Report · Oct 1, 2026
Is Your 32% Actually 32%? NJ Is Investigating Its Own Testing Labs
New Jersey is paying an outside expert to look for lab shopping and inflated THC numbers. Here’s what the state has already found, and what to check at the counter.
CRC RFP, Sep 24 2026 · State Auditor, May 2026 · two CRC enforcement memos · MJBizDaily
New Jersey is officially looking into whether the THC numbers on your jars are real. In late September the Cannabis Regulatory Commission put out a request for an independent expert to dig through the state's lab testing data and look for "lab shopping," which is when brands send their flower to whichever lab prints the highest number.
I've been side-eyeing these labels for a long time, so let's get into it.
How we got here
Back in August 2025 the CRC opened a probe because the numbers stopped making sense. Average THCA on flower kept climbing every year, and at the same time the mold failure rate dropped from 3.7% in 2023 to about 1% in 2025. Results were also bunching up right under the mold limit. The CRC's acting director put it perfectly: "Mold doesn't know" what the cutoff is. When everything lands just under the line, somebody's touching the line.
Then in May 2026 the State Auditor came out and said it plainly: the CRC wasn't overseeing the labs well enough, and that led to questionable results and possible health and safety risks. Here's what the audit found:
- Average THCA on flower went from 24.5% in 2023 to 27.81% by fall 2025
- One lab's potency numbers jumped 33.25% compared to 2023
- Three labs handled almost 95% of all testing in 2025, and those three are the ones showing the weird trends
The genetics didn't get that much better in two years, y'all.
Labs already getting caught
This isn't all theory. The CRC has already taken action against two labs this year:
- NJ Cannalytics (February 2026): moved cannabis from its licensed NJ facility to an unlicensed spot in Maryland to run heavy metal testing, and didn't report changes to its testing methods.
- Green Analytics East (August 2026): seven violations, including using non-validated methods for microbial testing (that's the mold and bacteria test), collecting samples that didn't represent the batch, testing edibles wrong, and limiting the CRC's remote access to its cameras.
Both were filed under the CRC's lowest category, where a first violation carries a $5,000 penalty. For context, that's a couple of days of sales at a busy dispensary. To be fair to both labs, the CRC's own memos say neither case posed an immediate, serious risk of harm to consumers, which is why they landed in that tier.
What the new review actually does
The contractor the CRC hires will run a deep analysis twice a year. They'll check pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, residual solvents, plus how accurate the THC and terpene numbers are, lab by lab. They also have to hand over their code so anyone can repeat the work. Proposals are due October 22, and the contract is capped at $50,000, which is a pretty small budget for policing a billion-dollar market.
Why this matters for you
If the THC numbers are inflated, you've been paying top shelf prices for a number on a sticker. The scarier part is the mold side. If a lab is soft on microbials, that's what you're putting in your lungs.
This is exactly why THC percentage isn't one of my three pillars. My scores come from smell, smoke and taste, and effects, because those are the things a lab can't fake. Here's what I'd do at the counter:
- Ask for the COA and check which lab tested it and when.
- Watch for the same lab name on every high-number jar you see.
- Trust your nose. Loud terps, a clean burn, and white ash tell you more than 34% ever will.
- Be suspicious of 30%+ flower that smells like nothing.
I'm going to keep pulling COAs on everything I review, and I'll be watching who gets that contract. Your number is only as honest as the lab behind it.
Sources
Right of reply
I haven’t contacted the CRC, NJ Cannalytics or Green Analytics East for this piece. If they want to respond, anything they send goes up on this page.
How this was put together
Written October 1, 2026 from the CRC’s own request for proposals, its two published enforcement memos, and news reporting, all linked at the bottom. Figures are as the state reported them. No COAs were re-tested for this piece.