Difference between revisions of "Journal:The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) m |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Saving and adding more.) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
The majority of adults in the U.S. now have state-legal access to medical or recreational cannabis products, despite their federal prohibition. Given the wide array of pharmacologically active compounds in these products, it is essential that their [[Biomolecule|biochemical]] profile is measured and reported to consumers, which requires accurate [[laboratory]] testing. However, no universal standards for laboratory testing [[Protocol (science)|protocols]] currently exist, and there is controversy as to whether all reported results are legitimate. To investigate these concerns, we analyzed a publicly available [[seed-to-sale]] traceability dataset from Washington State containing measurements of the [[cannabinoid]] content of legal cannabis products from state-certified laboratories. Consistent with previous work, we found that commercial ''[[Cannabis]]'' strains fall into three broad [[chemotype]]s defined by the [[tetrahydrocannabinol]]:[[cannabidiol]] (THC:CBD) ratio. Moreover, we documented systematic differences in the cannabinoid content reported by different laboratories, relative stability in cannabinoid levels of commercial flower and concentrates over time, and differences between popular commercial [[Cannabis strains|strains]]. Importantly, interlab differences in cannabinoid reporting persisted even after controlling for plausible confounds. Our results underscore the need for standardized laboratory methodologies in the legal [[cannabis industry]] and provide a framework for quantitatively assessing [[Laboratory quality control|laboratory quality]]. | The majority of adults in the U.S. now have state-legal access to medical or recreational cannabis products, despite their federal prohibition. Given the wide array of pharmacologically active compounds in these products, it is essential that their [[Biomolecule|biochemical]] profile is measured and reported to consumers, which requires accurate [[laboratory]] testing. However, no universal standards for laboratory testing [[Protocol (science)|protocols]] currently exist, and there is controversy as to whether all reported results are legitimate. To investigate these concerns, we analyzed a publicly available [[seed-to-sale]] traceability dataset from Washington State containing measurements of the [[cannabinoid]] content of legal cannabis products from state-certified laboratories. Consistent with previous work, we found that commercial ''[[Cannabis]]'' strains fall into three broad [[chemotype]]s defined by the [[tetrahydrocannabinol]]:[[cannabidiol]] (THC:CBD) ratio. Moreover, we documented systematic differences in the cannabinoid content reported by different laboratories, relative stability in cannabinoid levels of commercial flower and concentrates over time, and differences between popular commercial [[Cannabis strains|strains]]. Importantly, interlab differences in cannabinoid reporting persisted even after controlling for plausible confounds. Our results underscore the need for standardized laboratory methodologies in the legal [[cannabis industry]] and provide a framework for quantitatively assessing [[Laboratory quality control|laboratory quality]]. | ||
==Introduction== | |||
For millennia, ''Cannabis'' has been cultivated for medicinal, recreational, and industrial purposes.<ref name="GrinspoonHist05">{{cite web |url=http://www.maps.org/research-archive/mmj/grinspoon_history_cannabis_medicine.pdf |format=PDF |title=History of Cannabis as a Medicine |author=Grinspoon, L. |publisher=MAPS |date=16 August 2005}}</ref> Despite mounting evidence for the legitimate medical utility of cannabis products and their principal [[Psychoactive drug|psychoactive]] constituents<ref name="WhitingCanna15">{{cite journal |title=Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis |journal=JAMA |author=Whiting, P.F.; Wolff, R.F.; Deshpande, S. et al. |volume=313 |issue=24 |pages=2456–73 |year=2015 |doi=10.1001/jama.2015.6358 |pmid=26103030}}</ref><ref name="NASEM_TheHealth17">{{cite book |title=The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research |author=National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2017 |isbn=9780309453073 |doi=10.17226/24625}}</ref>, they remain classified as [[Controlled Substances Act|Schedule I]] controlled substances by the U.S. federal government. Nonetheless, public opinion on legal cannabis has changed dramatically in recent years<ref name="GeigerSupport16">{{cite web |url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/support-for-marijuana-legalization-continues-to-rise |title=Support for marijuana legalization continues to rise |author=Geiger, A. |work=Fact Tank |publisher=Pew Research Center |date=12 October 2016 |accessdate=29 September 2017}}</ref>, and a majority of U.S. states now allow legal access to [[Cannabis (drug)|medical cannabis]] for approved patients, with several states also allowing recreational adult-use.<ref name="ComptonUseOf17">{{cite journal |title=Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Among Adults in the United States |journal=JAMA |author=Compton, W.M.; Han, B.; Highes, A. et al. |volume=317 |issue=2 |pages=209–11 |year=2017 |doi=10.1001/jama.2016.18900 |pmid=27992636}}</ref> This dynamic legal landscape has given rise to a rapidly growing legal cannabis industry that offers a wide variety of products to consumers. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 30 March 2019
| Full article title |
The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products |
|---|---|
| Journal | Scientific Reports |
| Author(s) | Jikomes, Nick; Zoorob, Michael |
| Author affiliation(s) | Leafly Holdings, Harvard University |
| Primary contact | Email: Contact author via journal |
| Year published | 2018 |
| Volume and issue | 8 |
| Page(s) | 4519 |
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-018-22755-2 |
| ISSN | 2045-2322 |
| Distribution license | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International |
| Website | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2 |
| Download | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2.pdf (PDF) |
 |
This article contains rendered mathematical formulae. You may require the TeX All the Things plugin for Chrome or the Native MathML add-on and fonts for Firefox if they don't render properly for you. |
|
|
This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress. |
Abstract
The majority of adults in the U.S. now have state-legal access to medical or recreational cannabis products, despite their federal prohibition. Given the wide array of pharmacologically active compounds in these products, it is essential that their biochemical profile is measured and reported to consumers, which requires accurate laboratory testing. However, no universal standards for laboratory testing protocols currently exist, and there is controversy as to whether all reported results are legitimate. To investigate these concerns, we analyzed a publicly available seed-to-sale traceability dataset from Washington State containing measurements of the cannabinoid content of legal cannabis products from state-certified laboratories. Consistent with previous work, we found that commercial Cannabis strains fall into three broad chemotypes defined by the tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD) ratio. Moreover, we documented systematic differences in the cannabinoid content reported by different laboratories, relative stability in cannabinoid levels of commercial flower and concentrates over time, and differences between popular commercial strains. Importantly, interlab differences in cannabinoid reporting persisted even after controlling for plausible confounds. Our results underscore the need for standardized laboratory methodologies in the legal cannabis industry and provide a framework for quantitatively assessing laboratory quality.
Introduction
For millennia, Cannabis has been cultivated for medicinal, recreational, and industrial purposes.[1] Despite mounting evidence for the legitimate medical utility of cannabis products and their principal psychoactive constituents[2][3], they remain classified as Schedule I controlled substances by the U.S. federal government. Nonetheless, public opinion on legal cannabis has changed dramatically in recent years[4], and a majority of U.S. states now allow legal access to medical cannabis for approved patients, with several states also allowing recreational adult-use.[5] This dynamic legal landscape has given rise to a rapidly growing legal cannabis industry that offers a wide variety of products to consumers.
References
- ↑ Grinspoon, L. (16 August 2005). "History of Cannabis as a Medicine" (PDF). MAPS. http://www.maps.org/research-archive/mmj/grinspoon_history_cannabis_medicine.pdf.
- ↑ Whiting, P.F.; Wolff, R.F.; Deshpande, S. et al. (2015). "Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis". JAMA 313 (24): 2456–73. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6358. PMID 26103030.
- ↑ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24625. ISBN 9780309453073.
- ↑ Geiger, A. (12 October 2016). "Support for marijuana legalization continues to rise". Fact Tank. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/support-for-marijuana-legalization-continues-to-rise. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
- ↑ Compton, W.M.; Han, B.; Highes, A. et al. (2017). "Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Among Adults in the United States". JAMA 317 (2): 209–11. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.18900. PMID 27992636.
Notes
This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. Some grammar and punctuation was cleaned up to improve readability. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added.
