Are Cannabis Testing Labs Accurate? Investigating Data in Ohio and Other States - MedicateOH (2024)

Ohio began approving its first dual-use cannabis testing labs for the adult-use market last week, begging the question “How accurate are they?” As Ohio prepares to offer these carefully-tested cannabis products to its citizens, MedicateOH wants to know: Is the cannabis testing we read on labels for the Ohio MMJ program even accurate? And how does it compare to other states in terms of cannabis testing?

Observations Presented Last Month in Bellbrook, Ohio

Yasha Kahn, Co-founder and VP of MCR labs for MCR Labs, recently presented some noteworthy observations when he spoke to industry leaders last month at The Ohio Classic cannabis golf event in Bellbrook, Ohio.

Kahn utilized Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain MMJ program and cannabis consumer data in approximately 37 states, acquiring data from 17. (One state already had open date, another said it will make its data public.) His findings highlight how bringing this data to the surface can impact public policy. In this article, we’ll go into more details about:

• the ways the data tells the story of where market manipulation is occuring
• what patients and consumers can do about it
• how the state could fix this problem

Calling into Question Testing

Cannabis lab testing is crucial for ensuring product safety and efficacy, but the accuracy of these tests often comes into question. At the July 11th event, Kahn presented compelling insights from over a decade of experience across multiple states, shedding light on the complexities and challenges faced in the burgeoning industry.

Kahn emphasized that the data he collected and interpreted reveals significant issues with lab accuracy. “I have been in cannabis testing across multiple states for over a decade,” says Kahn. “The data allows us to set better policies and do cool research, but there’s a lot of results manipulation. That’s a serious concern.”

Despite its status legally, cannabis testing data is among the most extensive, Kahn noted. Cannabis gets tested for various aspects including cannabinoids, terpenes, pesticides, and contaminants like heavy metals and mold. This wealth of data has the potential to inform better policies and improve safety standards. However, discrepancies in test results have raised questions about the integrity of the industry.

Regulatory Variability

One of the challenges in cannabis testing is the lack of standardized regulations across states. Each state sets its own rules for testing requirements, including which contaminants to test for, acceptable limits, and testing methodologies. This variability can lead to inconsistencies in testing practices and results. Some states may have rigorous standards, while others may have more lenient requirements, potentially allowing for inflated results in states with less stringent regulations.

The problem, though, is not in that the regulations differ, but that labs can cut corners including adjusting testing methodologies, ignoring outlier results, or even falsifying data. Those wanting to manipulate data for financial gain can apply their craft under any regulations, says Kahn.

The BIG ISSUE: Incentives for High THC Results

The cannabis-buying market erroneously shops for their products based on THC percentages. Most cannabis flower tests somewhere between 10 to 25 percent THC. Yet, some cultivars produce THC levels well over 30 and stronger, even over 35 percent.

This may lead one to believe that the higher the THC level, the bigger the punch. But in reality, the most medicinally-potent strains tend to fall within lower percentage ranges. Where higher THC products can make more potent extracts and edibles, it’s not accurate to suggest that higher THC percentages produce more desirable effects. It’s also thought that too much THC can overactivate certain brain cell receptors, a possible culprit for unwanted side effects like anxiety, paranoia, and sleeplessness.

One significant issue discussed was the manipulation of test results, specifically as it relates to THC content. “Consumer fraud is documented in industry journals, with labs sometimes reporting inflated potency results,” Kahn explained.

Pointing at particular data sets, Kahn notes: “The moment they switched labs, there was a 28 (relative) percent increase in reported potency.” This pattern of inflated results raises concerns about the reliability of lab tests and the potential for consumer harm.

This manipulation hurts the industry in two ways: consumer perceptions and regulatory standards. Labs that report higher potency results often gain market share, leading to a proliferation of dishonest practices. When cannabis buyers only shop for the highest THC they can find, it can lead to unwanted results. And labs that fudge their data to produce favorable results are being rewarded with more contracts, suspect industry advocates.

The BIGGER ISSUE: Mold Testing

Where inflated THC percentages build a consumer market that’s paying too much for inferior products, mold testing is the bigger issue that Kahn highlighted since it’s a safety concern for patients.An illustrative example provided was a study involving water activity limits, critical for preventing mold growth in cannabis products:

Research Presented

The research set an ideal water activity range of 0.55 to 0.65, but applying these limits nationwide would be troublesome: “Less than 20 percent of flowers would pass the water activity tests in states like Michigan and Oregon,” Kahn revealed.

This discrepancy suggests that either the limits are too stringent or labs are adjusting results to avoid failure. This would either lead to most of the products in the market not passing, or a few labs willing to ‘pass’ flowers and claim they are within the allowable limits will take over the market, explains Kahn. He pointed out the issue of mold testing, highlighting a case where one lab’s results significantly differed from another’s.

What’s the Risk? Remediation

Remediation can be performed when a sample has already failed testing or is suspected of being so contaminated that it will fail. Remediation techniques include irradiation, ozone treatment, acid treatment, and hydrogen peroxide treatment to reduce microbial load on cannabis material and pass compliance testing. Remediation remains a controversial practice, although many regulators believe there is no residual harm created by remediation.

What Is the Solution?

On a positive note, some states have made strides in addressing these issues. For instance, Maryland and Michigan have implemented regulatory updates that have improved testing accuracy. “In Maryland, a regulatory update led to a drastic reduction in reported mold failures,” Kahn stated. Similarly, Michigan’s market saw improvements after new labs with lower failure rates entered the scene and regulatory adjustments were made.

These examples underscore the importance of regulatory oversight and the need for continuous improvement in testing practices. “There are states that have actually solved these issues,” Kahn notes. “It’s about using the data to make informed decisions, protect consumers, and ensure a fair market.”

Not Just Fraud: Cannabis Testing Can Be Flawed in Other Ways

While cannabis lab testing plays a vital role in ensuring product safety, the accuracy of these tests remains a critical issue. Data from various states reveal both the challenges and progress made in addressing these problems. As the industry continues to evolve, ongoing scrutiny and regulatory improvements will be essential for maintaining the integrity of cannabis testing and safeguarding consumer interests.

Where fraud was suspected due to the data it revealed in Kahn’s presentation to Ohio industry leaders, it’s important to note that there exists some amount of measurement uncertainty and inhom*ogeneity of flowers. Two labs testing the same thing should get similar results, not necessarily identical. Additional ways that labs can produce inconsistent results include:

• Sample Preparation: Proper sample preparation is crucial for accurate testing results. Cannabis flower is not uniform; different parts of the plant contain varying levels of cannabinoids and contaminants. Improper sampling techniques can lead to inconsistent results. If samples are not representative of the batch or are not adequately prepared, it can artificially inflate or deflate potency readings, giving consumers a misleading impression of the product.
• Equipment Calibration and Maintenance: Testing equipment used in laboratories must be regularly calibrated and maintained to ensure accuracy. If equipment is not properly calibrated or maintained, it can produce inaccurate readings. This is particularly problematic in cannabis testing, where precise measurement of cannabinoids and contaminants (pesticides, heavy metals) is crucial. Failure to maintain equipment can lead to inflated potency levels or false-negative results for contaminants.
• Product Manipulation: In some cases, producers may attempt to manipulate cannabis flower to pass testing requirements. This can include techniques such as spraying flowers with substances to enhance cannabinoid levels or using additives to mask pesticide residues. While regulations are in place to prevent such practices, enforcement and detection can vary, potentially allowing inflated results to reach consumers.

The cannabis industry is still relatively young and evolving, especially in places like Ohio. This means regulatory oversight and enforcement mechanisms remain inadequate. Without strict enforcement and consequences for non-compliance, there is less incentive for producers and testing laboratories to adhere to rigorous standards. This can create an environment where inflated testing results go unchecked, ultimately harming consumer trust and safety.

Ohio DCC Responds

MedicateOH reached out to Ohio’s Division of Cannabis Control (DCC) to respond to claims that testing labs may not be producing accurate results.

Says DCC spokesperson Jamie Crawford, “Patient safety is at the heart of the Medical Marijuana Control Program and there are numerous policies in place to ensure the safety and well-being of patients in the program. Below are some of the key areas:

1.) All plant material is tested at independent certified labs to determine potency and to detect contaminants that may be harmful to patients. Plant material that is processed in the permitted forms are subject to additional testing to determine potency and ensure the end product is safe for use.

2.) If a product is identified as noncompliant with the program, the MMCP works to inform patients and licensees of the issue immediately.

3.) The program helps to ensure the patient is always speaking with a physician about their qualifying condition and maintains access to medical marijuana products at current operational medical marijuana dispensaries.

4.) All medical marijuana must be sold in child-resistant packaging that is clearly labeled as containing THC. Additionally, products must be labeled with important information, such as the amount of THC contained in the package and any ingredients used in edible products.

Again, I want to reiterate that the Division’s top priority is product safety, which is supported by marijuana production, retail, and testing laboratory compliance, accountability, and quality assurance.

The Division is committed to continuing its work to ensure ongoing testing laboratory compliance with program operations and product testing requirements. In addition, the Division is developing testing rule updates to implement additional standards across all testing laboratories related to testing methods and sample preparation, as well as strengthening proficiency testing and quality control measures. Standardized procedures across all licensed testing labs will provide reassurance that no matter which lab is selected, the same testing policies and protocols are utilized and, therefore, testing results are consistent.”

What Can Patients and Consumers Do?

Consumer education plays a crucial role in mitigating the impact of inflated testing results. Educated consumers are more likely to demand transparency and quality assurance from producers and dispensaries. Increased awareness of testing practices and potential pitfalls can empower consumers to make informed decisions and advocate for stricter regulatory standards.

Consumers can advocate for more robust testing standards. Where Ohio notably has one of the most comprehensive cannabis testing standards in the country, there remains room for improvement. For instance, Ohio only tests for four heavy metals in cannabis where Michigan, Maryland and New York test for seven, eight, and ten, respectively. With vaporization, most devices come with a risk of heavy metal contamination, no matter how well it passes testing.

Ohio patients and consumers who have issues with how cannabis is tested in the state can write to the DCC at mmcp@com.ohio.gov.

While cannabis lab testing is intended to protect consumers and ensure product quality, various factors can contribute to inflated or misleading results in the U.S. Addressing these challenges requires ongoing efforts to standardize regulations, enhance laboratory practices, improve enforcement, and educate consumers. By doing so, the cannabis industry can foster greater transparency and accountability in testing practices, ultimately benefiting both consumers and producers alike.

###