Mass. hearing spotlights bill to loosen cannabis testing rules, demand greater lab transparency

State Representative Rob Consalvo asked the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy on Tuesday for a favorable report on House Bill 146, which he said would “create efficient cannabis testing standards” and ease costs for licensed operators.

Consalvo told the committee the current rules are “overly burdensome and inconsistent,” and said the bill would increase the minimum testing batch size and remove certain mandatory environmental tests that he described as raising costs without public-health benefits.

The measure would raise the batch-size requirement from 15 pounds to 25 pounds, prohibit routine testing of environmental media such as soil and irrigation water unless directly relevant to product safety, and require public reporting of lab testing data and regular scientific review of standards.

The bill’s proponents framed the changes as both consumer-protective and industry-stabilizing. "Increasing the minimum batch size to 25 pounds will allow operators to test larger product volume at once, thereby reducing per unit testing costs significantly," Consalvo said. Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, told the committee the change would align Massachusetts with neighboring states: "Connecticut is at a 40-pound batch size, New Jersey a little over 30, and Rhode Island 20." Dominguez said the reforms would help keep consumers in the regulated market.

Cultivators and testing laboratories described the bill as a practical fix. Christopher Roos, CEO of High Plains Farm, said testing is among his company’s largest annual expenses and estimated current testing costs at about $85,000 a year; he said the proposed change would reduce testing expenses by roughly 40% to about $51,000 annually. "Testing is one of our highest costs," Roos said, adding the bill would preserve safety while improving market viability for outdoor farms.

Megan Dobro, founder and CEO of Safetiva Labs, supported the bill’s transparency provisions and urged stronger sampling protocols. She testified that some clients stopped using honest labs after receiving higher potency results elsewhere: "Fourteen times, cultivators or manufacturers have stopped testing with us ... but they could get higher THC numbers or pass contaminated batches at other labs." Dobro recommended that any change to batch or sampling rules be paired with stricter, randomized sampling to prevent self-selected samples that undermine scientific integrity.

Industry witnesses and advocates also backed removing routine soil and water mandates for finished-product safety testing. Supporters said monitoring these environmental media imposes costs on outdoor and organic growers who use beneficial microbes and nonharmful practices that can trigger false failures under current thresholds.

Committee members asked about safeguards. Dominguez and Dobro emphasized that greater transparency in lab reporting and annual scientific review—both in the bill—would help identify testing outliers and keep consumer protections intact. Dominguez asked the committee to pair any batch-size change with lab-standardization measures: "We need to create consistency across the labs as well as standardization," he said.

No formal action was taken during the hearing; the committee convened public testimony and discussion of the bill and related measures.

The sponsors said they expect to refine sampling protocols and oversight language as the committee considers a report. If advanced, the bill would direct the Cannabis Control Commission to adopt the updated testing rules and publish aggregated testing data for the regulated market.