Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Patient, Lab and Industry Evidence of Testing Failures, Debate How to Strengthen New Jersey Oversight
Summary
Witnesses told a legislative oversight committee that inconsistent lab methods, lab‑shopping and limited CRC scientific staffing have allowed mislabeled or contaminated cannabis products to reach New Jersey shelves; industry groups warned new testing rules could raise costs substantially while supporting standardized validation and public COA access.
A New Jersey Assembly committee heard competing accounts Wednesday about the accuracy of cannabis product testing and what the state should do to protect consumers.
Michael Boone, a Stockton University professor and co‑founder of the consumer watchdog Safe Leaf Society, told the Assembly Oversight, Reform and Federal Relations Committee that a recent secret‑shop program tested 25 pre‑rolls from 17 licensed producers and found seven failed microbial testing and multiple products that did not meet the state's ±10% potency‑labeling standard. "No certificates of analysis were provided at the point of sale," Boone said, adding, "These are not technical errors. They are deliberate misrepresentations, and they are putting the public health and legitimacy of our New Jersey cannabis program at risk." He urged the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) to hire scientific staff, require COA disclosure at point of sale, create a neutral reference laboratory, and mandate unannounced audits and whistleblower procedures.
Andrea Bridal, co‑founder of Safe Leaf and an epilepsy patient, gave a patient perspective, saying mislabeling and microbial contamination can cause serious medical harm. "When it comes to mold and microbial contaminations, that'll really bother my asthma," Bridal said, and she described instances where FOIA requests for testing data were denied. Bridal told the committee her group's data show businesses switching labs and potency numbers shifting after lab changes, and she called current civil penalties "a slap on the wrist" given the size of the market.
Industry witnesses acknowledged variation in lab results but disputed the picture of systemic failure painted by watchdog testimony. Todd Johnson, executive director of the New Jersey Cannabis Trade Association, said members have invested about $250 million in the state and pointed to only one formal recall in the programs' history. Johnson said industry stakeholders support improving testing standards and "would be open" to independent testing or a state reference lab, but he warned that the CRC's recently proposed testing guidance — which would have increased testing frequency — raised costs. He cited an anonymous member analysis estimating that a vertically integrated operator could face $1.7 million to $2.2 million in additional annual testing costs under the rescinded guidance.
Laboratory representatives described technical sources of variation and steps regulators could take to reduce it. Trichome Analytical President Sarah Aarons said her lab is ISO‑accredited and DEA‑registered and urged the CRC to hire a technical director with laboratory experience, implement a working reference lab, run round‑robin testing to identify outlier labs, and make testing data publicly accessible (for example via mandatory QR codes on packaging). A separate lab witness explained that potency testing typically relies on established AOAC methods while microbial testing uses culture‑based analysis and that pathogen testing benefits from PCR methods.
Committee members pressed witnesses on several practical questions: whether labs can legally combine results from different tests (witnesses said they must choose a single result), whether consumer access to COAs could be standardized, and how enforcement and inspection staffing affects oversight. Witnesses said CRC inspectors exist but that investigators and staff with scientific training are needed to audit methods, sampling protocols and data integrity.
No formal votes or regulatory actions were taken at the hearing. The committee chair said the session marked "a turning point" and emphasized the need for accountability and stronger oversight.
What happens next: witnesses recommended concrete steps — hiring scientific staff at the CRC, establishing a neutral reference laboratory and routine inter‑laboratory comparison testing, mandatory COA transparency for consumers, and clearer enforcement mechanisms. Industry groups signaled willingness to work on standards but cautioned about costs and implementation details.
Reporting notes: direct quotes and findings in this story are drawn from testimony delivered to the Assembly Oversight, Reform and Federal Relations Committee.
