Analysis of European cannabidiol oils reveals labeling inaccuracies and contamination

Our view

A survey of products, not a clinical study. Of 181 oils tested, 49 per cent did not contain the CBD content stated on the label — a figure that covers products holding more than the label as well as less, and one that says nothing about effect. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were present in every sample, 54 per cent of them above the EU limit for oil-based food supplements, which is a food standard and not a pharmaceutical specification. A further 39 per cent would exceed the EFSA acute reference dose for Δ9- and Δ8-THC if the recommended dose were followed. These are products sold to consumers outside a medical framework, and they are not equivalent to cannabis prescribed and dispensed within one. In August we wrote that labelled cannabinoid content becomes unreliable without validated testing; this is that argument with figures attached. We hold licences from cultivation through to dispensary, and treat analysis as part of the process rather than a check placed beside it.