Nevada hearing on SB157 pits industry-backed sampling standards against lab concerns over larger cannabis lot sizes

State Sen. Flores presented Senate Bill 157 to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee on March 7 in Carson City and by video from Las Vegas, proposing to replace Nevada's existing 5‑pound cannabis testing lot limit with a sliding scale of larger lot sizes and commensurate sampling requirements adopted from ASTM consensus standards.

The bill's sponsors and industry witnesses said the goal is to keep stringent testing while reducing costs that push consumers to an unregulated market. Will Adler, government relations for Green Thumb Industries, told the committee the bill "does not try and ... reduce any of the stringencies of the test" and urged lawmakers to adopt Washington state's graduated lot‑size framework and ASTM sampling methods.

Why it matters: Nevada currently requires testing on lots no larger than 5 pounds, a limit several witnesses called an outlier that increases testing frequency and cost. Supporters said the change would let growers test larger harvests as single lots while scaling the number of representative samples with lot size so localized contamination is not missed.

Scientists and standards advocates described the technical basis. Dr. Glenn Miller, former faculty at the University of Nevada and former member of Nevada's Independent Laboratory Advisory Committee, said in testimony, "There is no basis for having a 5‑pound lot," and argued larger lots sampled correctly would not increase consumer risk. David Valancourt (GMP Collective, vice chair ASTM Committee D37) summarized the pitch: adopt ASTM's cannabis sampling standard so regulators "test smarter, not harder."

Industry trade groups backed the bill. Lake Martin, executive director of the Nevada Cannabis Association, said SB157 would let small and large cultivators avoid splitting a single room harvest into many 5‑pound lots, reducing labor, labeling and inventory costs. Multiple dispensary and operator representatives said the change keeps existing testing requirements while lowering operational burdens.

Opposition and technical concerns: Alec Garcia, an owner of an independent testing laboratory in northern Nevada, urged caution. "I would urge the committee not to move forward with this bill until this has been more thoroughly vetted," he said, citing unresolved questions about sampling protocols, homogenization and the potential impact if a large lot fails. Garcia and other lab witnesses said some prior analyses (including Bowtech studies cited by states) and more recent reviews should be considered before a statutory change.

Committee discussion: Senators asked whether Washington state's framework (which the bill's language mirrors) produced any quality or safety problems; witnesses said they were not aware of increases in recalls or adverse events in Washington after it adopted a sliding approach and pointed to Colorado and Health Canada as jurisdictions without strict batch caps. Committee members also asked about the number of Nevada growers; witnesses estimated roughly 100 active flower producers but deferred for an exact count to the Cannabis Compliance Board (CCB).

No vote: The committee did not take final action on SB157 during the hearing. Sponsors said they remain open to technical changes and further work with the CCB and independent labs.

Ending: Supporters asked the committee to adopt a sampling‑focused approach that retains current testing stringency while easing operational costs; some laboratories requested additional vetting and clarified technical guidance before statutory changes are made. The bill will return to the committee for possible amendment or later action.