These “detect/non-detect” standards penalize labs with cutting-edge equipment and methods, while rewarding less proficient labs

Some states created incentives for cannabis companies to choose less reliable testing methods by allowing a product to pass or fail based on whether or not the chemical is detected within the limit of detection of the equipment used. This “detect/non-detect” standard rewards less proficient laboratories. I believe this dynamic should be reversed through the adoption of uniform standards that move away from limit-of-detection testing. What do you think? I feel our lab is being punished by having state-of-the-art instrumentation.

1 Like

I completely agree with this. Our lab purchased three Agilent Ultivo Triple Quadrupole LC/MS systems and have achieved absurdly low LODs which mean that we are now capable of failing clients that would otherwise pass at other labs with less sensitive instrumentation. We need actual pass/fail values instead of this “detected” crap.

1 Like