In my last post, I made some basic considerations about CBD oils and explained why I currently can’t see any added value for MS patients. Today I would like to address another problem that comes with the commercial marketing of these substances.
There are several studies (The trouble with CBD Oil, Content versus Label Claims in CBD) – both from Europe and the USA – that have investigated to what extent the manufacturer’s specifications on the packaging correspond to the real content of the ingredients – and all these studies reveal a, from my point of view, unreasonable quality problem.
For example, in the recently published study by Gurley et al. (J Diet Suppl 2020;17(5):599-607) the CBD and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of 25 commercially available hemp oil products was determined by gas chromatography. The analytical results were compared with the information on the label for CBD content. The CBD product label information ranged from no statement to 500 mg per serving. However, when cross-referenced, there was a significant variability between the actual CBD content and the stated amounts. Of the 25 products, only three were within ±20% of the label claim. Fifteen were significantly below the stated CBD concentration; two exceeded the stated concentrations by more than 50%. In addition, the THC content of three products exceeded the legal limit, which unknowingly violates the Narcotics Act and impairs the consumer’s fitness to drive, for example.
The results of this study are also supported by observations from the Netherlands, for example. Arno Hazekamp (Med Cannabis Cannabinoids 2018;1:65–72) concludes in a paper published in 2018 that in many cases the analyzed cannabinoid content differed significantly from the content stated on the label and that no cannabinoids (CBD or THC) were found in 7 of the samples measured.
Various studies conducted worldwide on CBD oils and other cannabis products have come to similar conclusions about incorrect label information and the presence of contaminants – a condition that ultimately cannot be accepted. The false statements on the labels are fraud, and in addition, consumers are exposed to health risks through synthetic admixtures. Furthermore, products that exceed the legal THC values can legally endanger the consumer (keyword “drug test”).
Therefore, it is urgently necessary to clarify the legal status of CBD and define common safety and quality standards. It’s time for the regulatory authorities to give CBD the attention it deserves and bring CBD back into scientific development and good manufacturing practice.
