“Either regulators step in and solve this problem, as we have seen in multiple states, or honest labs go out of business.”
There are few issues more pressing for Mass cannabis industry stakeholders—and, by extension, consumers—than problems with lab testing. As we noted with some background on the subject last week, the Cannabis Control Commission even scheduled a public listening session about Independent Testing Labs, the technical licensing designation for the facilities that manufacturers and growers use to evaluate products, for Thursday, Nov. 7.
While CCC members have reportedly been slow to address complaints around testing in Mass, as part of the body’s “regulatory review period to address necessary changes and updates to the rules and regulations governing the cannabis industry,” its Cannabis Advisory Board (CAB) Research Subcommittee began “evaluating the area of cannabis lab testing and product labeling” as early as October 2022. In “discussing reports of inconsistencies and potential safety issues in how cannabis and cannabis product samples are tested, how test results and contaminants are reported, and how operators are presenting testing and potency data to patients and consumers on product labels,” they later approved a number of cannabis lab testing recommendations in June 2023.
The current Research Subcommittee members are still leaning on this issue, and during a meeting earlier this year, members voted on a new definition for the group that includes testing. The sharpened focus comes as researchers including MCR Labs VP of Marketing and Technology Yasha Kahn gain attention for a database they’ve compiled of nationwide lab test results. As MCR Labs puts it, “The data gathered is a treasure trove of information that can reshape our understanding of cannabis products, the policies that govern them, and the quality control mechanisms in place.”
Kahn joined the Research Subcommittee’s public meeting this Thursday as the group’s first guest speaker of the year. Acknowledging how testing fraud has landed on front pages from the Wall Street Journal to the Boston Globe this year, he encouraged his hosts to keep the pressure on. “This happens year after year in every single market, unless one of two things happen,” Kahn said. “Either regulators step in and solve this problem, as we have seen in multiple states, or honest labs go out of business, which we have also seen in multiple markets.”
He broke down how the problem proliferates, using slides that Kahn commissioned from cannabis cartoonist Brian Box Brown. Consumers walk into dispensaries looking for high-TAC products, then shop owners in turn tell cultivators that they can’t sell lower-potency products. Many of those growers then approach the lab they use and tell them that if they don’t give them better results, they will abandon them for a facility that will.
Kahn also spoke about troubles with contaminant screens, showing data from cultivators who went from failing a number of total yeast and mold tests with one lab, then passing unanimously when they switched to another provider.
“There’s a reason why labs go out of their way to figure out ways to not detect mold, and to not fail their paying customers, their cultivators,” Kahn said. “The reason they do this is money. Labs that have a failure rate that is three-to-eight times lower than the national average for total yeast and mold failures, they increase in market share year after year. The labs that have a failure rate around the national average, they decrease.”
In a section covering his team’s recommendations, Kahn suggested that the CCC’s testing team and leadership meet regularly with Independent Testing Labs, that the agency “prioritize public health and consumer rights,” and also “make all cannabis compliance testing data public.”
From what the CCC has been communicating, that appears to be the direction they are moving in with the upcoming listening session. Member Kimberly Roy, who is the commissioner liaison to the Research Subcommittee, said on Thursday, “We need to address this problem.” She added, “it’s not unique,” with “manipulated lab results” being a “nationwide problem.”
“I advocated for this public hearing,” Roy said, “and I’m looking forward to a powerful and meaningful discussion.”
During the same meeting, the Research Subcommittee also took action tied to Kahn’s findings and experience gathering public information for his database, with members unanimously passing a motion recommending “that the Cannabis Control Commission make all cannabis compliance testing data available to the public in the most expeditious manner possible. … that the data be made public within 60 days … [and] that the compliance testing data be made available on both the Cannabis Control Commission website and during the Cannabis Control Commission monthly meetings.”
Committee Chair Ellen Brown said additional testing-focused recommendations will be discussed at the November meeting.
