Forensic commission adopts guidance on THC/THCA reporting, refers related cases for review

The Texas Forensic Science Commission on April 10 approved staff92s draft report directing crime labs to change how they report results when testing non-plant products that contain THC and THCA, and the panel voted to refer related compliance cases for further review under state law.

Commission staff told members that the central problem is testing methods that convert THCA (the non-psychoactive acid form) to neutral THC during instrument analysis, producing results that cannot distinguish whether the sample contained THCA, THC, or both. The staff recommendation directs labs that use methods unable to separate THCA from THC to report results using clearer language (for example: "contains THC and/or THCA") and to note method limitations.

Staff emphasized the guidance covers non-plant matrices (liquids, oils, waxes) rather than plant material, and that some laboratories use liquid chromatography (LC) methods that can distinguish THCA from THC while others use gas chromatography (GC) methods that cannot. Staff said the commission92s role is to ensure reporting clarity so courts and lawyers understand the limits of the method.

Commissioners discussed ongoing state legislation that could change how acid and neutral forms of cannabinoids are treated under law. Staff noted that if statutes make all intoxicating THC forms illegal, labs would not need to distinguish THCA from THC for legal purposes, but until the law is changed the reporting guidance would address current ambiguity.

The commission voted to adopt the staff draft report recommending the reporting changes; the motion carried without roll-call tallies recorded in the transcript. The commission also voted to refer the compliance case at issue and similarly affected cases to the office named in the record as the Office of Capital Prunzi Writs pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.01 section 3(h) and Texas Government Code section 78.0545 (as cited in the meeting). That referral motion also carried. The referral was described in the staff presentation as a mechanism to route case-level questions through the appropriate prosecutorial/forensic review channels.

Commission materials and staff said the immediate aims are (1) clarify lab reporting language for non-plant THC testing; (2) advise labs to indicate when their method converts THCA to THC during analysis; and (3) refer fact-specific compliance matters for additional review so laboratories and end users have consistent expectations.

Commission members directed staff to publish the guidance promptly so laboratories that paused testing (notably DPS had suspended testing according to the record) can resume with clear reporting requirements.

The commission cited administrative code authority for reopening and investigation in discussion (administrative code section 651.305(b) and 651.305(h) were referenced during the earlier complaint handling), and staff said the guidance and referrals were made under the commission92s investigatory and reporting authority as discussed in the meeting.