The commonly used marijuana strain labeling system can be highly misleading for consumers, a new study that analyzed the chemical composition of almost 90,000 cannabis samples across six states found.<\/p>\n
Experts have been critical of how marijuana varieties are being marketed for some years, but the study published in the journal PLOS One last week provides an in-depth look at just how inaccurate cannabis product labeling seems to be.<\/p>\n
Researchers said that their findings undermine the most common way that marijuana \u201cstrains\u201d are categorized: indicas associated with body highs, sativas with energizing effects and hybrids that can lean one way or another. That nomenclature just doesn\u2019t match up to the chemical reality of cannabis varieties, the study suggests.<\/p>\n
That said, what\u2019s often missing on cannabis labels is an accurate breakdown of terpenes\u2014essential oils derived from plants that some studies indicate play a role not just in the taste and smell of marijuana varieties but also the physical and psychoactive effects.<\/p>\n
The new study did identify three main classes of terpene combinations that are prominent in certain strains: Those high in caryophyllene and limonene, those with rich concentrations of myrcene and pinene and those with robust terpinolene and myrcene content. But those categories \u201cdo not neatly correspond to the indica, sativa and hybrid labeling scheme,\u201d the study authors determined.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIn other words, it is likely that a sample with the label indica will have an indistinguishable terpene composition as samples labelled sativa or hybrid,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n
Brian Keegan, a co-author and assistant professor of Information Science at Colorado University Boulder, said that the study findings raise problems for the burgeoning marijuana markets evolving in states across the country.<\/p>\n
It shows that \u201cthe prevailing labeling system is not an effective or safe way to provide information about these products,\u201d Keegan said. \u201cThis is a real challenge for an industry that is trying to professionalize itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
If you can\u2019t necessarily trust the triad indica, sativa and hybrid designations, what does that say about the chemical consistency of common strain names like Blue Dream and Girl Scout Cookies? The researchers took on that question, too.<\/p>\n
The answer is more complicated.<\/p>\n
To start, most states require that marijuana products are labeled to show THC and CBD content. But that on its own doesn\u2019t paint an especially accurate picture of chemical content without terpene profiles, or information about other cannabinoid concentrations. So Keegan worked with several cannabis scientists to fill in the knowledge gaps and more comprehensively compare strains that are branded with the same names across various states.<\/p>\n
Certain widely recognized varieties such as Durban Poison were \u201cconsistently inconsistent,\u201d study co-author Nick Jikomes, director of science and innovation at Leafly, said<\/a> in a press release. But the researcher told Marijuana Moment that he was surprised that other strains proved chemically consistent across state lines.<\/p>\n For example, there were samples of varieties like White Tahoe Cookies that appeared to be fairly consistent, meaning a consumer might reasonably find that consuming that strain purchased in California produces similar effects to a same-name strain bought in Washington.<\/p>\n \u201cThere was actually more consistency among strains than I had expected,\u201d he said. \u201cThat tells me that the cultivators, at least in some cases, may not be getting enough credit.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI would say that our results show that that [indica\/sativa\/hybrid classifications are] mostly a poor guide to what you\u2019re actually going to get,\u201d Jikomes told Marijuana Moment. \u201cIf you take a random indica, a random sativa, [the] odds are very good that they\u2019re actually not going to be that different from each other.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere are in fact at least a few different types of chemically distinct cannabis flower in the commercial marketplace that are statistically, clearly distinguishable from each other in terms of their chemical content,\u201d he said. \u201cHowever, the labels that are used commercially\u2014 especially the indica, sativa, hybrid nomenclature\u2014and to some extent, the strain names\u2014those labels don\u2019t capture the diversity very well.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey either do a very poor job of capturing it, or they do a kind of so-so job of capturing it,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s highly variable between the strain names. So even though there are some strain names that are reasonably consistent\u2014more consistent than I expected them to be, frankly, when I set out to do this\u2014 they\u2019re still not perfectly consistent.\u201d<\/p>\n The study authors also said that there may be some untapped potential in diversifying the cannabis genetic pool, as many strains proved to be fairly homogenous despite the hundreds of constituents that can be found in marijuana plants.<\/p>\n \u201cThe founding fathers of cannabis research call it a pharmaceutical cornucopia because it produces so many different chemicals that interact with our bodies in different ways,\u201d Keegan said. \u201cWe are only scratching the surface.\u201d<\/p>\n The study\u2019s<\/a> discussion section also offers a theory about how the marijuana labeling system became so discordant.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough the origins of this pattern are unclear, one hypothesis is that it echoes patterns of phytochemistry that may have been more distinctive prior to the long history of Cannabis<\/em> hybridization in the US,\u201d the study says. \u201cIt is conceivable, for example, that certain cultivars commonly associated with \u2018Sativa\u2019 lineages may have historically displayed a chemotype reliably distinct from those in other lineages. Over time, hybridization and a lack of standardized naming conventions may have decorrelated chemotaxonomic markers from the linguistic labels used by cultivators.\u201d<\/p>\n The findings have big implications for the cannabis industry, especially as more state markets come online and congressional efforts to end prohibition persist.<\/p>\n \u201cLegal THC-dominant Cannabis<\/em> products are marketed to consumers as if there are clear-cut associations between a product\u2019s label and its psychoactive effects,\u201d the study says. \u201cThis is deceptive, as there is currently no clear scientific evidence for these claims and our results show that these labels have a tenuous relationship to the underlying chemistry.\u201d<\/p>\n The authors are recommending that the market take these findings into account and develop a new, updated system of labeling cannabis products\u2014something similar to the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s (FDA) \u201cnutrition facts panel\u201d for food items.<\/p>\n \u201cA farmer can\u2019t just pick up an apple and decide to call it a Red Delicious. A beer manufacturer can\u2019t just arbitrarily label their product a Double IPA,\u201d Jikomes said. \u201cThere are standards. But that is not the case for the cannabis industry.\u201d<\/p>\n Keegan added that the current situation is \u201clike if your cereal box only showed calories and fat and nothing else. We as consumers need to be pushing for more information. If we do that, the industry will respond.\u201d<\/p>\n The study also addressed its limitations, including issues navigating marijuana research in the U.S. under the umbrella of federal prohibition.<\/p>\n To that point, there are efforts by federal agencies like the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to promote studies despite the restrictions placed on researching Schedule I drugs like cannabis. Just last week, NIDA posted a notice seeking new, authorized suppliers of marijuana<\/a> for research purposes.<\/p>\n For decades, NIDA has had just one direct marijuana supplier at the University of Mississippi because the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had declined to expand the number of authorized producers. But the agency has finally ended that monopoly by approving new licensees<\/a>.<\/p>\n Even the head of NIDA, Nora Volkow, said that\u00a0she\u2019s personally reluctant to go through the onerous process<\/a>\u00a0of getting approval to study Schedule I drugs like marijuana. Volkow\u00a0has been repeatedly pressed on cannabis research issues<\/a>, as well as the agency\u2019s work with respect to other substances like kratom and various psychedelics.<\/p>\n With DEA\u2019s approval of additional marijuana manufacturers, advocates are hopeful that the diversity and quality of cannabis products will increase, even if it remains challenging for scientists to study Schedule I substances in general.<\/p>\n DEA has also\u00a0been increasing annual production quotas<\/a>\u00a0for marijuana and other substances like psilocybin as demand from the research community has surged.<\/p>\n President Joe Biden\u00a0signed a massive infrastructure bill last year<\/a>\u00a0that includes provisions aimed at allowing researchers to\u00a0study the actual marijuana that consumers are purchasing from state-legal dispensaries<\/a>\u00a0instead of having to use only government-grown cannabis.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, NIDA also recently published a notice\u00a0reaffirming its interest in supporting marijuana research<\/a>, outlining the types of study proposals it hopes to fund and giving instructions to researchers on how to apply. NIDA said the guidance is informed by recommendations from a\u00a0workgroup it set up to explore the issue in 2018<\/a>.<\/p>\n Top Federal Drug Agency Seeks New Suppliers Of Marijuana For Research<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo courtesy of WeedPornDaily<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Marijuana \u2018Strain\u2019 Labels Often Mislead Consumers, Study Of Nearly 90,000 Samples Shows<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The commonly used marijuana strain labeling system can be highly misleading for consumers, a new study that analyzed the chemical composition of almost 90,000 cannabis samples across six states found. Experts have been critical of how marijuana varieties are being marketed for some years, but the study published in theContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15462],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54841"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54841"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54841\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54842,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54841\/revisions\/54842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Marijuana \u2018Strain\u2019 Labels Often Mislead Consumers, Study Of Nearly 90,000 Samples Shows<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"