TABLE 2.
Comparison of CBD potency between package label and product analysis a .
| Product format | Products exceeding label claim of CBD potency, b n (%) | Products meeting label claim of CBD potency, c n (%) | Products not meeting label claim (low CBD potency), d n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 93 (46) | 53 (26) | 56 (28) |
| Gummy | 4 (2) | 17 (8) | 27 (13) |
| Tincture | 53 (26) | 29 (14) | 18 (9) |
| Topical | 18 (9) | 1 (<1) | 1 (<1) |
| Vape | 18 (9) | 6 (3) | 10 (5) |
| Product type e | |||
| Total | 93 (46) | 53 (26) | 56 (28) |
| Broad | 15 (7) | 6 (3) | 7 (3) |
| Full | 39 (19) | 22 (11) | 23 (11) |
| Isolate | 24 (12) | 8 (4) | 5 (2) |
| Not specified f | 15 (7) | 17 (8) | 21 (10) |
a
All percentages are calculated based on a total N = 202.
b
>110% claim of CBD, potency.
c
90%–110% claim of CBD, potency.
d
<90% claim of CBD, potency.
e
Full spectrum, broad spectrum, and CBD, isolate are based on claims made on the product packaging.
f
Products did not have a specific claim related to hemp content. CBD, cannabidiol.