Commercial Cannabis Product Testing: Fidelity to Labels and Regulations
Limbacher, S.; Godbole, S.; Wrobel, J.; Mackie, D.; Goldman, S.; Brooks-Russell, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundIn Colorado, regulations for recreational and medical cannabis sales require Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration is printed on all products. Labeled THC concentrations can vary by +/-15% of what is in the product. Studies show THC concentrations recorded on product labels are not always reflective of the THC concentration in the cannabis product and there is evidence consumers make purchasing decisions based on label claims. AimsExplore the accuracy of cannabis product labels and differences between THC label accuracy and product type. DesignData for this analysis come from a larger observational study of cannabis impairment. N=74 flower, concentrate, and edible product samples from licensed Colorado dispensaries were collected and independently tested for THC concentration. SettingThis study was conducted in Colorado, in the Denver Metro Area. ParticipantsParticipants in the study voluntarily enrolled and provided one-gram samples of the cannabis they consumed during the study to be independently tested. The cannabis tested for this analysis was donated on a voluntary basis, not all participants chose to donate. MeasurementThe main outcomes of interest for this analysis are accuracy of cannabis product labels compared to observed THC content, accuracy in the context of legally allowable variation, and difference between accuracy by product. FindingsOverall, label values were higher than observed values in flower and edible products (p < 0.001) but was not significant for concentrates (p = 0.85). Flower products were observed to be significantly lower on labels versus the 15% legally allowable range (p = 0.04). Concentrate and edible products were not significantly different (p = 0.9 and p = 0.5, respectively). ConclusionsThere is tension between legally allowable THC concentration claims on cannabis product labels and how consumers purchase cannabis. As cannabis policy evolves, standards and regulations that ensure accurate THC concentrations are reported on product labels are urgently needed.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Patterns of blunt and cigar use in the United States, 2015-2019 94%
- Artificial Sweeteners in US-Marketed Oral Nicotine Pouch Products: Correlation with Nicotine Contents and Effects on Product Preference 91%
- Cost Comparison and Spending on Tobacco Products: Evidence from A Nationally Representative Sample of Adult E-Cigarette Users 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Mixed-Methods Comparison of Gender Differences in Alcohol Consumption and Drinking Characteristics among Patients in Moshi, Tanzania 92%
- “ A Man Never Cries ”: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Gender Differences in Depression and Alcohol Use in Moshi, Tanzania 91%
- Epidemiology of alcohol use and alcohol use disorder among female sex workers in Mbeya City, Tanzania. 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Fentanyl, Heroin, and Methamphetamine-Based Counterfeit Pills Sold at Tourist-Oriented Pharmacies in Mexico: An Ethnographic and Drug Checking Study 94%
- Agreement between DSM-IV and DSM-5 measures of substance use disorders in a sample of adult substance users 93%
- Changes in injecting versus smoking heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine among people who inject drugs in San Diego, California, 2020 to 2023 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.