评估药房大麻花中大麻素含量标签的准确性。

IF 4.1 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of cannabis research Pub Date : 2024-03-09 DOI:10.1186/s42238-024-00220-4
Mona M Geweda, Chandrani G Majumdar, Malorie N Moore, Mostafa A Elhendawy, Mohamed M Radwan, Suman Chandra, Mahmoud A ElSohly
{"title":"评估药房大麻花中大麻素含量标签的准确性。","authors":"Mona M Geweda, Chandrani G Majumdar, Malorie N Moore, Mostafa A Elhendawy, Mohamed M Radwan, Suman Chandra, Mahmoud A ElSohly","doi":"10.1186/s42238-024-00220-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cannabis policies have changed drastically over the last few years with many states enacting medical cannabis laws, and some authorizing recreational use; all against federal laws. As a result, cannabis products are marketed in dispensaries in different forms, most abundantly as flowers intended for smoking and sometimes vaping. All samples used in this study were obtained directly from law enforcement. The sample collection process was facilitated and funded by the National Marijuana Initiative (NMI), part of the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. This initial report focuses on cannabis flowers. Similar studies with other cannabis products will be the subject of a future report.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 107 Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC cannabis flower samples were collected by law enforcement from adult commercial use cannabis dispensaries, located in three different states (Colorado, Oregon, and California) and analyzed in this study for cannabinoid concentration. Samples were analyzed by GC-FID following our previously published procedure.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The label claims for total Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC content ranged from 12.04 to 58.20% w/w, while GC-FID results showed a concentration ranging from 12.95 to 36.55% w/w. Of the evaluated 107 products, only 32 samples have Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC content within ± 20% of the labeled content. However, the remaining 75 samples were found to be out of the ± 20% acceptance criteria. The degree of agreement for the tested samples using ± 20% tolerance with label claims was only 30%. The results of this study indicate that there is a need for more stringent regulations to ensure that product labeling is accurate, as 70% of the evaluated products did not meet the ± 20% acceptance criteria. This highlights the importance of healthcare professionals and patients being vigilant about the Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC content, as inaccurate labeling of cannabis products could potentially result in adverse health effects. Furthermore, there is a pressing need for more rigorous regulation of commercial cannabis products in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":101310,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cannabis research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10924369/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of dispensaries' cannabis flowers for accuracy of labeling of cannabinoids content.\",\"authors\":\"Mona M Geweda, Chandrani G Majumdar, Malorie N Moore, Mostafa A Elhendawy, Mohamed M Radwan, Suman Chandra, Mahmoud A ElSohly\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42238-024-00220-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cannabis policies have changed drastically over the last few years with many states enacting medical cannabis laws, and some authorizing recreational use; all against federal laws. As a result, cannabis products are marketed in dispensaries in different forms, most abundantly as flowers intended for smoking and sometimes vaping. All samples used in this study were obtained directly from law enforcement. The sample collection process was facilitated and funded by the National Marijuana Initiative (NMI), part of the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. This initial report focuses on cannabis flowers. Similar studies with other cannabis products will be the subject of a future report.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 107 Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC cannabis flower samples were collected by law enforcement from adult commercial use cannabis dispensaries, located in three different states (Colorado, Oregon, and California) and analyzed in this study for cannabinoid concentration. Samples were analyzed by GC-FID following our previously published procedure.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The label claims for total Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC content ranged from 12.04 to 58.20% w/w, while GC-FID results showed a concentration ranging from 12.95 to 36.55% w/w. Of the evaluated 107 products, only 32 samples have Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC content within ± 20% of the labeled content. However, the remaining 75 samples were found to be out of the ± 20% acceptance criteria. The degree of agreement for the tested samples using ± 20% tolerance with label claims was only 30%. The results of this study indicate that there is a need for more stringent regulations to ensure that product labeling is accurate, as 70% of the evaluated products did not meet the ± 20% acceptance criteria. This highlights the importance of healthcare professionals and patients being vigilant about the Δ<sup>9</sup>-THC content, as inaccurate labeling of cannabis products could potentially result in adverse health effects. Furthermore, there is a pressing need for more rigorous regulation of commercial cannabis products in the United States.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cannabis research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10924369/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cannabis research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-024-00220-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cannabis research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-024-00220-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:过去几年,大麻政策发生了翻天覆地的变化,许多州颁布了医用大麻法,还有一些州授权娱乐性使用大麻;所有这一切都与联邦法律背道而驰。因此,大麻产品以不同的形式在药房销售,最常见的是用于吸食的鲜花,有时也用于吸食。本研究中使用的所有样本均直接从执法部门获得。样本收集过程得到了国家大麻倡议 (NMI) 的协助和资助,该倡议是高密度贩毒区 (HIDTA) 计划的一部分。本初次报告侧重于大麻花。对其他大麻产品的类似研究将是未来报告的主题:执法人员从位于三个不同州(科罗拉多州、俄勒冈州和加利福尼亚州)的成人商业用途大麻药房共采集了 107 个 Δ9-THC 大麻花样本,并在本研究中对其进行了大麻素浓度分析。样品按照我们之前公布的程序进行 GC-FID 分析:标签上标注的总 Δ9-THC 含量从 12.04% 到 58.20% w/w 不等,而 GC-FID 分析结果显示其浓度从 12.95% 到 36.55% w/w 不等。在被评估的 107 个产品中,只有 32 个样品的 Δ9-THC 含量在标注含量的 ± 20% 以内。然而,其余 75 个样品的Δ9-THC 含量超出了 ± 20% 的接受标准。使用 ± 20% 容差的检测样品与标签声明的一致程度仅为 30%。这项研究的结果表明,有必要制定更严格的法规来确保产品标签的准确性,因为 70% 的受评产品不符合 ± 20% 的验收标准。这凸显了医护人员和患者对 Δ9-THC 含量保持警惕的重要性,因为大麻产品标签不准确可能会对健康造成不良影响。此外,美国迫切需要对商业大麻产品进行更严格的监管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of dispensaries' cannabis flowers for accuracy of labeling of cannabinoids content.

Background: Cannabis policies have changed drastically over the last few years with many states enacting medical cannabis laws, and some authorizing recreational use; all against federal laws. As a result, cannabis products are marketed in dispensaries in different forms, most abundantly as flowers intended for smoking and sometimes vaping. All samples used in this study were obtained directly from law enforcement. The sample collection process was facilitated and funded by the National Marijuana Initiative (NMI), part of the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. This initial report focuses on cannabis flowers. Similar studies with other cannabis products will be the subject of a future report.

Methods: A total of 107 Δ9-THC cannabis flower samples were collected by law enforcement from adult commercial use cannabis dispensaries, located in three different states (Colorado, Oregon, and California) and analyzed in this study for cannabinoid concentration. Samples were analyzed by GC-FID following our previously published procedure.

Discussion: The label claims for total Δ9-THC content ranged from 12.04 to 58.20% w/w, while GC-FID results showed a concentration ranging from 12.95 to 36.55% w/w. Of the evaluated 107 products, only 32 samples have Δ9-THC content within ± 20% of the labeled content. However, the remaining 75 samples were found to be out of the ± 20% acceptance criteria. The degree of agreement for the tested samples using ± 20% tolerance with label claims was only 30%. The results of this study indicate that there is a need for more stringent regulations to ensure that product labeling is accurate, as 70% of the evaluated products did not meet the ± 20% acceptance criteria. This highlights the importance of healthcare professionals and patients being vigilant about the Δ9-THC content, as inaccurate labeling of cannabis products could potentially result in adverse health effects. Furthermore, there is a pressing need for more rigorous regulation of commercial cannabis products in the United States.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Review of the current ongoing clinical trials exploring the possible anti-anxiety effects of cannabidiol. Association between cannabis use and physical activity in the United States based on legalization and health status. Cannabis-related information sources among US residents: A probability-weighted nationally representative survey. Attitudes toward driving after cannabis use: a systematic review. Changes in health-related quality of life over the first three months of medical marijuana use.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1