I submitted a flower sample for potency…
I submitted a flower sample for potency testing and received results showing “no CBD detected,” which directly contradicts the cultivar’s known cannabinoid profile. When I questioned the report, the lab admitted their instrument clock wasn’t updating and that the machine calibration was months out of date. They also couldn’t provide chromatograms or calibration logs (both mandatory records for traceability under ISO/IEC 17025 §7.5 and §7.6, technical records and equipment calibration).
The method used was a portable LightLab analyzer, not a fully validated HPLC system, yet results were reported as quantitative. LOQ values were inconsistent (0.58 % for most analytes but 4.6 % for Δ⁸-THC) and calibration had expired, meaning the data can’t be considered technically valid.
These are direct non-conformities with ISO 17025 requirements for:
Equipment calibration and verification (Clause 6.4)
Measurement traceability (Clause 6.5)
Technical record integrity (Clause 7.5)
Reporting of results (Clause 7.8)
When I requested re-analysis, the lab stated they had disposed of all retained samples, eliminating the ability to confirm the original result, another violation of sample traceability standards.
I have since contacted the original breeder for verified cannabinoid data and will be retesting through an accredited laboratory.
If this lab intends to pursue ISO 17025 accreditation, these quality-system gaps should be corrected immediately before assessment. At present, I would not consider the reported values scientifically reliable.