Minor cannabinoids like THCV and CBC are having a moment. But if you zoom out, what’s happening across the broader cannabis supply chain is both promising and precarious.
The promise lies in the therapeutic potential of these rare compounds. The problem is that we’re still trying to build the airplane while flying it, especially when it comes to standardization.
Recently, I sat down with economist and cannabis industry researcher Dr. Ruth Fisher to talk about why standardization is such a critical and often overlooked element in unlocking the next wave of innovation, trust, and regulatory progress in our space.
Ruth has spent years analyzing market dynamics across various sectors, including healthcare, technology, and education. Her work in cannabis focuses on how regulations, incentives, and supply chain configurations shape both business outcomes and consumer access. Her systems-level view was the perfect complement to the on-the-ground challenges we face as scientists and product developers.
Standardization Isn’t Bureaucracy. It’s the Foundation for Growth.
From the outside, standardization can sound like a boring technical concern. But from the inside, it’s the backbone of trust, clinical research, and long-term success, especially in the world of minor cannabinoids.
As Ruth put it: It’s about minimizing the number of variables that are moving at any time, because you want to focus on the interesting variables that you don't know. When you have all these other problems potentially contributing to variation in outcomes, like a dirty product, that's just not helpful.
“It’s about minimizing the number of variables that are moving at any time.” - Dr. Ruth Fisher
n other words, if your input material isn’t standardized, then your formulation isn’t predictable, your data isn’t credible, and your outcomes don’t mean much.
That’s a problem whether you're a researcher trying to prove efficacy or a brand trying to deliver a consistent consumer experience.
What’s Broken and Why It’s Holding Us Back
I’ve spent years working in cannabinoid research and product development. One of the biggest challenges I’ve seen, especially as a chemist, is the dynamic between brands and labs. Too often, labs are incentivized to “hit the numbers” that brands want to see, rather than producing objective, scientifically rigorous results.
As I shared with Ruth, “The testing lab’s job is to make the CEO happy so that they keep their thousands of samples running through their clinic... That power dynamic is really bizarre.”
Ruth agreed, saying, “The problem is not regulation. It’s enforcement. The regulations they already have will generally enable a healthy industry. The problem is they’re not enforcing them.”
Lab shopping, THC inflation, and inconsistent third-party testing have been well documented. But the problem gets worse with minor cannabinoids, where testing is more complex and co-elution with other compounds is common.
Add in the lack of standardized protocols across product types, such as topicals, pet chews, chocolates, and capsules, and we’re operating in a chaotic landscape where even well-intentioned brands struggle to maintain their integrity.
What Standardization Should Actually Look Like
Standardization isn’t just a buzzword. It’s a set of practices that allow us to build a shared foundation for research and commercialization.
That means:
Documented, repeatable manufacturing SOPs
Third-party validation from harmonized, ISO-accredited labs
Batch-to-batch consistency with real audit trails
Accurate cannabinoid labeling, not just marketing claims
Real purity, potency, and stability data
Registration of raw materials with standards groups
As I explained in our conversation, “Let’s say a standard for CBG got accepted. That doesn't mean it's the only way you could do it, but that means that if somebody wanted to do it again, we could very easily go through all the steps… How much biomass do you use? How long do you extract for? When do you do your solvent washes? How do you pack it up and ship it? How do you label it?”
“If somebody wanted to do it again, we could easily go through all the steps.”
- Dr. Tony Ferrari”
That level of transparency and consistency would allow researchers to compare apples to apples, brands to produce with confidence, and regulators to evaluate products based on evidence, not assumptions.
Why This Matters for Research and Consumer Trust
When you lack standard inputs, you have to spend time and money validating the material before you can even begin a meaningful study. That barrier alone keeps most groups from investing in mechanism-of-action research.
Even more importantly, it undermines the credibility of the data we do have. Real-world outcomes are only as useful as the inputs they're built on. If everyone is using a different formulation, a different purity level, or an inconsistent testing protocol, then aggregating that data into meaningful patterns becomes impossible.
“You can't build reliable conclusions when every data point comes from a different starting line.” - Dr. Tony Ferrari
To stand on the mountain of output data, we first need to align the inputs.
As Ruth pointed out, “If you're focused on, say, sleep, then you're gathering markers based on sleep, and you're not collecting a lot of other information that you hadn't thought cannabis might affect. From an academic perspective, you want to collect as much information as you can. But from a realistic perspective, you can't afford to do that.”
She proposed the idea of an open-source, shared data repository, a collective pot of real-world evidence that researchers and brands alike could learn from. However, for such a shared system to work, we all need to be working with standardized, validated materials. Otherwise, the noise drowns out the signal.
How to Choose a Reliable Ingredient Partner
We wrapped our conversation by discussing how product developers can separate real partners from flashy suppliers.
My advice?
Ask the hard questions.
Ask for SOPs.
Demand third-party COAs from ISO-accredited labs.
Look at how ingredients are stored, labeled, and handled.
Ask about GMP compliance - REAL compliance, not just “GMP-like” claims.
And see whether the company is contributing to any standard-setting collaborations.
“All the labs know how to do it right. The issue is making them do it when no one’s looking.” - Dr. Ruth Fisher
The same applies to suppliers. There are companies that are doing it right. They're rare, but they exist. And those are the ones worth building with.
Final Thoughts: You Can’t Scale What You Can’t Standardize
I believe minor cannabinoids are the future, not just of cannabis, but of functional wellness and therapeutic innovation. But to get there, we need to stop treating consistency like a nice-to-have.
It’s not.
It’s the gateway to consumer trust, medical acceptance, and product integrity.
“Cannabis is like the penicillin of the 21st century. It’s messy, chaotic, and full of promise.” - Dr. Ruth Fisher
We’ve seen what happens when the industry races ahead without a solid foundation.
Let’s slow down just enough to lay the groundwork that will carry us forward.
— Dr. Tony Ferrari
Cannabinoid Scientist | Analytical Chemist | Cannabis Industry Consultant
The views and opinions expressed in this Substack are those of the expert author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the sponsors, advertisers, or any affiliated organizations. The content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with appropriate professionals before making any decisions based on the information provided.
Further Reading and Research:
Cannabis: A Penicillin for the 21st Century
Great discussion and great summary of the key points.