On the heels of a federal RICO lawsuit alleging cannabis potency inflation in Arkansas, the issue is top of mind for many industry members.<\/strong><\/p>\n While a ruling in that case remains to be seen, Cannabis Business Times recently spoke with cannabis testing lab executives about the topic of purposely altered lab results. Potency inflation is one of those issues, though sources told CBT that they also include hemp growers requesting potency deflation, as well as cannabis businesses seeking lower contaminant percentage results.<\/p>\n For this story, CBT spoke with Josh Wurzer, president and co-founder of SC Labs<\/a>, a cannabis and hemp testing lab that operates in California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Texas, and Ben Rosman, a licensed attorney who is CEO and co-founder of PSI Labs<\/a>, which operates in California and Michigan. Wurzer is based in California, while Rosman is based in Michigan.<\/p>\n CBT also spoke over email with a representative from the California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), who forwarded us this July announcement<\/a> and stated the DCC will be answering our questions. (Refer back to CBT\u2019s site for updates on this topic.)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Photo courtesy of SC Labs<\/p>\n Josh WurzerWhat\u2019s Going On With Potency Inflation?<\/strong><\/h4>\n Ongoing testing issues across the industry come in the forms of potency inflation, when cannabis businesses in the supply chain and testing labs report a higher THC percentage than is accurate, and the related problem of lab shopping, when cannabis businesses search for labs that will deliver inflated potency results.<\/p>\n In California, there was some potency inflation before the passage of Proposition 64, which legalized adult-use cannabis, and the regulated industry that began in 2018, Wurzer said. Pre-Prop 64, in California\u2019s compassionate-use program, he said the issue was mainly with cannabis businesses misrepresenting samples.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen regulations came along,\u201d Wurzer said, \u201cwe started seeing certain labs that just started getting a reputation for higher cannabinoid results, or that didn’t really have any of their samples failing for any of the kind of contaminate testing.\u201d<\/p>\n Wurzer pointed out that the potency inflation and lab shopping issues have mainly involved flower and concentrates. He hasn\u2019t seen the incentive for labs to provide inaccurate results for infused products.<\/p>\n Rosman said he saw the issue occurring in California but less so in Michigan. Then it became apparent that it was happening in the Great Lakes State.<\/p>\n \u201cI know in Michigan, \u2026 before there was a regulated industry, you had to have at least 20% potency on flower before any dispensary would buy it,\u201d Rosman said. \u201cThat was just the bar that was set. But it wasn\u2019t based in any science. That was just essentially marketing.\u201d<\/p>\n Wurzer and Rosman said they have had potential customers asking them to inflate potency and current customers telling them they\u2019re switching to another lab because they will receive a higher potency result. Neither SC Labs nor PSI Labs honor these requests, Wurzer and Rosman stated.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve consistently, throughout at least since legalization, on the adult-use side, seen some pushback from some growers, like, \u2018Hey, there are some labs out there that will increase potency. Can you guys help us out?\u2019\u201d Rosman said. \u201cAnd it\u2019s not something we\u2019re willing to do. But that does mean that we lose clients over it. This is something that happens all across the country.\u201d<\/p>\n Even the legally distinct hemp industry is not immune.<\/p>\n While some state-legal cannabis businesses seek inflated THC results, Wurzer said a portion of hemp producers look for lower potency figures so they can meet the federal 0.3% THC limit.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Photo courtesy of PSI Labs<\/p>\n Ben Rosman<\/h4>\n Potency inflation raises multiple problems for the market, according to CBT\u2019s sources for this story. One of them is that it misrepresents the desirable attributes of cannabis, Wurzer said, adding that terpenes are a better determination of quality. Another concern is that it sets an unrealistic bar for others in the industry who are following the rules, Rosman said.<\/p>\n \u201cGrowers and manufacturers and the cannabis industry in general can do everything they can to try and educate consumers on what a high-THC result on an inhalable product really means,\u201d Wurzer said. \u201cTHC isn\u2019t your quantitative quality indicator for cannabis. That\u2019s going to be the terpenes. The terpenes are what\u2019s going to give cannabis its flavor, its aroma, the nuances and its effect. Those are really the quantitative quality indicators for cannabis.<\/p>\n \u201cAnything that the industry can do to promote what\u00a0really\u00a0makes cannabis desirable is a win. And when you’re inhaling a product like cannabis, whether it\u2019s a 30% flower or whether it\u2019s a 15% flower, you\u2019re exhaling 90-some-percent of the cannabinoids right back up. So, I can smoke a 30% flower and exhale it or smoke a 15% flower and hold it in a little bit longer and then exhale it and get really the same amount of THC into my system.\u201d<\/p>\n RELATED: THC or Terpenes?<\/strong><\/p>\n Rosman also commented on how potency inflation isn\u2019t doing any favors for industry members who are producing quality product with lower THC percentages. He stated, \u201cUltimately, it\u2019s really not good for anyone, and it\u2019s especially not good for growers, because growers with some of the best weed out there then have to compete with mid-grade growers who have so-so weed.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As labs and cannabis companies claim THC percentages over a certain point, those claims become more questionable, according to Rosman and Wurzer. California requires cannabis to have test results calculated by dry weight. So, in California\u2019s market, the THC percentage is higher for flower than if that exact same flower were to be tested in another state that doesn\u2019t calculate by dry weight.<\/p>\n Rosman pointed out that Michigan labs do not calculate potency by dry weight.<\/p>\n Over the years, Wurzer said cannabis breeding developments have allowed cultivators to achieve higher potency figures.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I got into this 12 years ago now, \u2026 the super-high flowers were 24, 25% THC. That was kind of where the genetics topped out,\u201d Wurzer said. \u201cNow, over the years, with [some] breeders breeding just for THC content, and the improvement in breeding techniques and in different techniques to sort of massage out high concentrations of THC, the top flowers are in the [percentages with] high 30s or even low 40s with the way California calculates THC by dry weight, which also gives the THC values a 3-, 4-percentage-points boost.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite scientific advancements, Wurzer said potency claims become less believable as they inch further up over 40% THC. <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cAnything over 40%, you\u2019re starting to get into crazy territory,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019ve seen labs reporting 47% THC flowers, and I would say that\u2019s highly suspect.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Both labs and cannabis producers have a history of inflating or attempting to inflate potency, per Rosman and Wurzer. <\/p>\n One way labs have done this is through equipment calibration, noted by both Wurzer and Rosman.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a bunch of different ways that you can stack different measurements all in one direction,\u201d Wurzer said. \u201cIn every type of measurement we take as an analytical lab, there’s a certain amount of uncertainty\u2014there\u2019s a plus or minus attached to it. If you pile all those pluses or minuses in one direction, well, then, you\u2019re giving someone an edge.\u201d<\/p>\n Another method involves inserting concentrates into test samples, and before the passage of Proposition 64 in California, Wurzer said cannabis growers themselves were nudging the test in that direction.\u00a0<\/p>\n “[Growers] can’t really pull things like they did before regulations, where we would have customers that would take and inject concentrate right into the inside of the bud,\u201d he said. \u201cThen you would go to break up the bud, and in the middle, there would be all this concentrate. And we\u2019d have to call up the customer, be like, \u2018Hey. You can\u2019t be doing this. And if you keep doing this, we\u2019re going to have to fire you as a customer.\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cWe fired a lot of customers in the early days, just telling them, \u2018We\u2019re not going to test for you because you keep trying to trick us. And we\u2019re not going to have our name tarnished by your funny business.\u2019 But that stuff is tough to do now in California because we\u2019re doing the sampling.\u201d<\/p>\n Rosman said other labs have increased potency results on their end by adding kief. He said they\u2019re \u201cadding a little kief in and saying, \u2018Well, kief falls out during the grinding process, so we want to add that kief back in because that kief should be part of the flower. So, because the kief fell out, we\u2019re going to put that kief right back on top, and then that kief is going to be part of our diluted sample that we\u2019re going to subsample from and that will add 20, 30% of potency to it.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n One lab testing issue that has the potential to directly affect consumer health is inaccurate contaminant testing.<\/p>\n In California, Wurzer said some issues cropped up a few years ago with some labs getting up to speed with certain testing protocols. As far as cannabis companies seeking labs\u2019 help to deflate test results, he said operators have indicated to SC Labs that they get more favorable contaminate testing results from other labs.<\/p>\n \u201cWe’ve seen it with micro[-biological] testing for different pathogens, where we\u2019ll \u2026 ding someone for having aspergillus in their facility and it shows up in all of their products,\u201d Wurzer said. \u201cAnd we\u2019re like, \u2018Hey, you\u2019ve got to address this mold situation. It\u2019s not going to go away.\u2019 And then they say, \u2018Well, I\u2019m going to go over to this other lab. They don\u2019t see it when they test it.\u2019 So that certainly is an issue.\u201d<\/p>\n Rosman said lab results for contaminant testing are sometimes inaccurate in Michigan.<\/p>\n \u201cTotal yeast and mold is one of the tests,\u201d Rosman said. \u201cAnother one\u2014aspergillus\u2014seems to be an issue, at least in Michigan. So, you\u2019ve got a sort of moist, warm environment; microbiological contamination proliferates, or at least it likes those kinds of environments. Also, in \u2026 some [states] \u2026 like California, \u2026 you have some approved fungicides and insecticides, pesticides, but it has to be under a certain action limit. In Michigan, essentially everything is banned.\u201d<\/p>\n When asked by CBT whether those inaccurate tests have been the result of negligence or were intentional, Rosman said that \u201c\u2026 in cannabis compliance testing, ethics and negligence are inextricably linked. Simply put, it is unethical for a testing lab to offer its services and perform with negligence.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n To help solve the potency inflation issue, Rosman suggested all cannabis testing data be made publicly available to universities and data statisticians.<\/p>\n Rosman pointed to one study, published in the Journal of Cannabis Research<\/a> in 2021 that outlines \u201cunusual shifts\u201d in potency testing data in two states. Author Michael J. Zoorob, a then-postdoctoral research associate at Harvard University who is currently employed by Meta, analyzed THC results in Nevada and Washington. Zoorob states in the paper: \u201cThere is a statistically unusual spike in the frequency of products reporting just higher than 20% THC in both states consistent with economic incentives for products to contain at least 20% THC.\u201d<\/p>\n Additionally, Rosman told CBT, \u201cI was talking to one of my colleagues in the industry \u2026 who\u2019s doing his own secret-shopper studies and going out to a number of different dispensaries and just asking for the highest-potency stuff [they] have, and then testing it in his own lab. He sees results with variances of 30% to upwards of 70%. We do our own secret-shopper studies, and we see similar results.\u201d<\/p>\n Rosman said Freedom of \u201cIt is my interpretation that \u201cPublicly available information Wurzer said more enforcement is needed to remedy the problems. He said July 7 that California\u2019s former Bureau of Cannabis Control\u2014now consolidated into the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC)\u2014did in 2021 revoke one lab\u2019s license for contaminant testing, which a judge overturned\u2014but that regulators in the state have \u201ctaken a hands-off approach\u201d to potency inflation.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not aware of the state taking action on any laboratories in California for inflated THC results,\u201d Wurzer said July 7. \u201cIt\u2019s a hard thing to prove, but really, if you don\u2019t have the regulators really effectively enforcing this, what\u2019s stopping the labs? It\u2019s almost incentivizing the good labs to start doing the same thing too, because they\u2019re losing business to these labs that are inflating THC results. But then you look at a state like Michigan, \u2026 they\u2019re taking action.\u201d <\/p>\n Michigan\u2019s Cannabis Regulatory Agency automatically audits test results over 28% total THC, Wurzer points out.<\/p>\n California is working to standardize lab testing. In 2021, California Senator John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) introduced Senate Bill 544, and it passed the legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom later that year. The bill requires the DCC to develop a standardized cannabinoid testing method for labs by Jan. 1, 2023.<\/p>\n In a July 8 press release, the DCC noted industry concerns about potency inflation and lab shopping and is seeking public comment on proposed rulemaking<\/a> for standardizing lab methods until 5 p.m. Pacific Time on Aug. 2.\u00a0The DCC will also host a public hearing Aug. 1. (Those interested in joining the Aug. 1 meeting, from 9 a.m. to noon Pacific Time, should email Charisse Diaz at Charisse.Diaz@cannabis.ca.gov or 916-465-9025 by July 29 at 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time.)<\/p>\n Regarding SB 544, Wurzer said it is \u201cwell-intentioned but misguided.\u201d He explained, \u201cThe idea was, if everyone\u2019s using the same testing method, they should all get the same results. But a lot of the tricks that you can use to stack the results in your favor, you can do just the same with a standardized method.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd now, all you\u2019re doing is sort of pigeon-holing all the labs into a single method where they can\u2019t innovate, they can’t add new analytes to measure, they can’t improve the accuracy of their test or improve the speed or make it cheaper or less wasteful or whatever. They\u2019re just all kind of stuck using the same method. But the cheaters can still cheat. So, \u2026 most states are trying to do something to address it. It just really takes engagement from the regulators to do a good job.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Why Is Potency Inflation a Problem?<\/strong>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/giecdn.azurewebsites.net\/storage\/fileuploads\/image\/2022\/07\/29\/ben-rosman.jpg\")
<\/p>\nHow Much THC Is Unrealistic?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
How Is Potency Inflation Being Done?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
What Are the Contaminant Concerns?<\/strong>
What Can Be Done to Solve These Issues?<\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nInformation Act (FOIA) requests for public testing data have been denied in
\nmany states.<\/p>\n
\npublicly available data will translate to more accurate lab results,\u201d Rosman
\nsaid. \u201cTransparency is fundamental in science, in general, and is a critical
\ncomponent of accuracy overall. Entire data sets need to be analyzed to come to
\na true understanding of these lab results.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\ncreates a culture of accountability\u2014when the public is aware, regulators are
\nforced to act which will impact how labs and cultivators operate. Consumers
\nwith access to data are able to evolve the conversation and help the industry
\ngrow.\u201d<\/p>\n