Article Topics
The idea behind cannabis testing is to keep patients safe from contaminants. But the reality behind cannabis testing, according to those working hard to improve it, is wildly varying standards, outdated equipment, and unreliable results.
The words “testing lab” conjure up an image of a sterile environment where a scientist in a lab coat uses high-tech equipment to identify the contents of a sample, following established legal guidelines and strict standard operating procedures. This is what many medical cannabis patients picture when they select medicine that has been tested for cannabinoid content and levels of pesticides, mold, heavy metals, and other contaminants. Unfortunately, say those who have close experience with testing labs, the reality is quite different.
Because the federal government still considers cannabis a Schedule I substance, meaning it has “no currently accepted medical value,” cannabis is not regulated by the
FDA. States must decide whether to set their own standards, and many haven’t bothered. Of the 23 states that allow medical use of cannabis (plus Washington, DC), only twelve[i] have any requirements for cannabis testing at all, and most of those don’t make requirements explicit. Seven other states and the District[ii] are actively working on setting testing standards. No state currently has standards for testing, calibration, or exchange of standards amongst cannabis test labs.
States Without Cannabis Testing Standards
In the absence of government regulation, testing labs have sprung up to fill the need to ensure patient safety. Each lab chooses its own equipment, sample preparation methods, standard operating procedures, and acceptable contaminant levels.
“Eight years ago, testing was more accurate than it is today,” says Andy Hospodor, PhD, a California-based engineer who developed a method for assaying and combining plant-derived cannabinoids. “Now we have labs popping up all over, and they don’t cooperate to set industry-wide standards—each one believes they are the FDA.”
Dr. Hospodor sent samples to three different labs, and the results showed 30 percent variance. He then sent samples from the same batch to one lab on two different days, and the variance between lab technicians was 20 percent.
“These labs all claim to be the best, but they are often using old equipment that they bought for cheap online and using unreliable sample prep methods,” he notes.
Back in 2010–2011, California NORML and Project CBD partnered for a “ring test” of results from ten labs on six samples—four herbal and two liquid. Overall, the results were within 20 percent of each other, which could perhaps be explained by natural variations in the samples. But some results were alarmingly off base.
“In certain cases, there were glaring discrepancies suggesting laboratory error. Three of the 10 labs performed poorly on half the tests. Particularly in the case of liquid alcohol extracts, test results were troublingly inconsistent,” the study authors noted, concluding hopefully that “the cannabis testing industry is still in its infancy, and the ring test was intended to identify weaknesses and improve methodologies. Labs are aware of the current lack of industry standards and are actively seeking to improve their procedures.”
Four years later, the consistency problem remains—and may even be getting worse. In late February, the FDA sent warning letters to six companies that sell high-CBD oils, warning them that the agency had tested the products and found that the products didn’t match the claims. Even more concerning, some products tested did not contain any of the advertised medicinal compounds.
“Some of these firms claim that their products contain cannabidiol (CBD). FDA has tested those products and, in some of them, did not detect any CBD,” notes the agency.
Dr. Hospodor has elected to test his own samples because he can’t trust the results from third-party labs. He hopes that statewide standards—which the California legislature is actively working on setting — will help to improve these issues. But statewide regulation brings its own set of issues.
States With Cannabis Testing Standards
Among the states that do take an interest in cannabis testing, there is little consensus on what the regulations should be.
“Nevada requires testing every five pounds. Colorado requires testing the same strain three times from three grows, and then it no longer has to be tested,” explains Dr. Cindy Orser, the Chief Science Officer of DigiPath Labs, a Nevada-based cannabis testing company that is fighting for uniform testing standards.
Dr. Orser recently delivered an address at the Conference of Western Attorneys General (CWAG) about the importance of medical cannabis testing and the need for standards, especially regarding pesticide use on cannabis.
“Standards define how we live. They’re seamlessly incorporated into our life,” she explained to the CWAG members. “When you go get sixteen gallons of high-octane gas, you don’t worry that that’s not what you just put into your tank. You take an aspirin, and it’s 325 mg—you don’t even think about it. We need that kind of reliability in the medical cannabis industry.”
Dr. Orser pointed out that of the twelve states that require random-batch pesticide testing for cannabis, only three have adopted the most stringent acceptable standard for a pesticide residue on any food crop. Pesticide use on cannabis can be especially harmful because cannabis is often taken by patients with compromised immune systems, and pesticides only get stronger in cannabis extracts.
“Our goal is to weed out cannabis products with unsafe levels of pesticides that can aggravate patient health problems, such as liver disease. It is in the best interest of every entity involved in the cannabis enterprise—from the producer to the dispensary owner to the State—to embrace the most rigorous testing requirements from a liability as well as a consumer and patient safety standpoint,” says Dr. Orser.
What Should Patients Do Now?
Frustratingly, patients who are concerned about the safety and potency of their 
medicine have few options for finding reliably safe, effective medicine. Here at United Patients Group, we often talk to patients who don’t know how to go about getting the right medicine, and we always recommend that they work directly with people who make safety a top priority. There are many individuals and companies in the medical cannabis industry who are dedicated to providing consistent, clean medicine—it’s just a matter of finding them.
Working with a licensed medical professional who knows about cannabinoid medicine is the best way to find the safest, most effective treatment. A cannabis doctor or nurse who is up on the latest research and connected with reliable producers can help you find the right treatment. (If you’re interested in doing your own research or finding treatment ideas to discuss with your doctor, PubMed collects peer-reviewed studies.)
Once you find a product that works, Dr. Hospodor recommends getting it in bulk because the next batch may not contain the same cannabinoid ratios or concentration. “When you find a medicine that’s helping, don’t buy a week’s worth or a month’s worth—get as much as you can.”
The Real Solution
Federal agencies are aware of this problem, and some are already calling for changes. The director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Nora D. Volkow, MD, recently testified before the Senate Drug Caucus on the need for further study of CBD and the obstacles to performing rigorous clinical studies.
“It is important to try to understand the reasons for the lack of well-controlled clinical trials of CBD including: the regulatory requirements associated with doing research with Schedule I substances, including a requirement to demonstrate institutional review board approval; and the lack of CBD that has been produced under the guidance of Current Good Manufacturing Processes (cGMP) – required for testing in human clinical trials – available for researchers,” she testified. “Furthermore, the opportunity to gather important information on clinical outcomes through practical (non-randomized) trials for patients using CBD products available in state marijuana dispensaries is complicated by the variable quality and purity of CBD from these sources.”
Drs. Hospodor and Orser both believe that the issue of testing validity will not truly be solved until cannabis is rescheduled or legalized at the federal level, which would allow the EPA to acknowledge cannabis as a commodity, hold pesticide trials, and use the FDA to set nationwide standards for cannabis testing.
“This ad hoc approach to testing is harming the very patients it should help,” says Dr. Hospodor. “We need rigorous, replicable testing standards.”
Standards that federal regulations would set include:
- Proficiency testing
- Testing frequency
- Batch size for testing
- Sample preparation
- Instrumentation
- Standard operating procedures
- Acceptable levels of contaminants, micro-toxins, and agricultural by-products
- Accreditation
“It is time to have a national discussion to move toward a more unified approach to cannabis production, safety, and quality assurance testing,” concludes Dr. Orser.
Here are some safe and tested CDB products to try or review.
[i] Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington State all require testing, but the regulations vary wildly and often do not even address safe levels or lab protocols.
[ii] Legislators in Alaska, California, DC, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island are working on setting testing requirements.
Very informative, thanks.
great article!