ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Commercial Cannabis Product Testing: Fidelity to Labels and Regulations.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In 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. Aims: Explore the accuracy of cannabis product labels and differences between THC label accuracy and product type. Design: Data 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. Setting: This study was conducted in Colorado, in the Denver Metro Area. Participants: Participants 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. Measurement: The 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. Findings: Overall, 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). Conclusions: There 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.