Beyond the Hype: Unmasking Lab Shopping in Cannabis
What if the cannabis you're buying isn't what it claims to be?
The cannabis industry is at a crossroads. The United States market is projected to reach $45 billion in total sales by 2027, while globally, it could skyrocket from $57.18 billion in 2023 to a staggering $444.34 billion by 2030. But this booming industry faces a critical challenge: lab shopping.
Let me start with a simple question that I ask myself often: why should I care?
Why Lab Shopping Matters
Lab shopping isn't just a problem for individual consumers; it casts a shadow over the entire cannabis industry. This deceptive practice pushes honest producers and labs to the sidelines, rewarding those who game the system instead of prioritizing quality and accuracy. It erodes trust in the legal market and slows down progress towards safer, more regulated cannabis products for everyone.
But how does lab shopping directly impact you? Let's talk about why it should matter to every cannabis consumer, patient, and advocate. How many of us have walked into a dispensary, confident we're getting a safe, accurately labeled product? How would you feel if there was a risk that label wasn't accurate? Lab shopping threatens that confidence. It's not just about getting less THC than you paid for, it's about your health and safety too.
Imagine buying edibles for sleep expecting a mild experience, only to find yourself with little to no effect because the product was mislabeled with a high potency, when in fact it contained significantly less THC. Or, what if that vape cartridge you just bought contains cutting agents or additives that were not disclosed on the label, potentially causing harm to your lungs?
For medical cannabis patients, inaccurate labeling could mean the difference between effective symptom relief and a frustrating, even harmful experience. Imagine relying on a specific dosage of CBD for pain management, only to discover the product contains far less than advertised.
By caring about lab shopping, you're not just protecting yourself – you're helping to shape a more trustworthy, transparent cannabis industry. Your choices as an informed patient or consumer can encourage businesses to prioritize accurate testing and labeling. It's about creating a market where you can confidently purchase cannabis products, knowing that what's on the label truly reflects what's inside. In the end, your awareness and concern about lab shopping contribute to a safer, more reliable cannabis experience for all of us.
So, let's dig in…
“It [lab shopping] erodes trust in the legal market, potentially slowing down progress towards safer, more regulated cannabis products for everyone. ”
Understanding Lab Shopping
Lab shopping occurs when cannabis producers (cultivators or manufacturers) submit their products to multiple testing laboratories, ultimately selecting the one that provides the most favorable results. This often means choosing a lab that reports higher THC levels or passes products that may contain contaminants. The implications of this practice are far-reaching, especially considering that 42% of adults in the United States reported using cannabis in 2023, up from 39% in 2022. The allure of lab shopping becomes clear when we examine preferences of those adults. As of November 2022, flower dominated the cannabis product market with a 40.8% share, followed by vapes at 23.5%. Given that THC potency is a key selling point for these products, the temptation to inflate numbers is very real.
Why Test Cannabis? Safety, Quality, and Transparency
Cannabis testing isn't just about numbers on a label; it's about ensuring consumer safety and product quality. Think of it like the inspection process for food or pharmaceuticals. Rigorous testing helps identify potential contaminants that could be harmful to consumers, such as mold, bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals, and residual solvents. Accurate testing also verifies the cannabinoid content, ensuring that the product matches what's advertised and allows consumers to make informed choices based on their needs and preferences.
Beyond safety and accurate labeling, cannabis testing plays a crucial role in promoting transparency and building trust within the industry. By providing reliable data about the composition and quality of cannabis products, testing helps consumers make informed decisions, encourages producers to maintain high standards, and supports a fair and regulated marketplace. In essence, cannabis testing is fundamental to creating a responsible and ethical industry that prioritizes consumer well-being and product integrity.
“By providing reliable data about the composition and quality of cannabis products, testing helps consumers make informed decisions, encourages producers to maintain high standards, and supports a fair and regulated marketplace. In essence, cannabis testing is fundamental to creating a responsible and ethical industry that prioritizes consumer well-being and product integrity.”
What Exactly Are We Testing For?
Cannabis testing labs analyze a variety of factors to ensure product safety, quality, and accurate labeling. Here are some of the key areas of focus:
Potency: This refers to measuring the levels of various cannabinoids, primarily THC and CBD, to verify the potency and effects of the product. Accurate potency labeling is essential for consumers to make informed choices and for regulatory compliance.
Microbial Contamination: Testing for bacteria, mold, and yeast is crucial to ensure product safety. These contaminants can pose health risks, especially for individuals with compromised immune systems.
Pesticide Residues: Cannabis can be exposed to various pesticides during cultivation, and testing helps identify any residues that exceed safe limits. Pesticide exposure can have adverse health effects, making this testing crucial for consumer safety.
Heavy Metals: Heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and mercury can contaminate cannabis plants, posing risks to consumer health. Testing helps identify and quantify these contaminants to ensure they are below acceptable limits.
Residual Solvents: Solvents are sometimes used in cannabis extraction processes, and testing helps ensure that any residual solvents are below safe levels. Residual solvents can be harmful when inhaled or ingested, making this testing important for consumer safety.
Mycotoxins: These are toxic compounds produced by certain fungi that can contaminate cannabis. Mycotoxin exposure can cause various health issues, making testing essential for consumer protection.
Terpenes: These aromatic compounds contribute to the flavor, aroma, and potential therapeutic effects of cannabis. Testing for terpenes provides valuable information about the product's overall profile and potential effects.
By testing for these various contaminants and components, labs play a crucial role in ensuring the safety, quality, and accurate labeling of cannabis products. This information empowers consumers to make informed decisions and supports a transparent and trustworthy cannabis market.
Legitimate Variations vs. Fraudulent Practices
“But, for purposes of lab shopping, remember that a test result cannot be sold if it isn’t first for sale.”
It’s crucial to understand that not all discrepancies in test results stem from lab shopping. In instances of true lab shopping, the scheme involves bad actors seeking to defraud the industry they operate within, the patients and consumers they allegedly serve, and the public at large. The bad actors are growers and producers, possibly alongside nefarious labs willing to produce false tests. We’ll discuss those scenarios at length. But, for purposes of lab shopping, remember that a test result cannot be sold if it isn’t first for sale.
However, there are other reasons that lab results may vary that are not textbook lab shopping. Legitimate factors such as different testing methodologies, natural plant variability, and approved irradiation processes can all contribute to variations in results.
Microbial Testing Methods
There's an ongoing debate in the cannabis testing world about the best methods for detecting microbial contaminants. While I'm not a scientist or lab expert, I can offer a simplified explanation of the two primary methods used: plating and qPCR. Both aim to identify potentially harmful microorganisms like bacteria and mold, but they differ in their approach and can yield varying results. Plating involves cultivating microorganisms on a growth medium, making it effective for detecting viable (living) organisms, but it may not capture the full extent of microbial presence. On the other hand, qPCR detects microbial DNA, offering faster results and potentially higher sensitivity, but may also detect non-viable (dead) organisms, potentially leading to higher contamination reports. This ongoing debate highlights the complexities of microbial testing and the need for standardized protocols to ensure consistency and accuracy across different labs. Some states have addressed this by mandating a specific methodology, while others allow for both methods.
Natural Plant Variability
It’s crucial to understand that cannabis, like any natural product, exhibits inherent variability. Even within a single plant, cannabinoid and terpene concentrations can vary significantly from one part to another. Factors such as genetics, growing conditions, harvest time, and post-harvest handling all contribute to this variability. For instance, flowers from the top of the plant typically contain higher concentrations of cannabinoids compared to lower branches. This natural variation can lead to discrepancies in test results that are not indicative of lab shopping or fraudulent practices. A study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research in 2021 found that THC concentrations in a single plant can vary by up to 20% depending on the specific location of the sample. This natural variability underscores the importance of proper sampling techniques (which I’ll get to in a bit) and the need for regulators and consumers to understand that some level of variation in test results is normal and expected. However, it also highlights the challenge of distinguishing between natural variability and intentional manipulation, further complicating efforts to address lab shopping.
Sample Spiking and Irradiation
Sample spiking, where cultivators add kief or other concentrates to their test sample to artificially inflate THC concentration, falls outside the realm of lab shopping and into illegal territory. Simply put, it is fraud. Fraud committed against the lab that is testing since they believe the sample they process is truly representative of the batch it will be assigned to. Fraud committed against consumers and patients that will likely be attracted to purchase what they believe is more potent flower. Keep in mind that cannabis is not just a consumer good – it is medicine.
Irradiation, on the other hand, is a legal process to “clean” cannabis and remove contaminants. While permissible, irradiation is a controversial method, and its use should be disclosed to consumers. Some cultivators irradiate only the sample they submit to the lab, meaning those contaminants remain present on the remaining batch sent to retailers. That sample would no longer reflect the broader batch, though, so I’d argue this is akin to sample spiking and is fraud. Others remediate the batch after a failed test to avoid destroying the crop for multiple failed tests. Some growers know their product would not pass strict standards in the first place, so they treat the entire harvest to ensure successful testing. Many consumers avoid irradiated cannabis because they believe it degrades the taste, aroma, and potency, and prefer alternative decontamination methods, such as heat treatment or ozone sterilization. There are companies, too, that are developing equipment and technology that growers can use to sanitize the air in their facilities to inhibit pathogens like mold and bacteria, thereby negating the need for irradiation or remediation in the first place.
The Impact of Lab Shopping
An analysis of anonymized data from testing labs in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon found that some labs routinely inflated THC levels by as much as 25% or more. Even more alarmingly, there were instances of labs manipulating data to allow cannabis that should have failed for yeast and mold contamination to pass. To protect themselves from these deceptive practices, patients and consumers need to be educated and empowered to make informed choices about the cannabis products they purchase.
Consumer Education and Empowerment
Understanding Certificates of Analysis (COAs) is key for consumers navigating this complex landscape. The State of New York’s Office of Cannabis Management released a great resource for individuals aimed at explaining the contents of a COA. When reviewing a COA, consumers should:
Look for accreditation (ex. ISO/IEC 17025 certification)
Match the batch number to the product
Check the testing date compared to the purchase date (tests over a year old are invalid)
Review comprehensive testing results including cannabinoid profiles, terpene content, and contaminant screenings
Just as discerning consumers of alcohol consider factors beyond alcohol content, such as the quality of ingredients, aging process, and flavor profile, cannabis consumers should look beyond THC potency alone. Consider the Total Active Cannabinoids (TAC) and the presence of both terpenes and minor cannabinoids for a more balanced and nuanced product experience.
Proper Storage and Its Importance
Proper storage of cannabis is crucial. Keeping it in a warm or damp environment risks developing mold. Airtight containers and humidity control packs, like Boveda packs, are worth the investment for extended storage. Proper storage not only preserves quality but can also impact test results if a product is retested after improper storage.
So What Do We Do About It?
Regulators are beginning to take action. California has mandated standardized operating procedures for measuring cannabinoids that began in early 2024. Oregon has introduced a “second lab” policy where products may be randomly tested by a state-chosen lab for verification. Massachusetts recently announced that, beginning in April, samples must be submitted to a single lab for testing. This is a shift from the historical approach that allowed licensees to parse out the full panel of tests to multiple labs.
Addressing lab shopping requires a multi-faceted approach, including:
Standardizing testing protocols: Currently, testing labs may use different methods and equipment, leading to variations in results. Implementing standardized protocols across all labs would ensure consistency and make it harder to manipulate results. This could involve specifying the types of equipment, testing methods, and quality control procedures that all labs must adhere to.
Implementing secondary testing programs: This involves requiring a second, independent lab to verify the results of the initial test, adding another layer of checks and balances to the system. This could be done randomly or for suspicious samples, making it riskier for labs or cultivators to manipulate results.
Enhancing oversight through surprise inspections: Regular and unannounced inspections of testing labs can help ensure they are following proper procedures and maintaining accurate records. This can deter fraudulent activities and maintain a high level of quality control. The same surprise visits can be paid to cultivators that regulators suspect might be spiking or otherwise manipulating their samples.
Conducting random field testing to confirm label accuracy: Regulators could collect samples directly from dispensaries and have them tested independently to verify the accuracy of the labels on products being sold. Technology exists to conduct rapid field testing, too. These handheld devices can analyze total THC, CBD, CBG, acid THC and CBD, and total terpenes in samples of dried and ground cannabis. This would help identify discrepancies and hold both labs and cultivators accountable for accurate labeling.
Reviewing sampling SOPs and adherence to them: Stricter sampling procedures, including random sampling, third party or independent collection, and chain-of-custody documentation, can help prevent cultivators from manipulating samples before they reach the lab. This ensures the samples tested truly represent the overall batch of cannabis.
Leveraging blockchain technology for result verification: Blockchain can create a permanent, tamper-proof record of lab results, ensuring data integrity and transparency. This eliminates the risk of manipulation or falsification, a major concern with lab shopping. Consumers and regulators can have confidence in the accuracy and authenticity of the information, fostering trust and accountability in the cannabis testing process.
Empowering consumers with QR-linked COAs: QR codes on product packaging can provide instant access to Certificates of Analysis (COAs), allowing consumers to verify label accuracy, examine test results, and make informed decisions. This promotes transparency and holds producers accountable for product quality and safety.
Open data portal for system-wide transparency: A centralized, open database of lab results allows regulators, researchers, and the public to identify patterns, anomalies, and trends. This transparency promotes accountability, facilitates research, and enables informed decision-making for a safer and more trustworthy cannabis market.
Promoting industry self-regulation and trust: Encourage industry organizations and businesses to establish codes of conduct and best practices for ethical testing and labeling. This fosters a culture of transparency, accountability, and consumer trust. By actively participating in self-regulation, the industry demonstrates its commitment to quality, safety, and ethical practices, earning the confidence of consumers and regulators alike.
Sampling Protocols
Reviewing and improving sampling protocols is crucial. States should ensure that samples truly represent the batch they’re assigned to, that the process is done with integrity and confidence, and that the protocol mitigates the challenge of variation. My typical hot take when the issue of lab shopping comes up is that any solution that does not include updated sampling protocols falls short. If cultivators continue to be able to cherry-pick their samples, even with honest labs, the results should be scrutinized.
To combat this issue, many states are implementing regulations that require independent sampling. For example, in California, an employee of the testing lab must collect the sample. The cultivator can be present but cannot help or participate in the sampling process. This eliminates any bias from the distributor to choose the “best” sample for testing. Other methods, though, include a grid selection system conducted under camera, and some policymakers have even selected grinding all flower before choosing a sample.
Proper sampling protocols aim to ensure that samples are truly representative of the entire batch. This includes guidelines on:
Sample size and quantity
Random selection across the batch
Proper homogenization techniques
Chain of custody documentation
Some states – including Massachusetts - have developed "secret shopper" programs where regulators purchase products from dispensaries for independent testing, helping to verify the accuracy of reported results.
Technology exists that even allows rapid field testing for things like potency, terpenes, and microbials. Regulators armed with that equipment would certainly make bad actors shiver.
By removing cultivator control over sample selection and implementing standardized, independent sampling protocols, the industry can take a significant step towards reducing lab shopping and ensuring more accurate, reliable test results for cannabis products.
“Instead of clinging to outdated ideas, Massachusetts should embrace a forward-thinking approach: regional partnerships with neighboring states.”
State-Run Labs? A Misguided Approach
With robust sampling protocols in place, the industry can then focus on other critical aspects of regulation, such as the misguided debate around state-run labs. The proposal to establish a state-run standards lab for cannabis testing is misguided and impractical. Massachusetts' history with state-run labs is fraught with challenges, and replicating this model for the cannabis industry would be a costly mistake. Building, equipping, and staffing such a facility would divert substantial resources from more critical regulatory needs. Moreover, the rapidly evolving nature of the cannabis industry, with the looming possibility of federal legalization and interstate commerce, could quickly render a state-specific lab obsolete.
Instead of clinging to outdated ideas, Massachusetts should embrace a forward-thinking approach: regional partnerships with neighboring states. This collaborative model offers a more effective and efficient solution to address lab shopping and ensure testing integrity.
Benefits of Regional Collaboration:
Harmonized testing protocols across state lines, reducing variability and making lab shopping more difficult.
Shared resources and expertise for advanced equipment and reference standard development.
A regional database to identify trends and anomalies in test results, improving oversight and accountability.
Better preparedness for potential interstate commerce, ensuring a smooth transition in a rapidly evolving landscape.
Cost-effective utilization of existing lab infrastructure across partner states, maximizing resources and efficiency.
By embracing regional collaboration, Massachusetts can avoid the pitfalls of a state-run lab and create a more robust, adaptable, and trustworthy cannabis testing system. This collaborative approach not only addresses current challenges but also positions the region for a future where cannabis commerce transcends state boundaries.
Consumer Education Initiatives
Often missing in the context of lab shopping is the role that consumer education can and should play. Consumers already have access to important and significant information, but often don’t know it, or have a hard time accessing it. If you’re reading this and planning to shop for cannabis soon, ask to see the COA. If you’re willing, let me know what they tell you…
Key aspects of consumer information and education include:
Teaching consumers to look beyond THC percentages.
Educating on how to read and interpret COAs (remember the New York material I referenced?).
Raising awareness about lab shopping practices.
Informing about the importance of purchasing from licensed, reputable dispensaries.
Explaining the entourage effect and the role of terpenes and minor cannabinoids.
Conclusion: Accountability and Industry Integrity
Labs and cultivators engaging in fraudulent schemes must face the full force of the law. This includes immediate revocation of licenses and accreditation, extensive regulatory action in every state of operation, and potential criminal referrals for investigation by state attorneys general. The safety of patients and consumers relies on the integrity of the cannabis industry, and those who prioritize profit over public health must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less is a betrayal of the trust placed in this burgeoning industry.
Lab shopping and other fraudulent practices are not merely technical issues; they are a direct threat to the foundation of the legal cannabis industry. By demanding transparency, supporting ethical businesses, and staying informed, we can collectively build a cannabis industry where integrity, not inflated numbers, is the gold standard. As we move forward, let's commit to shaping the future of this vital industry, ensuring it prioritizes consumer safety, product quality, and scientific integrity. Only then can we fully realize the potential of cannabis to benefit millions of lives.
“The safety of patients and consumers relies on the integrity of the cannabis industry, and those who prioritize profit over public health must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less is a betrayal of the trust placed in this burgeoning industry.”
Sources, Suggested Reading, and Resources:
BDSA, "BDSA Forecasts Global Legal Cannabis Sales of $55 Billion in 2027," September 27, 2023
Range Marketing, "The Truth Behind THC Potency: Understanding Lab Shopping in the Cannabis Industry," December 13, 2023
Casco Bay Hemp, "Cannabis Lab Shopping - A Critical Look at Testing Standards and Accuracy," July 31, 2024
Cash, Mary Catherine, Keegan Skeate, Alec Dixon, and Kymron DeCesare. "Testing Reveals Inflated THC Potency on Retail Cannabis Labels." PLOS ONE 17, no. 12 (2022): e0278384.
Chemical & Engineering News. Shopping around for favorable cannabis testing labs. September 10, 2024.
Department of Cannabis Control. "Testing Laboratories." State of California.
Fortune Business Insights, "Cannabis Market to Hit USD 444.34 Billion by 2030 | At 34.03% CAGR," July 17, 2023
Hudalla, Cindy. "The Rising Threat to the US Cannabis Industry: How THC Inflation and Lab Shopping Are Undermining Trust." Cannabis Science and Technology 5, no. 6 (July/August 2022): 12-17.
LGC Standards, "How US cannabis testing laboratories can thrive, despite lab shopping"
Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission. Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission Tightens Testing Requirements in Continued Effort to Enhance Industry Public Health and Safety., December 24, 2024.
Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission. Administrative Order Requiring Licensees to Submit Full Panel Test Sample for Required Compliance Testing. December 18, 2024.
Mullin, Rick. "Shopping Around for Favorable Cannabis Testing Labs." Chemical & Engineering News 102, no. 28, July 25, 2024).
National Cannabis Laboratory Council. "Standardizing Cannabis Lab Testing Nationally." Perkins Coie, June 30, 2022.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. "NIST Tools for Cannabis Laboratory Quality Assurance."
Talking Joints Memo. To Thwart "Lab Shopping," Regulators Announce "One Sample, One COA" Policy. (2024, December 16, 2024.
"Cannabis Analysis Labs 101: Understanding the Operation." True Labs for Cannabis, March 16, 2024.
"Cannabis Labs Testing for Mold May Be Tampering Results." WSHU, September 4, 2024.
"Editorial: Cannabis Testing Needs a Culture Change." Chemical & Engineering News, September 7, 2024.
"How to Read a Cannabis Lab Test (COA)." Bud's Goods, August 1, 2024.
"Issues in Lab Testing Cannabis Products: A Work in Progress in State Level Programs." Drexel University Medical Cannabis Research Center, November 18, 2022.
"Marijuana Lab Testing Accuracy Improving, New Science Journal Finds." MJBizDaily, May 28, 2024.
"Pesticide Contaminated Cannabis in California Reveals Testing and Regulatory Failures." Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2024.
