for the longer-term effects of irradiation on product quality, such as how it affects the trichomes (the resin glands containing cannabinoids, terpenes and other important phytochemicals) or how quality may degrade over time as the product moves through a typical supply chain.

As more research becomes available, especially on the sensory impacts of irradiation over time, it may provide a deeper understanding of how this process truly affects cannabis quality. Until then, our focus remains on grading what’s in front of us, rather than what may have happened to the product during cultivation or post-harvest processing.

I hypothesize that most irradiation methods compromise the integrity and vitality of cannabis trichomes, likely accelerating their natural degradation over time.

Why Irradiation Isn’t Deducted in Our Grading System

Our Grading Platform is designed to evaluate cannabis objectively based on its observable sensory qualities—aroma, appearance, trichome health, and so on. Since irradiation impacts these qualities indirectly, it is already integrated into the grading process. If irradiation degrades a product’s sensory qualities—such as reducing its aroma or diminishing its visual appeal—this will naturally be reflected in its score. Similarly, if living soil or organic cultivation methods improve the sensory quality, that too will be captured.

In this sense, our evaluation process doesn’t concern itself with the growing or processing methods directly, but with the end result; the actual product quality. This approach allows us to remain impartial and avoid making assumptions about what specific cultivation or remediation processes might have occurred. If a product’s quality has been negatively affected by irradiation, this will manifest in a lower score through our grading process, without the need to call out the method itself. Finally, there’s no laws or regulations stating that a producer needs to disclose if a product has been irradiated or not, which is one final impracticality to definitively close off this chapter.

An Objective Approach to Cannabis Grading

At its core, our grading system is about maintaining objectivity. We evaluate what we can observe, and that means focusing on the product as it exists at the moment of grading, not on how it got there. Inputs like living soil, organic methods, or irradiation do matter, but their significance is embedded in the final product and is naturally reflected in the scores we assign.

We go even further by also recording our subjective experiences with the product, providing additional context by documenting the 'set and setting' that can greatly influence the overall experience. This creates a more comprehensive, holistic evaluation protocol, capturing both the objective sensory qualities and the nuanced effects the product has.

The Value of Non-Irradiated Cannabis

While we don’t deduct points for irradiation, we understand the consumer preference for non-irradiated cannabis. Cultivators and brands that avoid irradiation, grow in living soil, or adhere to organic principles can and should promote these methods as key selling points. These factors are relevant for building trust with consumers who care about cultivation methods, even though they don’t directly affect our objective scoring process.

Ultimately, as more information about irradiation becomes available, we hope to conduct or contribute to unbiased research that sheds light on its true effects. The more data we have, the better-informed everyone in the industry—consumers, retailers, cultivators—can be. For now, we remain focused on evaluating cannabis as it presents itself, letting the sensory experience tell the story of the product’s journey.

If you’re curious about our grading platform and its evaluation methods then feel free to test it out at www.gradingplatform.com and provide your feedback at info@urbanistic.ca