Table of Contents
The phenomenon of THC inflation has reached such a level of ubiquity that it has begun to elicit commentary from entities within the public sector, notably among, Organigram, a company whose shares are traded on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol OGI. This observation was articulated by Organigram’s Chief Executive Officer, Beena Goldenberg, during the discourse of the firm’s latest earnings conference.
“THC inflation is alive and well out in the market,” asserted CEO Beena Goldenberg, highlighting the prevailing trend within the cannabis industry towards the advertising and labeling of cannabis products with THC concentrations that are significantly higher than their actual potency. This practice, as noted by Goldenberg, is not isolated but rather widespread, with numerous entities within the market engaged in the embellishment of THC levels in their offerings.
Further elaborating on this matter, Goldenberg conveyed, during the earnings call, an acknowledgment of the market’s inclination towards products with increasingly higher THC content. This trend, according to the CEO, has not waned but continues to intensify, with the demand for high-potency cannabis products showing no signs of abating. Compounding this issue is the revelation, based on random testing, that a considerable number of market participants are inaccurately representing their cannabis flowers as possessing a higher THC potency than is verifiably the case.
This situation raises pertinent questions regarding the integrity of product labeling and the potential implications for consumer trust and regulatory oversight within the cannabis industry. The practice of THC inflation, as highlighted by Organigram’s CEO, underscores a growing challenge that stakeholders across the spectrum, from cultivators to consumers, must navigate as the industry continues to evolve.
Elevated THC Levels Do Not Necessarily Equate to Increased Intoxication
The prevailing belief among consumers that a higher tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content invariably leads to an enhanced psychoactive experience has been deeply ingrained within the cannabis market. However, a comprehensive study conducted in the year 2020 by the esteemed University of Colorado Boulder has shed light on the fallacy of this assumption. According to the findings of this report, there exists a threshold in the human cannabinoid receptor system beyond which the saturation point is reached. Once this saturation level is attained, the incremental addition of THC does not proportionately increase the psychoactive effects, thereby challenging the prevailing consumer belief that higher THC levels correlate with a superior high.
Despite the dissemination of these findings, the consumer base at large appears to remain either uninformed or dismissive of this crucial insight. This persistent demand for products boasting elevated THC levels has consequently shaped the inventory strategies of dispensaries, which now prioritize the stocking of such high-THC cannabis products to meet consumer expectations. This dynamic has further cascaded down to the cultivators, who find themselves compelled to partake in what can be described as a THC inflation race. The competitive market conditions have dictated that, regardless of the inherent quality of the cannabis, the viability of selling their product is heavily contingent upon it surpassing a certain THC potency threshold.
Josh Swider, the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs provides a poignant anecdote illustrating the absurdity that this THC chase has engendered within the industry. Swider recalls an instance where a cannabis flower was marketed with a THC concentration of 55%, a figure he categorically deems as “physically impossible” to achieve. This example underscores not only the unrealistic expectations set by the industry but also the lack of regulatory oversight and the inadequacy of checks and balances within the market to ensure accuracy in THC labeling and claims.
The implications of this phenomenon are multifaceted, affecting consumer perceptions, industry practices, and regulatory frameworks. It underscores the need for a more informed consumer base, ethical industry practices that prioritize accurate and transparent product information, and robust regulatory mechanisms that ensure product integrity. As the cannabis market continues to evolve, addressing these challenges will be paramount in aligning consumer expectations with scientific realities, thereby fostering a market that values quality and integrity over misleading potency metrics.
Laboratories Are the Epicenter
Laboratories have increasingly found themselves at the heart of a widespread deception within the cannabis industry. This phenomenon was notably highlighted by Josh Swider, who, reflecting on his experiences beginning in the year 2020 in California, illustrated the mounting pressure placed upon laboratories to conform to unrealistic THC potency demands. Swider recounted instances where requests explicitly stipulated that all cannabis flowers must exhibit a minimum of 20% total THC content to be considered for purchase by dispensaries, a threshold that has only escalated over time.
As Swider’s narrative continued, he depicted a scenario that grew increasingly stringent, with the demands in subsequent years escalating first to a minimum of 25% THC, and then alarmingly, in 2023, to benchmarks of 28% and eventually 30%. This relentless pursuit of higher THC levels has not only placed undue pressure on cultivators but has also catalyzed a competitive environment among laboratories, each vying to meet these inflated expectations to secure business from growers desperate to remain viable in an increasingly demanding market.
Swider pointed out that the competition among laboratories did not transpire covertly but was rather an overt operation, with some labs unabashedly advertising their capability to augment THC values. This situation underscores a troubling ethical dilemma; laboratories, often small businesses with substantial personal investment at stake, find themselves grappling with the moral quandary of potentially compromising integrity to sustain their operations. The dire need to remain financially solvent in a fiercely competitive landscape has led some to succumb to the allure of artificially inflating THC potency numbers.
This confluence of market pressures, ethical considerations, and financial imperatives reveals a complex and multifaceted challenge at the intersection of science, commerce, and regulation. It highlights the pivotal role that laboratories play in the integrity of the cannabis industry and the need for a balanced approach that respects scientific accuracy, supports business sustainability, and prioritizes consumer safety and transparency. As the industry evolves, it becomes imperative to address these challenges through collaborative efforts among stakeholders, rigorous regulatory frameworks, and an unwavering commitment to ethical practices.
Whom Should You Contact?
Swider articulated that the regulatory authorities in California seem to exhibit a notable disinterest in addressing the escalating issue of THC inflation, a stark contrast to the proactive measures implemented by other states such as Michigan and New York. These jurisdictions have embarked on more vigorous approaches to mitigate the challenge, demonstrating a commitment to upholding integrity within the cannabis testing industry.
The dilemma facing laboratories, as Swider elucidates, becomes particularly pronounced when confronted with substantial financial incentives to compromise ethical standards. The presentation of significant sums of money, exemplified by instances where individuals arrive at laboratories with bags containing upwards of $100,000 in cash, soliciting the laboratory to endorse their products regardless of actual THC content, represents a formidable test of integrity. Such scenarios pose a profound ethical quandary for laboratory operators, many of whom are small business owners deeply invested in their enterprises. The specter of financial ruin looms large, rendering the temptation to acquiesce to these requests increasingly difficult to resist.
Moreover, Swider suggests that identifying laboratories that routinely embellish THC results could be feasibly straightforward. A pattern wherein a disproportionate number of products tested exhibit unusually high THC concentrations, all originating from a singular laboratory, would serve as a compelling indicator of malpractice. This, however, presupposes a level of regulatory vigilance and enforcement that is currently lacking.
The methodologies employed by certain laboratories to inflate THC levels are multifarious. One such technique involves the testing of cannabis samples with elevated moisture content, a condition known to artificially inflate THC concentration readings. Alternatively, some laboratories may elect to test a single sample exhibiting a high THC content and subsequently apply this favorable result across a spectrum of other strains provided by the same client, regardless of their actual THC content. These practices underscore the complexity of the THC inflation issue and the myriad ways in which it can manifest, further complicating the task of regulation and oversight.
Limits on THC Content
A conceivable solution to the burgeoning issue of THC inflation within the cannabis industry might well lie in the imposition of THC caps on products, or, as an alternative, the establishment of new protocols mandating retesting in instances where THC concentration results are excessively high.
Goldenberg has observed, based on anecdotal evidence, that certain regulatory boards are beginning to exhibit skepticism towards cannabis flower products that claim THC concentrations exceeding 30%, prompting requests for secondary testing to verify these claims. This trend toward skepticism and the demand for additional verification is indicative of a growing awareness and concern regarding the accuracy and integrity of THC content representations. Furthermore, the enhanced scrutiny is not limited to anecdotal instances; it has begun to manifest in formal regulatory actions. Notably, entities such as Health Canada and the Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) have initiated protocols for random THC testing, reflecting a concerted effort to ensure product compliance with established standards and to safeguard consumer trust in the veracity of product labeling.
Swider, reflecting on the broader implications of these developments, posits that states demonstrating a genuine commitment to addressing the issue of THC inflation are likely to undertake significant efforts towards its resolution. The absence of such measures, he cautions, could have dire consequences for the industry. Specifically, Swider articulates a concern that the lack of effective regulatory intervention could precipitate the demise of numerous honest cultivators and laboratories. These entities, which endeavor to operate within the bounds of ethical standards and accuracy, may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a market that increasingly rewards, or at least tolerates, inflated THC content claims. This dynamic underscores the critical importance of regulatory measures, such as THC caps or stringent retesting protocols, in preserving the integrity of the cannabis market and protecting the interests of both consumers and principled industry participants.
