Skip to content
Hemp Law Watch
Back to Nevada
No active alertUpdateNevada

Seven Nevada cannabis testing labs warn proposed sampling rules could let contaminated flower pass testing

In a position paper filed for the Cannabis Compliance Board's Oct. 15 hearing, the labs asked regulators to require mixing the full 60-gram sample before it is divided and to let labs, not cultivators, control leftover sample material.

Hemp Law Watch desk2 min readState jurisdictionLog in to save

Seven Nevada cannabis testing laboratories have warned state regulators that proposed sampling rules could allow contaminated marijuana to pass laboratory testing. The Coalition of Nevada Cannabis Independent Testing Laboratories set out its concerns in an eight-page position paper dated Oct. 2 and submitted for the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board's Oct. 15 hearing on proposed regulation R104-26. The board posted the paper with the meeting's public comment, and The Marijuana Herald reported on it Oct. 16.

The proposed regulation implements Senate Bill 157 of 2025, which raised the maximum marijuana flower lot from five pounds to 15 pounds. It calls for a minimum 60-gram sample, split into three 20-gram portions for testing, retesting and retention. The labs (374 Labs, G3 Labs, MA and Associates, ERP, NV Cann Labs, RSR Analytical Laboratories and Digipath Labs) say they support that amount but want the entire 60 grams ground and mixed before it is divided. Otherwise, they argue, the tested portion represents 0.29% of a 15-pound lot rather than 0.88%. The paper cites the coalition's statistical analysis finding that at 0.29% coverage, Aspergillus mold present at 3% prevalence would go undetected 91% of the time.

The labs also object to a provision that would let the cultivation facility decide whether the unused retest and retention portions of a passing sample are returned or destroyed. They want labs to hold those portions for at least 30 days, and longer while any retest, complaint or investigation is pending. If the board doesn't make the changes, the coalition asks for a disclaimer on certificates of analysis and product labels saying the sample may not represent the whole lot.

The paper points to a 2025 board public health and safety bulletin on flower and pre-rolls that failed microbial testing after sale. Hemp Law Watch has not confirmed what action, if any, the board took on the regulation at the Oct. 15 meeting.

Related legal context

Source citation cards

Authorship is reported as a signal for editorial review. Automated checks cannot prove who wrote a document, so every card records what was found and what remains uncertain.

Source 1Source verified

Public Comment for October 15, 2026 Board Meeting (includes Coalition of Nevada Cannabis Independent Testing Laboratories, "Lab Coalition Position on Sampling Under SB 157," Oct. 2, 2026, transmitted Oct. 13, 2026)

Publisher
Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board
Author
Adam R. Fulton (transmittal letter for the coalition)
Published
Oct 13, 2026
Jurisdiction
NV
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 200
Official bodyOpen source

Authorship signal — The document is hosted on an official government website and identifies an individual transmittal letter.

Source 2Source verified

Seven Nevada Marijuana Testing Labs Warn Proposed Rules Could Allow Contaminated Products to Pass Testing

Publisher
The Marijuana Herald
Author
Anthony Martinelli
Published
Oct 16, 2026
Jurisdiction
NV
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 200
Credited authorOpen source

Authorship signal — The article provides a specific reporter credit for the authorship.

Source 3Source verified

Cannabis Compliance Board meeting agenda, posted Oct. 9, 2026 (item on R104-26 to implement SB 157)

Publisher
Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board
Author
Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board
Published
Oct 9, 2026
Jurisdiction
NV
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 200
Official bodyOpen source

Authorship signal — The document is an official meeting agenda published by the regulatory authority.

Discussion

0 comments

Log in to join the discussion. Comments are public and appear with your name.

No comments yet. Be the first to add context.

Hemp Law Watch

A nationwide publication tracking hemp and cannabis law as it changes. Every published report carries its sources, authorship signals and an alert classification.

Sections

Editorial

Alert classifications

  • Federal alert
  • Misdemeanor / ticketable

Hemp Law Watch reports on legal developments and does not provide legal advice. State summaries are editorial reference points reviewed by the desk; always confirm against the cited primary sources.

© 2026 Hemp Law Watch