Shady Lab Results

FYI - Recently sent a sample of tested crude (SC Labs) to a client who had Anresco Labs in San Fran test the sample. I think it is important that labs are held accountable for the results they provide.

Anrescos Results for cold ethanol CBD crude:
Total THC: 4.554 %
Total CBD: 80.478 %
Total Cannabinoids: 99.790 %
Total Active Cannabinoids: 91.087 %

SC Labs results for sample crude:
Total THC Δ9THC+0.877THCa 2.38 %
Total CBD CBD+0.877
CBDa 39.83 %

Anrescos results for cold ethanol Hybrid crude:
Total THC: 88.540 %
Total CBD: 0.140 %
Total Cannabinoids: 91.950 %
Total Active Cannabinoids: 91.950 %

SC Labs results for sample crude:
Total THC Δ9THC+0.877THCa 75.26 %
Total CBD CBD+0.877
CBDa 0.17 %

Both crudes have been used in products with passed full compliance tests meaning the dosing based on the SC Labs results was correct, Further more crude at 91%!! WTF how the hell can they be serious?

I personally know two other manufacturers that had Anresco reach out to them to try and get their business stating “we can get them the numbers you need”. And another that had a known sample come back with similar results as above. I will be calling Anresco tomorrow before calling BCC to file a complaint. This kind of shit has to be stopped. Also have a client that sent samples out for compliance panel a month ago to CB Labs. They said the tests were completed last Thursday and that they are waiting for the results to be compiled? WOW 3 weeks for the tests and 1 week to gather, validate, and submit the data? Crazy… I really hope the lab issue here in Cali gets better quick.


That’s crazy! Glad you got third party results to compare with. I’d put them on the spot in a big way! @sidco / @future we need a category for verifyed labs for testing. From there we could govern several labs and collaborate quality control!


Great idea!!

1 Like

wow. there is clear evidence in published state data that labs in WA, one in particular, give higher numbers on a consistent basis, but I’ve never seen anything quite that egregious. being able to call a 3rd party lab out when they get it wrong is one of the reasons I recommend all professional hashashins acquire In House analytics

thank you @Jay-TL for bringing it to the community’s attention.


SClabs can’t get consistent results with themselves. This is the same sample of unscrubbed distillate tested twice. Sorry for the poor quality picture.


I am extremely surprised to hear this about Anresco. When it comes to Pesticide testing, Anresco sets the standard in my book. They can see things other labs can’t. The problem I’ve run into with them is they don’t take every kind of sample. Can you post the Anresco COA for all to see?

When it comes to potency, I’ve had labs all over the place but usually the major mistakes like this one are just that, mistakes. The labs are absurdly busy and everything is done by human right now. Make the call and complain, ask for a retest before you get too down on any one lab

1 Like

one might be a mistake. two starts to look like a trend. actual COA’s would be more convincing than transcribed data. In Oregon everything is done twice so that mistakes are more obvious.


WI don’t use SC anymore either because of the same issue happing several times in the past. It just happens that for this particular sample SC got it right based on samples of finished products using this crude being tested at several different labs all coming back with similar numbers.

I didn’t say anything about SC because the discrepancies seemed to be based on honest mistakes not complete bullshit like 91% and 99% crude. Still SC has some serious work to do. A 10+% difference in THC in the same sample. How the hell did these labs pass ISO accreditation with such crazy margins of error. If we can’t weed out this BS the CA legal market is in real trouble

Steep Hill and Evio are the only 2 we use now. It’s so frustrating.


Steep hill for the win! I really like that outfit!

1 Like

I agree, after many discussions with other manufacturers it seems clear that Anresco needs to go, as there is a clear pattern of them doing shady shit. I’ll post the PDF’s shortly.

1 Like

I will be posting the PDFs they provided shortly. This is not the first, second, or even third serious issue I’ve come across with Anresco. Imagine for a second that I posted this crude for sale on this site “For sale tested and clean crude 91% total CANNs” what would you say? Would you believe it? I highly doubt it. This is not a simple mistake this is a gross error in method, reporting, and common sense and seriously calls into question the safety of cannabis products, quality labs, and in my opinion reflects poorly on the whole industry.

1 Like

I really, really like this idea.
We need a double blind test. We need to be consistent ourselves, possibly using in house analytics. For instance I wonder about homogenization of the crude, travel conditions, storage requirements for both the test lab and client. This shit should all be open source and verifiable.

Who has the most open source test model? Let’s start there and build an SOP around practices that exist.


Atached you will find the CoA’s from each lab for both samples.
SC Labs Phantom Kush CoA.pdf (158.8 KB)
SC Labs Remedy CoA.pdf (155.0 KB)
Anresco PK CoA.pdf (351.5 KB)
Anresco Remedy CoA.pdf (351.5 KB)


I am also having a lot of issues with believable results from Anresco. They are telling me my rosin is testing at 99.8% cannabinoids. CW analytical consistently reports our rosin as 75-85%, which is a thousand times more believable.


Very true. I am re-doing our sampling procedures to standardize variables like storage, batch homogeneity, exposure times ect. I am also in the process of building a custom control modul and data logger for our storage room to monitor and control temp, light, humidity ect. Also started sealing storage vessels with nitrogen.

1 Like

Wow, how the hell can they even let such crazy results leave their lab. It seems that a Lab would call the client and request a duplicate sample to retest to confirm.

1 Like

Potency numbers sell cannabis (and extracts thereof). So labs who inflate their numbers sell more tests because their clients sell more product. Even producers that understand the numbers are inflated are under pressure to test there to remain competitive.

Clearly visible in WA public data on the subject.


Calling Anresco now, then BCC (CA’s lab regulators) Ill update along the way.


@Photon_noir Haven’t you vouched for Arnesco before? I know they are in a different state than you, but do you know those cats?

Pure Analytics in Santa Rosa was one of the first labs to do compliance testing. I feel like they don’t get the business they deserve. The head scientist and founder, Samantha, is a wonderful and strict chemist. They might be worth checking out.

1 Like