Journal:The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products

From CannaQAWiki
Revision as of 22:12, 22 March 2019 by Shawndouglas (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
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)

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.

References

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.