February 13, 2025
Scientist David Vaillencourt has spent most of his cannabis industry career working on standardizing the rules, measurements and recommended procedures that guide licensed marijuana businesses.
Vaillencourt certainly has the credentials to back his mission:
Vice chair of Pennsylvania-headquartered ASTM International’s Committee D37 on Cannabis Standards.
Board chair and co-founder of the S3 Collective, a cannabis industry nonprofit in Colorado advocating for industry standardization.
CEO of the GMP Collective, his Colorado-based consulting firm.
ADVERTISEMENT
His work has often intersected with the marijuana industry’s testing lab niche, which in recent months has been rocked by scandals and lawsuits in major markets such as California, Colorado, Massachusetts and New York.
MJBizDaily spoke about testing lab fraud with Vaillencourt, who welcomes increased scrutiny of the sector but believes businesses also must do more:
Why are we seeing so many testing lab scandals at this point in the industry’s evolution?
It’s been going on since third-party lab testing has been around. It’s been talked about.
I look at this as positive, that it’s finally getting more traction.
One of the reasons why I think it’s coming to light is because several labs are going above and beyond their job and collecting and summarizing data.
There are people like Yasha Kahn of MCR Labs (in Massachusetts) that are bringing this information to the public sphere and showing unequivocally that there is a major lab shopping issue.
I want to ask the industry, “What are you doing to be part of the solution?” Because the industry is the one that’s choosing to pick Lab A over Lab B because of more favorable results.
That’s straight-up fraud.
They are defrauding consumers by knowingly picking labs that are going to give them more favorable results.
The onus needs to be on the industry to say, “We’re not OK with doing this, and let’s be part of the solution.”
Have ethics and integrity.
ADVERTISEMENT
How would standardization help reduce testing lab fraud?
Standardization is necessary, but what does standardization actually mean, because it could be a catch-22.
Do we want standardized testing methods so that every lab is using the exact same high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) run time and all those little details?
Then you might as well just have one government lab that that does this, and there’s no competition.
But then you can say goodbye to innovation. That’s the challenge.
We definitely need standardization. It’s more in the framework of needing a bar, needing minimum performance standards.
How accurate and precise do the lab results need to be? How are samples selected?
If they’re cherry-picking buds for testing, then of course, the result is going to be more favorable toward a high-THC value.
If there’s no safeguards around how to sample at random with integrity, then it doesn’t matter what the lab test is.
We need those types of minimum standards.
What progress has been made in terms of standardization?
We have over 60 standards now that have gone through the consensus process.
We have standards on how to collect and prepare a representative sample.
We have several standardized analytical test methods.
We have specifications for packaging and labeling.
We have sustainability standards being developed.
And, as of mid-2024, 13 states have adopted some of these ASTM standards. States are starting to adopt them, which means we’re starting to chip away at this problem.
But it’s still very much a patchwork. There’s still a lot more to do.
Some labs have filed lawsuits alleging testing fraud by competitors. Some industry stakeholders welcome such lawsuits; others say they’re just attempts to make competitors look bad. How do you see it?
Lab shopping is a major problem, and I applaud the labs for taking matters into their own hands.
I hate seeing the buck being passed and people saying, “Well, it’s the regulator’s responsibility.”
We all share responsibility.
What I see coming out of these lawsuits is at least being a catalyst for change.
Is this going to solve the problem? Heck no. Is there a simple solution? There isn’t.
So, getting more visibility and airtime, I see as a net positive.
It seems the best way to deter fraud is spot inspections. Should the industry be seeing more of those?
I see that as a big part of the solution, because it’s data.
We need to have spot checks that will really bring light on the issue.
And the fear of getting caught will drive compliance.
Reference labs also have been put forward as a solution. What do you think?
I see them as part of the solution.
A reference lab that is government-run, independent, does not have a financial incentive like a third-party testing lab and is focused on establishing the standard so that when there’s a lawsuit or any other discrepancy, you can go back and say, what is the real number?
That’s critical.
Hemp-derived THC products and the accompanying consumer-safety issues pose another challenge for testing labs. How should the industry address hemp-derived THC products?
Every study that I’ve ever seen has shown that hemp-derived THC products are widely variable and hardly ever meet label claims.
Further, let’s talk about inversion, the opposite of diversion.
A quarter of the products on the shelves in certain marketplaces that claim to be marijuana plant-derived THC distillate are actually hemp-derived and they just sprinkled some converted THC in there.
Michigan is one that has a problem.
Do you think this problem will ever go away?
I like to ask, “Have we really thought about what will be acceptable?” Because there is (an illicit) market for everything.
If you want it, and you got money, you can get a hold of something.
So the problem is never going to completely go away.
But at what point are we going to say it’s better and there’s actually integrity and consumer trust in the marketplace?
I don’t know that we’ve really identified what that looks like. And I think it’s going to be a few more years.
I think the industry is asleep at the wheel and just being complacent and benefiting from the fruits of the ability to lab shop.
Comments