The Quiet Quality Crisis Behind Cannabis COAs

Most cannabis product developers treat a certificate of analysis (COA) as
the gold standard. It’s how they confirm purity, potency, and, in an ideal
world, product safety. But behind the clean-looking lab report, something
more complicated is unfolding.

Across the supply chain, a quiet quality crisis is brewing. Cannabinoid
COAs have a history of being selectively framed or outright manipulated.
Ingredients that look compliant on paper are inconsistent in practice, and
product developers are paying the price in reformulations, delays, and
broken consumer trust.
COAs reveal only what labs are asked to test for

The deeper issues? Most COAs reveal only what the lab was told to look for,
and labs have a hidden incentive to give favorable results. Even the
cleanest COAs may leave out a slew of factors that can impact consistency,
potency, quality, and brand credibility.

Some cannabis ingredient producers know exactly how to pass a COA without
offering a clean product. By selectively testing one part of a lot, using
narrow detection thresholds, or leaving entire classes of impurities
untested, a supplier can stay technically compliant even if the material is
flawed. This is compounded by the fact that labs that consistently report
higher potencies and fewer fails for residual solvents or other
contaminants will get more repeat business. Consequently, there is a
built-in bias toward reporting favorable results.

Even reputable brands can be misled. If a cannabinoid extract contains
residual solvents, synthesis byproducts, or unexpected isomers, but those
impurities fall below the lab’s reporting limits — or aren’t tested for at
all — they’ll never show up on the COA.

The result of this lack of visibility is more than just a missed data
point. For brands, it’s a threat to consistency and consumer trust.
Consistency is the real promise brands must keep

Consider Coca-Cola: The formula is designed to deliver the same taste and
experience in every can someone cracks open anywhere in the world. The same
expectation now exists for cannabinoid products. When ingredients vary from
batch to batch — even if the test results come back clean — consistency is
undermined, especially for sensory- or effects-driven products like
gummies, tinctures, and topicals.

Say a hypothetical emerging wellness brand recently launched a functional
gummy line using a “THCV-rich” extract. The supplier’s COA promised high
purity and verified dosage. But within weeks, customer complaints start
rolling in. Some consumers felt no effects at all, while others described
outcomes that didn’t align with the product’s promise. After third-party
analysis, the brand asks their lab to test for both delta-9
tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV; the cannabinoid the plant makes) and delta-8
THCV (an isomer that is the signature of degradation and/or suboptimal
production techniques). The tests indicate the batch contains mostly
delta-8 THCV. Consequently, the brand is forced to pull product off
shelves, source new inputs, rerun tests, and re-market the finished
product, which costs the team weeks of time, tens of thousands of dollars,
and immeasurable reputation damage.

And it’s not just consumer-facing brands that feel the impact.
Real-world variability has real-world costs

One example distributors could face is inconsistency in batch production.
Say a distributor purchases a standardized cannabitriol (CBT) isolate after
a successful pilot batch was third-party verified. At first, the product
works well and is sent to multiple formulator partners. But the second
shipment — labeled identically as the original batch — shows obvious
differences in color, solubility, and performance. Partners must pause
launches, rerun tests, and delay production. The COA was the same for all
shipments, but the material clearly was not.

In a fast-moving category where timing and consistency are everything,
those discrepancies can destroy momentum and brand integrity.

Part of the issue is structural. The industry remains underfunded when it
comes to mechanism-first research. Instead of asking how cannabinoids work
— and how different inputs affect biological pathways — most companies
focus on outcome-first claims that validate what’s already being sold.
A research gap is limiting progress

“Mechanism-first research gives us a blueprint,” said Dr. Tony Ferrari, an
analytical chemist with deep expertise in cannabinoid formulation.
“Outcome-first research gives us a sales pitch.”

This creates a scientific blind spot that affects everything downstream,
from testing standards to ingredient consistency. Without fully
understanding how minor cannabinoids interact with the body or degrade
during processing, we miss clues that could inform better safety protocols
and formulation techniques.

In most industries, research starts in the lab, but “in cannabis, the
reverse happened,” said economist Dr. Ruth Fisher. “People were using it on
a massive scale, and then the researchers came in and started looking at
what was happening in the real world.”

This process reversal may be the industry’s greatest asset. By aggregating
real-world data across use cases, outcomes, and product formats, we can
uncover patterns and side effects we might never have detected in a
traditional laboratory setup.
How to raise standards for ingredient quality

We can use this asset to raise the bar on cannabinoid quality. The effort
will take more than more-accurate COAs. It will require:

- Broader impurity panels and updated reference standards.
- Transparency from labs about what *isn’t* being tested.
- Redundant COAs from at least two different labs for the same batch of
material (to demonstrate results are consistent).
- Ingredient partners that guarantee consistency batch to batch and ship
the actual product represented on the COA.
- Open collaboration across brands, labs, and researchers to share
real-world observations.

COAs should never be the finish line. In a space as complex and rapidly
evolving as cannabinoids, a COA should be the starting point, providing a
baseline that invites deeper questions, better research, and long-term
trust-building.

Because what’s not listed on your COA could end up being what costs your
brand the most.
------------------------------
FAQ: COA Challenges and Solutions

1. Why isn’t a COA enough to confirm cannabis ingredient purity?

Because COAs only show what the lab was instructed to test for — and
reporting limits may exclude relevant impurities or isomers.
2. How can a brand verify ingredient consistency across batches?

Request redundant COAs from two labs and require suppliers to guarantee
batch-to-batch equivalency.
3. What impurities are most commonly missing from standard COA panels?

Isomers, synthesis byproducts, residual intermediate compounds,
terpene-derived artifacts, and degradation markers.
4. How can labs reduce the incentive bias that leads to inflated potency
reports?

Transparent methodologies, standardized reference materials, and
third-party auditing reduce incentive pressure.

------------------------------
[image: Shane Johnson MD]

Shane Johnson, MD, is senior vice president and general manager at BayMedica,
which specializes in producing and distributing rare cannabinoids at
scale. For the past four years, his work has focused on cannabis and
cannabinoid science, and he has developed a strong working knowledge of
clinical opportunities in the sector. A Fulbright Scholar, he earned his
medical degree from Stanford University School of Medicine.