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
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.
How can a brand verify ingredient consistency across batches?
Request redundant COAs from two labs and require suppliers to guarantee batch-to-batch equivalency.
What impurities are most commonly missing from standard COA panels?
Isomers, synthesis byproducts, residual intermediate compounds, terpene-derived artifacts, and degradation markers.
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.
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.
Related Articles:
