RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Cannabinoid content and label accuracy of various hemp-derived haircare, cosmetic, and edible products available at retail stores and online in the United States
Dowd, A. N., Zamarripa, C. A., Sholler, D. J., Cone, E. J., Murphy, T. P., ElSohly, M., ElSohly, K., Gul, W., Shahzadi, I., Mullen, L. D., Winecker, R. E., Flegel, R., Vandrey, R., & Spindle, T. R. (2024). Cannabinoid content and label accuracy of various hemp-derived haircare, cosmetic, and edible products available at retail stores and online in the United States. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2024.003
Aim: To evaluate the label accuracy and content of various hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products (cannabinoid products with ≤0.3% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), as well as evaluate advertised claims on product labels. Methods: Hemp haircare, cosmetics, and food/drink products that were advertised to contain CBD were purchased from retail stores in the Baltimore, Maryland area (purchased in July 2020) and online (purchased in August 2020). Cannabinoid concentrations were measured using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Percent deviations between labeled and actual CBD concentrations were determined. Label information such as references to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), external testing claims, and other claims (i.e., cosmetic or beauty, therapeutic, health halo effect, or “other”) were quantified. Results: Ninety-seven products were purchased (35 in-store, 62 online). Of the 71 products with a specific total CBD amount on the label, 35 (49%) were underlabeled (>10% more CBD than advertised), 27 (38%) were overlabeled (>10% less CBD than advertised), and 9 (12.7%) were accurately labeled (within ±10% of labeled CBD). The median (range) percentage deviations were −53% (−100%–76%) for haircare products, +18% (−100%−1076%) for cosmetics, and −1% (−100%−4468%) for food/drinks. CBD label accuracy did not differ significantly between products with external testing claims versus those without (t40 = 0.23, p = 0.82). Overall, 24% of the 97 (total) products made a cosmetic or beauty claim (e.g., “skin looks more youthful”), 40% made a therapeutic claim (e.g., “pain relief”), and 86% made a health halo effect claim (e.g., “paraben-free,” “dye-free,” etc.). Most products (63%) did not include a disclaimer that claims had not been evaluated by the FDA. Conclusions: Most of the products included in this sample were inaccurately labeled for CBD content, including those claiming to have been tested by third party laboratories. A notable finding was that 10 products did not contain any CBD. Many products made therapeutic claims or used marketing tactics to seemingly convey they were safe/healthy, but only about one-third included disclaimers that these statements had not been evaluated by the FDA. These findings highlight the need for proper regulatory oversight of cannabinoid-containing products to ensure quality assurance and deter misleading or unfounded health claims in product marketing.