skip to Main Content
3 Major Causes of “Lab Shopping” in the Cannabis Testing Lab Industry

By: Josh Swider

We’ve all heard the term ‘lab shopping’ tossed around the cannabis industry, but the underlying issues with the practice are putting compliant labs at a disadvantage. Since state legalization in 2017, disparities in results and procedures between testing labs has been our key challenge. Essentially, the labs adhering to the regulations and their own scientific ethics are being undercut by those who don’t. 

The three main issues we’ve experienced within the cannabis testing industry are potency inflation, the detect/non-detect limits for category I pesticides, and adherence to sampling regulations required by California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control. In response to these concerns, the cannabis testing industry should consider adopting GLP (Good Laboratory Practices) – like guidelines to minimize potential bias and conflicts of interest, state run blind proficiency tests to ensure labs operaterating up to the standards needed,  standardized action levels, instrument capabilities, and training regimens. By doing so, the primary focus will once again be guaranteeing the quality and safety of a product prior to retail.

 

I. POTENCY INFLATION

 

It’s not an industry secret that some labs are inflating potency numbers. Although it’s not as prevalent as it was a few years ago, we’re still coming across certificates of analysis from other labs that are completely unreasonable, such as a 30 plus percent total THC claim for outdoor-grown flower. You don’t need to be a scientist to know those numbers don’t line up. 

Cultivators who are receiving accurate COAs can’t compete with those who are knowingly (or, in some cases, unknowingly) having their numbers inflated. Since manufacturers, dispensaries, and consumers are still purchasing products based on potency results, cultivators with genuine potency numbers will have to sell their flower at a much cheaper price compared to that ‘30 plus percent’ outdoor-grown bud. Other quality factors, such as terpene profiles, other cannabinoids, and flower density, are often overlooked, but should also be considered when setting prices. 

However, the testing labs are not necessarily to blame for the uneven playing field that’s been created. Our market has placed an excessive emphasis on THC concentration numbers. Consumers will pay more for a product with higher THC, creating a butterfly effect throughout the supply chain. If a cultivator or manufacturer has invested millions of dollars to operate, they can’t afford to not be able to compete in this industry because of their potency results. You can’t blame a producer for wanting to use a state certified testing lab that’s giving them higher potency numbers.

 

II. PESTICIDE TESTING

 

Another issue the industry is facing is the detect/ non-detect limits for category I pesticides. This means that if any of these 21 pesticides are detected in any amount, producers and distributors are left with the option of pursuing costly remediation efforts or destroying the product altogether. 

For labs that have purchased top-of-the-line instrumentation, hired experienced chemists, and developed their own methods to detect these analytes, they can detect these pesticides concentrations much lower than the requirements set by the BCC. When a client takes their products to one of these labs and fails for trace amounts of pesticides, they can take the same product to a lab that doesn’t have the means to detect them and get passing results. 

The way the regulations are set up now impairs labs who have chosen to do things correctly, hold science ethics above profits, and care about the public’s safety. This results in inferior labs being able to “pass” contaminated products while still keeping in line with the regulations, attracting more clients and saving a good chunk of money in doing so. You can’t fail what you can’t see. 

How is this allowed to happen? With Category I pesticides, the Limit of Quantification (LOQ) is dictated to be set at 0.10 μg/g (ppm). The issue here is the regulations have set no action level or detection level, only a maximum LOQ that a lab must achieve. Having no detection threshold set increases the chance of false negatives when testing for these contaminants simply based on variables like techniques, methodology, and experience. This creates an atmosphere of inconsistency in testing, and ultimately, opens the door to dirty cannabis making it into retail. This disparity in results also invites cannabis businesses to take their samples to a lab that is more likely to give them a passing COA.  Overall, the lab that has the highest LOQ allowable will produce the least amount of Category I pesticide fails, giving them a competitive advantage over labs with lower LOQs.

The BCC could remedy this issue by updating their policies and setting limits on Category I pesticides, a suggestion the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) has already made. In a memorandum submitted to the Bureau back in September of 2019, the CDPR recommended changes to California’s current testing regulations based on their recent reassessment of toxicity and hazard identification of these pesticides. 

This ongoing reassessment of pesticides in terms of BCC regulations helps to create a fluid cannabis testing system that is best configured to protect consumers. Unfortunately, to date, the BCC has failed to act on recommendations from the CDPR regarding adjustments to action levels for pesticide testing, and the issue of detect/non-detect discrepancies persists.   

 

III. ADHERENCE TO REGULATIONS

 

Cannabis labs in California may be able to take advantage of loopholes in the regulations, but there are still those that are blatantly disregarding protocol for compliance sampling and testing. 

Regulations state manufactured products must be in final consumer-facing packaging prior to compliance sampling.This includes batch numbers and UID numbers labeled on every unit in the batch. However, many labs will sample products that have not been labeled, are partially labeled, or will have their sample technicians label only the products taken for analysis. Not only can the BCC look back at sampling footage to confirm samples were taken improperly, jeopardizing both the distributor’s and laboratory’s license, but non-compliant sampling events could result in a public health issue if the products taken for testing are not from the batch sold at retail. 

Perhaps the bigger issue here is the lack of resources the BCC has to oversee and address the problems at hand. State regulators have been assigned the task of regulating the cannabis market, including testing labs, but a report released by the California Department of Finance revealed that, among other difficulties, “the current status and location of personnel is not sustainable to provide effective and comprehensive oversight of cannabis activities throughout California.” This is directly due to funding issues and difficulties hiring and training staff.  

Conclusion

With about 10,000 commercial  cannabis license holders within the state of California, and the market projected to hit $7.2 billion by 2024, the perception of cannabis is undergoing a rapid revolution. However, current outdated regulations and lack of a centralized regulatory body has created an atmosphere where profit takes precedence over product integrity or ethics. By creating a state-run blind proficiency testing program, the BCC will be able to determine which labs are reporting accurate numbers. Cannabis products should be treated as a legitimate entity deserving of the same commitment to quality assurance as the food we eat or the medicine we take. 

In the end, accountability for cannabis safety falls squarely on the testing labs examining cannabis samples. Demonstrating proficiency, investment into top of the line instrumentation, and an ethical approach to reporting results creates an equal opportunity for cultivators, manufacturers, and labs to legitimately compete in this industry. More importantly, accurate testing will help prevent dangerous products from entering the marketplace, increasing much needed consumer confidence in the legal cannabis industry. 

 

Josh Swider

Josh Swider

Josh Swider is the CEO of InfiniteCAL, a San Diego, California based analytical lab.

Josh began his career in chemistry at Eastern Washington University, where he earned his Bachelor of Science and Chemistry degrees in physics and biology in 2012. His quest for a deeper understanding of the science led him to be accepted into the joint doctoral program at the University of California, San Diego and San Diego State University, where he earned his master’s degree in analytical chemistry in 2015 and his PhD in 2017.  Throughout his college career, Josh became interested in the medicinal benefits of cannabis and the lack of analytical research and public understanding associated with it. He wanted to change this, and with his knowledge and passion for the industry, Josh founded the lab with fellow chemist Dave Marelius in 2016. Together they’ve made it InfiniteCAL’s mission to ensure only safe, quality products are allowed to hit dispensary shelves.

This Post Has 0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Stories

Dug In: Big Island Grown’s Deep Cannabis Roots

Big Island Grown (BIG) is a vertically integrated cannabis company based in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii County, on the Big Island of Hawaii, whose reach now extends to several islands in the…

Unlock the Secrets of Social Media for Cannabis Brands

There are three primary ways that brands can use social media platforms for marketing: organic posts, shared posts, and paid posts. With paid posts still off limits to most businesses…

California’s Cannabis Industry Conundrum and the Road Ahead

By Aaron Pelley, Attorney at Harris Sliwoski Despite continuously surpassing every other state with recreational cannabis in terms of total retail sales, California’s cannabis industry has faced continuous and far-reaching…

The High Rate of Dependence Among Medical Cannabis Users

The difference between medicinal and recreational marijuana has always been arbitrary. For example, after legalizing recreational cannabis, California initially required each cultivated seedling to be designated by growers as either…

More Categories

Back To Top
×Close search
Search