Cannabis Testing Labs' Fraud Lawsuit Against Revvity Health Sciences Highlights Need for Better Lab Regulations

We interrupt yet again our series on Mass Spectroscopy for a discussion on late breaking and important news in the cannabis analysis industry. Since the inception of this column in September of 2018 (happy 7th birthday to the Cannabis Analysis column!), my goal has been to passionately advocate for more and better testing in the cannabis industry (1). To that end I have published a number of columns on the problems I see in the cannabis testing industry and what to do about them. As many of you know, I am also involved with Big Sur Scientific, a maker of cannabis potency analyzers, where our motto is “Cannabis is Medicine…Test it like Medicine” (2).

A Commonwealth of Massachusetts court filing states that a coalition of cannabis testing labs across the United States and Canada are suing Massachusetts-based Revvity Health Sciences (formerly PerkinElmer, PE for short from here on out) for $1 billion, alleging that PE made “false promises,” sold instruments “incapable of accurately and reliably performing as marketed,” and even accused PE of violations of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) act, which is often used to prosecute organized crime figures. The court filing further alleges the company committed fraud, negligence, and breach of warranty (3).

In this column I will review the problems myself and others have observed in the cannabis testing industry, share my unique perspective on this lawsuit, and discuss changes the industry needs to make to keep problems like this from happening again.

The Trouble with Cannabis Testing Labs

The problems with cannabis testing labs are well established in the literature. In the very first peer reviewed paper ever published in this esteemed journal, my co-authors and I reported on how we submitted the same marijuana distillate sample to several ISO-certified and state-licensed cannabis labs (4). These samples contained known amounts of five pesticides with levels above those deemed safe by the state of California.

Disturbingly, two of the labs detected no pesticides whatsoever, which means dangerous products could have made it into the marketplace, potentially harming cannabis consumers. The other three labs missed the presence of at least one banned pesticide, and there was little agreement on the sample composition across the labs. I also reviewed the problem of inter-lab variation in the cannabis testing industry in two earlier columns (5, 6). I later discussed how the label claims for the potency of marijuana buds sold at dispensaries typically overstate the actual Total THC level (7). A simple Google search of phrases such as “cannabis testing labs fraud” will bring up more recent articles too numerous to list here.

I have proposed any number of possible solutions to the problems in the cannabis testing industry including better standards, better representative sampling, better training, and regulation at the federal level (8, 9, 10).

My Perspective on the Lawsuit

In the interests of full disclosure, the defendant in the lawsuit, PerkinElmer, was my employer from 2014 to 2016. While I was there, I worked as an applications scientist researching the use of infrared spectroscopy for potency and terpene analysis in marijuana buds, extracts, and distillates.

The method in dispute in the lawsuit involves pesticide analysis using gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy (LC-MS). The state of California requires a panel of over 60 pesticides be analyzed in cannabis samples. Other states have similar requirements, but no state to the best of my knowledge requires the analysis of as many pesticides as California.

When I was working at PE, the dilemma for California-based cannabis analysis labs was that analyzing all the pesticides required by state law meant having to purchase both a GC-MS and a LC-MS, an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Subsequently PE claimed it developed a method whereby all the required pesticides could be analyzed using just one of these instruments. This meant labs trying to measure the full panel of pesticides required by California law could do so on one instrument, saving time and money. This method was developed by my application scientist colleagues at PE and I heard them give talks on this method several times at customer facing meetings. To be clear, I was not involved in developing this method since I am not a specialist in GC-MS or LC-MS. Also, to be clear, I am not in a position to comment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit as I have not read it, and I do not know what PE did or didn’t promise its customers, or the details of the plaintiff’s experiences. My feelings are that the entire situation is unfortunate and gives another black eye to an industry that desperately needs to claw back public trust. I am here to point out the things that I think lead to these problems and what to do about them.

Instrument Company Compensation Schemes

I am an instrument company founder and realize that instrument companies are in business to make money. To that end, instrument company salespeople are compensated in part by salary and in part by commission based on the amount of sales they achieve in a given period in a given territory. During my unfortunate incarceration as a salesman earlier in my career (I was terrible at sales), I learned how much pressure salespeople are under to reach sales goals. And unlike those who work on straight salary, if a salesperson doesn’t perform, their paycheck suffers, and they may lose their job. This means that, with all due respect, some salespeople may play fast and loose with the truth. Potential customers need to know this and learn to treat claims made by salespeople with some skepticism (this frankly is true in all sales situations).

For complex products, such as analytical instruments, there can be a technical-expert person, often called an applications scientist, whose job it is to understand the customer’s application, suggest solutions, and answer technical questions. In essence, it is the job of the applications scientist to gain the confidence of the potential customer so they know there is someone within the company who they can trust.

I know that at some instrument companies, including PE while I was there, the applications scientists are compensated partly in salary and partly in commission, albeit at a much lower commission rate than the salespeople. This scheme creates, in my opinion, an inherent conflict for the applications scientist where they may know what the customer is being told is an exaggeration or outright incorrect but are afraid to say anything at risk of their paycheck or their job. A potential solution to this problem is to get rid of commission-based pay for applications scientists and pay them based on educational level, experience, and the quality of the advice they give customers.

Cannabis Labs Need to Do Their Homework

The famous astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” By claiming that it can analyze 60+ pesticides accurately on one instrument instead of two, in my opinion, PE is making an extraordinary claim. This doesn’t mean this claim is not true, but it means their customers, including cannabis labs, need to double down on their due diligence to make sure they are being told the truth.

Part of the problem here is instrument company application notes. These notes look scientific, have lots of convincing technical detail, and are full of cool charts and graphs. The problem is that these notes are written to be sales tools and present the company and instrument in its best light. Also, even though the science in an applications note might sound convincing, the work is not necessarily peer reviewed. Peer review is the method by which scientists determine the truth. Peer reviewed journals send copies of prospective papers to experts in a field for review and comment. These reviewers can say the paper is ready to publish, needs revision, or they can prevent it from being published at all. Cannabis Science and Technology (CST) publishes peer reviewed papers. I sit on the editorial board of this journal, and one of my jobs is to review papers prior to publication. All the papers I have published on my work in CST have been through the peer review process, including the one I mentioned above on inter-lab variation (4). This vetting of each other’s work is key to how science establishes what is real and what isn’t. Peer reviewed work and data will always be more trustworthy than anything you will find in a company’s sales and marketing literature.

As a scientist, it helps to be a born skeptic. For unexpected experimental results, I always say “Once is chance, twice is coincidence, but if something occurrs three times you may be onto something.” So, in addition to peer reviewed papers, I strongly encourage cannabis labs in the market for new equipment to get at least three recommendations from the instrument company from labs successfully using the instrument and method you are contemplating buying. Then, contact these labs and make sure all of them can back up the claims being made by the instrument company. This is the surest way to protect yourself from false claims.

More and Better Training

This is going to be the tale of two types of testing labs: forensic labs and cannabis labs. In addition to my work on cannabis analysis, I have been teaching forensic science labs how to perform chemical analyses of trace evidence and controlled substances for over 20 years (11). In forensic labs, the directors typically have a graduate degree in a relevant science and 10+ years of experience. For new hires to be allowed to use a chromatograph for case work they must have a bachelor’s degree in a relevant scientific discipline, up to a year’s worth of on-the-job training, and continuing education courses like the ones I offer. They also must pass a written and practical test before they are certified to do case work. This is, in my opinion, how things should be done.

Contrast this with how cannabis labs function. I base my opinions on the consulting work I have done for cannabis labs, and the nationwide search of cannabis labs I performed to find a lab whose numbers I trusted to calibrate and validate my cannabis analyzers (12). What I have seen has appalled me. I have encountered cannabis labs where the lab director is an inexperienced person with maybe a bachelor’s degree and a few years of experience, and the technicians performing the analyses may not have a college degree whatsoever. Even if these people had the appropriate education, many of them were hired right out of school with little or no experience because they work cheaper than experienced scientists. Any type of analysis in a cannabis lab, particularly pesticide analysis, is difficult and exacting. If untrained and unqualified personnel attempt to perform these analyses, there are bound to be problems.

I have heard lab supervisors and graduate school advisors describe some lab workers as having “a good pair of hands.” This means that one person following a method can get good results, while another person following the same method may get bad results. The person with good hands generally has a better understanding of what they are doing and why they are doing it and takes extra special care at all steps of the process to do things correctly. It is possible in the litigation involving PE and cannabis labs that the application scientists at PE have enough skill and experience that the method in question works in their hands, but it might not work in the hands of less skilled and less experienced people that work in cannabis labs. A solution to this problem would be for PE to offer free onsite training courses to the personnel at the labs so that they can get them up to speed on the method. This is probably cheaper than the cost of continued litigation.

Regulation Rationalization

The regulation of the cannabis industry in the United States is a mess. Each of the fifty states AND the federal government are issuing regulations, for up to 51 sets of rules that cannabis labs must follow. This means there is no method standardization, so different labs use different methods to make the same measurement, and not surprisingly, get different results on the same samples. The solution to this problem is for the federal government to legalize marijuana and then regulate it like any other medicine, preferably under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Then, like the approval of any other drug, each company or lab can submit their methods for peer review by the FDA. Now, the FDA does not endorse specific instruments or methods but will state whether a given method functions as claimed for a specific purpose. This would mean the general public’s health will be protected because labs will only be allowed to use methods known to work.

Conclusions

The instrument company PerkinElmer is being sued by a consortium of cannabis analysis labs over claims that one instrument can analyze 60+ pesticides. Part of the problem here is the pressure instrument companies put on their personnel to close sales, and the inexperience of cannabis lab workers in buying equipment. Solutions to prevent similar lawsuits in the future include changing how instrument company application scientists are compensated, better training for cannabis lab personnel, teaching cannabis labs how to properly vet instrument purchases, and rationalization of cannabis industry regulations.

References

1. September: Smith, B., Welcome to Cannabis Analysis. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2018, 1(3), 10-12.
2. www.bigsurscientific.com
3. https://s43720.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/PerkinElmer-Complaint-1.16.25.pdf (accessed Oct 30, 2025).
4. Smith, B., Lessard, P., and Pearson, R., Inter-Laboratory Variation in Cannabis Analysis: Pesticides and Potency in Distillates. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2019, 2(1), 14-19.
5. Smith, B., Inter-Lab Variation in the Cannabis Industry, Part I: Problem and Causes. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2019, 2(2), 12-17.
6. Smith, B., Inter-Lab Variation in the Cannabis Industry, Part II: Solutions, Cannabis Science and Technology, 2019, 2(3), 10-14.
7. Smith, B., Why Dispensaries Need In-House Testing. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2021, 4(3), 10-12.
8. Smith, B., Significant Figures and Margin of Error-Or Why the Fourth Decimal Place in Your Potency Reading is Probably Meaningless. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2020, 3(4), 10–12.
9. Smith, B., How Standardized Sample Preparation Can Solve the Inter-Laboratory Variation Problem. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2020, 3(2), 10-15.
10. Smith, B., A Proposed Representative Sampling Plan for Hemp Grows. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2020, 3(6), 10-13.
11. Home - Spectros Associates https://spectros1.com/ (accessed Oct 7, 2025).
12. Smith, B., A Proposed Representative Sampling Plan for Hemp Grows. Cannabis Science and Technology. 2020, 3(6), 10-13.

About the Columnist

Brian C. Smith, PhD, is Founder, CEO, and Chief Technical Officer of Big Sur Scientific. He is the inventor of the BSS series of patented mid-infrared based cannabis analyzers. Dr. Smith has done pioneering research and published numerous peer-reviewed papers on the application of mid-infrared spectroscopy to cannabis analysis, and sits on the editorial board of Cannabis Science and Technology. He has worked as a laboratory director for a cannabis extractor, as an analytical chemist for Waters Associates and PerkinElmer, and as an analytical instrument salesperson. He has more than 30 years of experience in chemical analysis and has written three books on the subject. Dr. Smith earned his PhD on physical chemistry from Dartmouth College. Direct correspondence to: brian@bigsurscientific.com.

How to Cite this Article
Smith, B., Cannabis Testing Labs' Fraud Lawsuit Against Revvity Health Sciences Highlights Need for Better Lab Regulations, Cannabis Science and Technology, 2025, 8(5), 6-8.