{"id":41275,"date":"2026-04-01T00:01:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T04:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=41275"},"modified":"2026-04-01T07:53:35","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T11:53:35","slug":"pick-your-poison-pesticide-contamination-in-marijuana-reveals-longstanding-gaps-in-fifra","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/04\/pick-your-poison-pesticide-contamination-in-marijuana-reveals-longstanding-gaps-in-fifra\/","title":{"rendered":"Pick Your Poison: Pesticide Contamination in Cannabis Reveals Longstanding Gaps in Safety"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, April 1, 2026) Researchers at the University of Washington and members of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board published a commentary piece in Clinical Therapeutics<\/em><\/a> highlighting the growing inadequacy of state-level regulatory safeguards for pesticide contamination of cannabis products. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unable to assess pesticide residues, nor is it permitted to set tolerance limits under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act<\/em> (FIFRA), <\/em>because, according to the Controlled Substances Act <\/em>(CSA), cannabis is a Schedule 1 narcotic, meaning there is \u201cno accepted medical use.\u201d As a result, EPA cannot conduct a full assessment of pesticide exposure associated with inhalation, ingestion, and dermal (skin) adsorption. There is an ongoing rescheduling process that was proposed in 2024 and followed up with an executive order in late 2025 to transition cannabis toward Schedule III status, suggesting that there would be an opening for EPA to promulgate rulemaking to support state-level regulations if it were to move forward.<\/p>\n

An analysis of active legislation in state legislatures for the 2026 session highlights the concerns\u2014at least 14 states (including Connecticut<\/a>, California<\/a>, Georgia<\/a>, Hawai\u2019i<\/a>, Illinois<\/a>, Iowa<\/a>, Kansas<\/a>, Kentucky<\/a>, Maine<\/a>, New Hampshire,<\/a> Oklahoma<\/a>, Virginia<\/a>, West Virginia<\/a>, and Wisconsin<\/a>) had bills to modify or introduce systems for monitoring and assessing pesticide residues in medical and\/or recreational cannabis.<\/p>\n

Farmers, public health and environmental advocates, and medical cannabis users continue to call for a transition to organic cannabis production to ensure that consumers are not victimized with long-term health effects associated with pesticide poisoning via multiple exposure pathways, including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal. Medical cannabis users are an at-risk subpopulation who are prescribed the product for an adverse health effect or chronic health conditions, which emphasizes the importance of regulations that require a cumulative risk assessment that aggregates dietary and nondietary exposure, including any residues in the cannabis. Without this assessment, as required by law, Beyond Pesticides has told states that allowing anything other than organic cannabis production practices puts users at serious risk from pesticide exposure.<\/p>\n

Background and Review<\/h2>\n

The study provides a lay-of-the-land for state-level regulations on pesticides as of February 2026, highlighting the risk of adverse health effects associated with pesticide exposure for medical cannabis consumers, and including recommendations for policy, medical, and research priorities in this area. Since this analysis was not developed solely for academic purposes, it relies on a partnership with \u201cresearchers at the regulatory agency that oversees enforcement and rules of cannabis pesticide use; a microbiologist at the health agency which administers the Medical Cannabis Program; a chemist at the agriculture agency that oversees pesticide testing and the accreditation of the cannabis testing laboratories; and an established Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) working as a primary care physician and clinical instructor at the University of Washington.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similar to EPA\u2019s hamstrung authority to set \u201callowable levels of pesticide residues\u201d for cannabis products (including medical cannabis), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are unable to track pesticide contamination due to its status as a Schedule I narcotic by the Department of Justice. In this context, state governments have leaned on EPA limits for other crops perceived as analogous to cannabis production or setting up a unique threshold system for each active ingredient, such as Oregon Health Authority\u2019s four-stage criteria developed by health professionals in 2015: (1) general human toxicity, (2) analytical capability, (3) detection frequency in cannabis, and (4) pesticide availability. Several other states, including Washington, adopted this system, although the focus was limited to 59 active ingredients (out of over 1,200 active ingredients registered with EPA.)<\/p>\n

Because of the multiple exposure patterns, including inhalation, of any pesticides used in cannabis production, establishing exposure patterns based on pesticide uses on other crops raises potential exposure assessment gaps. The authors acknowledge these research and policy gaps and the multiple exposure pathways specific to cannabis products, addressed in more detail in \u00a0the next section.) The researchers also cite the potential for byproducts from \u201ccombustion or heating\u201d of cannabis. One peer-reviewed study<\/a> they referenced includes myclobutanil<\/a>, \u201ca fungicide that decomposes into several toxic byproducts when heated, such as hydrogen cyanide.\u201d The researchers cite various studies highlighting the disproportionate effects of pesticide contamination in medical cannabis among patients who are already immunocompromised. A study, published in Current Research in Toxicology<\/em><\/a>, reviewed state-level data across 33 states and the District of Columbia on this intersection and found that \u201cpesticides [were] detected in legal cannabis products had known neurotoxic, endocrine disrupting, or carcinogenic properties, raising concerns for medical cannabis patients with neurological diseases.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is also evidence, as published in Annals of Work Exposures and Health<\/em><\/a>, that \u201cmedical cannabis products may have higher levels of pesticides than nonmedical products\u201d based on Oregon medical cannabis and pesticide residue data, finding that \u201cmedical products had mean residual pesticide concentrations that were 3\u2013 12 times higher than nonmedical products.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authors arrive at the following high-level conclusions in their commentary:<\/p>\n