| This morning in California, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) is convening a public hearing on new standards for cannabis testing labs. The proposal on the table is meant to get all state-licensed labs on the same page, testing cannabinoid content with the same method. This idea came out of Senate Bill 544, signed into law last year, which tasks the DCC with mandating a standardized cannabinoid testing method by Jan. 1, 2023. One of the main goals of this proposal is to cut down on THC inflation, a cooking-the-books workaround whereby labs might tilt a test toward a slightly higher potency level—which then boosts a given SKU’s price or desirability in a market infatuated with high THC content. This insider gamification of lab analytics encourages “lab shopping,” which encourages further workarounds to get those THC levels up. Across the industry (not just in California), this is a problem. Josh Wurzer, president and co-founder of SC Labs, told Managing Editor Patrick Williams that the California proposal is “well-intentioned but misguided.” Wurzer is not alone in his assessment. There is more than one way to crack down on lab shopping, and Wurzer is not sold on the path set out for California operators. “The idea was, if everyone’s using the same testing method, they should all get the same results,” he said. “But a lot of the tricks that you can use to stack the results in your favor, you can do just the same with a standardized method. And now, all you’re doing is sort of pigeon-holing all the labs into a single method where they can’t innovate, they can't add new analytes to measure, they can't improve the accuracy of their test or improve the speed or make it cheaper or less wasteful or whatever. They’re just all kind of stuck using the same method. But the cheaters can still cheat.” As the industry matures, so too will its sense of fair competition. Today’s hearing in California will lay bare a spectrum of perspectives on the matter. What comes next in the story of the licensed cannabis lab is anyone’s guess. -Eric Sandy, Digital Editor | 