The Process: Delta-9 Can Be Converted Too
- Rhiannon Yard, MBA
- 2 hours ago
- 12 min read
Fix the Rules, Not the Plant — Part 2
Natural Cannabinoids, Converted Cannabinoids, and Why Texas Should Regulate Where the Chemistry Happens
Here is the part of the hemp debate that almost everyone is missing:
Delta-9 THC can be chemically converted from CBD too.
The conversation has focused almost entirely on delta-8. Delta-8 is called “synthetic,” “converted,” or “artificial,” while delta-9 is treated as though it always came directly from the cannabis plant.
But delta-8 and delta-9 are cannabinoid names, not manufacturing methods.
Delta-9 can be produced naturally by the plant and extracted from cannabis. It can also be manufactured by chemically converting CBD. The same is true for delta-8: it can occur naturally in trace amounts, while the larger quantities used in commercial products are commonly created through conversion.
That distinction matters because the name on the package does not tell us how the cannabinoid was made.
If Texas wants to address the risks associated with chemical conversion, it cannot simply prohibit one cannabinoid while allowing another based on its name. It must regulate the manufacturing process.
What Does the Plant Actually Produce?
The cannabis plant naturally produces cannabinoid acids, including CBDA, THCA, and CBGA. Through heat and time, those compounds can become neutral cannabinoids such as CBD and THC.
Manufacturers can extract these naturally produced compounds from plant material, refine the extract, remove unwanted components, concentrate it, and formulate it into a finished product.
That is plant-derived production.
It still requires proper equipment, sanitation, testing, storage, documentation, and manufacturing controls. “Natural” does not automatically mean safe, clean, or compliant.
But the cannabinoid originated through the plant’s biological processes.
What Is Chemical Conversion?
Chemical conversion begins with one cannabinoid and intentionally changes its molecular structure to create another.
In the hemp market, the starting material is frequently CBD isolate or CBD-rich extract. Through a controlled chemical reaction, that CBD can be converted into delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC, or a mixture of THC isomers and related compounds.
This is not speculation. Scientific research has documented the conversion of CBD into both delta-8 and delta-9 THC. Recent research describes CBD as a precursor for multiple THC isomers and examines their production through both batch and continuous-flow systems.
The amount of each cannabinoid produced depends on how the reaction is performed. Temperature, reaction conditions, processing controls, purification, and other variables can affect whether the result contains more delta-9, more delta-8, additional isomers, or unintended by-products.
That is why the reaction, not merely the cannabinoid’s name, is the regulatory event.
Why Convert CBD Into Delta-9?
Because CBD became an abundant, standardized, and relatively inexpensive raw material.
The hemp industry spent years producing CBD-rich biomass and CBD isolate. When consumer demand for CBD failed to absorb the available supply, that inventory became a feedstock for manufacturing other cannabinoids.
Instead of relying only on naturally THC-rich plant material, a manufacturer can begin with standardized CBD and convert it into a concentrated THC ingredient.
After purification, that ingredient can be measured into large production runs of:
Beverages
Gummies
Chocolates
Baked goods
Syrups
Drink enhancers
Other edible products
This makes it possible to produce consistent milligram doses across thousands of individual servings.
Again, this does not mean every hemp-derived delta-9 product contains converted CBD. Delta-9 can also be extracted directly from cannabis and formulated into finished products.
That is precisely the problem: the finished product may not tell us which route was used.
How Conversion and the 0.3% Rule Work Together
The 0.3% delta-9 THC standard entered federal law as the dividing line between hemp and marijuana.
So they thought.
Texas then carried that percentage into its Consumable Hemp Program, applying the same basic threshold to products manufactured for human consumption.
That changed what 0.3% actually did.
It was no longer being used only to classify cannabis growing in a field. It was also being applied to beverages, gummies, chocolates, baked goods, and other finished products.
But percentage by weight does not regulate dose, serving size, intoxicating effect, manufacturing method, or the total number of milligrams in a package.
Instead, it created a formulation pathway.
A manufacturer can produce or purchase a concentrated delta-9 ingredient, measure a specific number of milligrams into a much heavier finished product, and formulate the product below the applicable percentage threshold.
Chemical conversion makes that model even more scalable.
Abundant CBD can be converted into a standardized delta-9 ingredient. That ingredient can then be incorporated into large production runs of beverages and edibles with consistent milligrams per serving.
The conversion creates the THC supply. The finished product’s weight creates room for the milligrams.
That is how a percentage used to distinguish hemp from marijuana became part of a mass-production model for intoxicating consumer products.
Texas did not merely legalize a plant. It created a Consumable Hemp Program around a plant-based percentage, and the market learned how to manufacture within it.
The consumer sees “hemp-derived delta-9.”
But that phrase does not answer the most important questions:
Was the delta-9 extracted directly from the plant?
Was it converted from CBD?
Who conducted the conversion?
What chemicals and processing aids were used?
What other compounds were created?
How was the material purified?
Was it tested for conversion-related residuals and by-products?
Can the batch be traced back to the original input?
A standard potency panel cannot answer all of those questions.
The Finished Molecule May Be the Same. The Process Is Not.
Chemically converted delta-9 and plant-produced delta-9 may result in the same target molecule.
The concern is not that the delta-9 molecule remembers where it came from.
The concern is everything surrounding it.
A conversion reaction may leave residual starting material, processing chemicals, unintended cannabinoids, unidentified by-products, or other impurities if it is not properly controlled and purified. FDA has raised these concerns specifically in connection with CBD-to-THC conversion, and NIST-associated research has documented unknown by-products that can complicate cannabinoid testing.
A certificate of analysis may confirm how much delta-9 or delta-8 was detected. It does not necessarily reveal the complete manufacturing history or identify every substance produced during the reaction.
That requires production records, supply-chain documentation, conversion-specific testing, and accountability at the manufacturing facility.
Texas Is Focusing on the Cannabinoid Instead of the Process
Texas DSHS currently states that only naturally occurring trace amounts of delta-8 THC are permissible and that products containing more than trace amounts may be detained and referred to law enforcement.
The same DSHS guidance states that consumable hemp products may contain delta-9 THC at no more than 0.3% on a dry-weight basis.
But if CBD can be converted into both delta-8 and delta-9, simply naming delta-8 does not solve the manufacturing problem.
Why should converted delta-8 trigger one response while converted delta-9 can disappear behind a finished-product percentage?
If chemical conversion is the concern, regulate chemical conversion.
If residuals and by-products are the concern, require manufacturing controls and appropriate testing.
If product potency is the concern, regulate milligrams and serving sizes.
If youth access is the concern, enforce age restrictions.
Those are separate risks requiring separate regulatory tools.
Regulate Where the Chemistry Happens
Texas should establish a clear regulatory line between ordinary cannabis processing and intentional cannabinoid conversion.
A workable framework should include:
Clear definitions
Texas should separately define extraction, refinement, decarboxylation, formulation, chemical conversion, converted cannabinoids, and fully synthetic cannabinoids.
Ordinary extraction should not be confused with intentionally changing one cannabinoid into another.
Separate processor authorization
Any facility conducting cannabinoid conversion should require authorization specific to that activity.
Whether Texas ultimately prohibits certain conversions or allows them under strict controls, the rule should attach to the business performing the reaction.
Complete production records
Conversion facilities should document:
The source of the CBD or other starting material
Supplier and batch information
The intended conversion
Processing inputs and aids
Production quantities and yields
Purification and remediation steps
Waste handling
Laboratory results
Final batch disposition
Conversion-specific manufacturing standards
Facilities should follow appropriate quality systems, sanitation requirements, equipment controls, employee training, batch procedures, corrective-action processes, and record-retention requirements.
Test the Input Once. Trace It Everywhere.
Testing should match the process and the point where each potential hazard enters the supply chain.
If a representative sample from a homogeneous batch of cannabinoid distillate or isolate has already been tested by an approved laboratory for identity, potency, pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, microbial contaminants, and other process-related risks, those verified results should follow that input batch into every finished product made from it.
The same cannabinoid input may be used in multiple products, flavors, sizes, and SKUs. Requiring every finished SKU to repeat the same pesticide, heavy-metal, or residual-solvent panels would duplicate testing without necessarily creating additional safety.
That is not how a well-designed GMP system works.
GMP controls a hazard where it originates, preserves the identity of the tested material, and documents everywhere that material goes.
A single cannabinoid input COA should therefore be allowed to support multiple finished-product batches and SKUs when:
The tested material came from one identified, homogeneous input batch
Representative sampling was properly performed
The laboratory and test methods meet Texas requirements
The input remained properly stored and segregated
The input was not commingled with an undocumented batch
Manufacturing records identify the amount used in each production batch
Every finished-product batch and SKU remains linked to the original input lot
Quantity reconciliation shows where the tested material was received, used, transferred, wasted, or retained
Periodic verification confirms the supplier and testing program remain reliable
Finished-product testing should then focus on risks introduced or affected during formulation and manufacturing, including:
Cannabinoid potency per serving and per package
Homogeneity and dose consistency
Microbial risks created by water activity, handling, or formulation
Shelf stability
Contaminants introduced through other ingredients
Label accuracy
Other product-specific hazards
The same principle applies to flavors, botanical extracts, terpenes, and other ingredients. If an additional ingredient creates a new pesticide, allergen, microbial, or chemical risk, that ingredient should be qualified and tested at the appropriate stage.
This creates a layered testing system:
Test the input for the hazards it brings into the facility.
Test the finished product for what formulation and manufacturing can change.
The cannabinoid input COA should travel digitally with the batch. Each finished-product record should reference the applicable input lot, allowing consumers and regulators to follow an easily accessible URL from the finished product to the verified ingredient and testing information.
One properly tested input batch may support many finished products—but only when the material is homogeneous, documented, and traceable.
That is not less testing.
It is smarter testing.
Require Cannabinoid Ingredient Disclosure
Labels, invoices, certificates of analysis, and supply-chain records should disclose whether the cannabinoid ingredient was directly extracted or produced through chemical conversion.
“Derived from hemp” is not enough. CBD can be derived from hemp and then converted into delta-9 THC. The phrase describes where the starting material came from, not necessarily how the final cannabinoid was made.
Consumers should be told more than which cannabinoids were detected in the finished product. They should also be told which cannabinoid ingredients were used and how those ingredients were produced.
This framework should avoid calling them “active ingredients.”
FDA uses “active ingredient” in drug regulation to describe a component intended to provide pharmacological activity, treat or prevent disease, or affect the structure or function of the body. Using that phrase would not, by itself, automatically make a consumable hemp product a drug. However, it would import drug-labeling terminology into a framework intended to regulate foods, beverages, and other consumable hemp products, and create unnecessary regulatory confusion.
The clearer term is:
Cannabinoid Ingredients.
Texas should establish a standardized Cannabinoid Ingredient Disclosure that identifies:
Every intentionally added cannabinoid
The type of cannabinoid ingredient used
Whether each cannabinoid was directly extracted, chemically converted, or produced through another method
The plant material or cannabinoid from which it originated
The general extraction or production method
The cannabinoid ingredient manufacturer
The ingredient and finished-product batch numbers
The amount of each cannabinoid per serving and per package
An easily accessible URL linking to laboratory results and additional production information
Label disclosures could read:
Cannabinoid Ingredients: Full-spectrum hemp extract — CO₂ extracted
Cannabinoid Ingredients: Broad-spectrum hemp distillate — cold ethanol extracted
Cannabinoid Ingredients: Delta-9 THC distillate — directly extracted from cannabis
Cannabinoid Ingredients: Delta-9 THC isolate — chemically converted from hemp-derived CBD
Cannabinoid Ingredients: CBD isolate and CBG isolate — directly extracted from hemp
Cannabinoid Ingredients: Delta-9 THC nanoemulsion — formulated using plant-extracted delta-9 THC distillate
Products containing multiple cannabinoid ingredients should identify each one separately. A broad- or full-spectrum extract should disclose the type of extract and production method, while the linked certificate of analysis should show the complete cannabinoid profile detected in the batch.
The product label should provide a concise, plain-language disclosure and an easily accessible URL linking consumers and regulators to more detailed information within three clicks or fewer. The information should be available without requiring an account, app download, or submission of personal information and should include:
The cannabinoid ingredient manufacturer
Source material
Extraction or conversion category
Batch-specific cannabinoid profile
Residual-solvent and contaminant testing
Conversion-related testing, when applicable
Supply-chain and traceability records
Manufacturers would not need to publish proprietary formulas or detailed conversion instructions on the package. Complete production records, including processing inputs, purification steps, quality controls, and corrective actions, should instead be maintained for regulatory review.
“Contains hemp-derived cannabinoids” is not enough.
Even “contains hemp-derived delta-9 THC” identifies only the cannabinoid and the claimed origin of the starting material. It does not tell the consumer whether the delta-9 was extracted directly from cannabis, converted from CBD, or incorporated through a distillate, isolate, nanoemulsion, or other formulated ingredient.
Consumers deserve to know which cannabinoid ingredients they are consuming, where those ingredients originated, and how they were produced.
Disclose Terpenes, Flavorings, and Other Cannabis-Related Ingredients
Cannabinoids are not the only ingredients requiring greater transparency.
Cannabis also contains terpenes and other compounds that contribute to its aroma, flavor, and chemical profile. But terpenes are not exclusive to cannabis.
Compounds such as limonene, myrcene, pinene, linalool, and beta-caryophyllene also occur in citrus, hops, pine, lavender, pepper, and many other plants.
A label that simply says “terpenes” does not tell the consumer where those terpenes came from.
They may be:
Naturally retained in a full-spectrum cannabis extract
Recovered directly from cannabis during processing
Extracted from other botanical sources
Manufactured as nature-identical compounds
Combined into a formulated flavor or terpene blend
Added back to an isolate or distillate after the original plant profile was removed
Those distinctions should be disclosed.
Texas should require products containing intentionally added terpenes, or marketed using a particular terpene profile, to identify whether those terpenes are:
Cannabis-derived terpenes: Terpenes recovered directly from Cannabis sativa L.
Botanically derived terpenes: Terpenes extracted from plants other than cannabis.
Nature-identical or manufactured terpenes: Terpene compounds produced through a manufacturing process to match compounds found in nature.
Formulated terpene or flavor blends: Combinations created to produce a particular aroma, flavor, or marketed profile.
Labels could state:
Terpene Ingredients: Cannabis-derived terpene extract — recovered from Cannabis sativa L.
Terpene Ingredients: Botanically derived limonene, beta-caryophyllene, and linalool
Flavor Ingredients: Natural citrus flavor with a botanically derived terpene blend
Terpene Profile: Formulated blend; not derived from a specific cannabis cultivar
Consumers should be able to verify whether the terpenes are cannabis-derived, botanically derived, or manufactured.
Federal food-labeling rules permit flavor ingredients to be listed using broad terms such as “natural flavor” or “artificial flavor.” A cannabis-specific disclosure standard would therefore provide information about terpene origin and formulation that consumers may not receive from an ordinary ingredient list. (21 C.F.R. § 101.22)
A Gummy Is Not “Sativa” Because It Tastes Like Citrus
The same transparency is needed for products marketed as “sativa,” “indica,” or “hybrid.”
These terms originated as descriptions associated with cannabis plants. In today’s marketplace, they are frequently used as shorthand for expected effects:
“Sativa” for energy or focus
“Indica” for relaxation or sleep
“Hybrid” for something in between
But commercial sativa and indica labels do not consistently correspond to distinct chemical profiles or clear genome-wide genetic differences.
The terms are already unreliable when applied to cannabis flower. They become even more questionable when applied to a gummy made from cannabinoid isolate, flavoring, and an added terpene blend.
A manufacturer may add citrus-forward terpenes and call a gummy “sativa.”
Another may add myrcene or linalool and call it “indica.”
That is product formulation and marketing, not proof that the product came from a sativa or indica cannabis plant. Nor does a flavor profile, by itself, establish that the product will produce a predictable energizing or relaxing effect.
Texas should not prohibit the use of “sativa,” “indica,” “hybrid,” strain, or cultivar names for branding or marketing. However, when those terms describe a flavor or formulated terpene profile rather than the product’s botanical origin, the label should make that clear.
For example:
Sativa-Style Citrus Terpene Blend
Indica-Inspired Berry Flavor
Blue Dream-Inspired Flavor and Terpene Profile
The goal is not to eliminate creative marketing. It is to distinguish marketing language from verified information about what the product contains and how it was made.
Equal standards for out-of-state products
Texas standards must follow products entering the state.
A Texas manufacturer should not be held to detailed process requirements while an out-of-state manufacturer sends converted material into Texas with nothing more than a finished-product potency report.
Enforcement at the responsible point
Retailers should verify required documentation and purchase from approved sources. But a retailer cannot reconstruct a chemical reaction by looking at a gummy, beverage, or COA.
Enforcement should begin with the manufacturer that created the ingredient and the businesses responsible for placing it into the supply chain.
Stop Regulating Cannabinoids by Reputation
Delta-8 became the villain. Delta-9 became the acceptable alternative.
But both can be produced by the plant, and both can be produced through chemical conversion.
That does not mean they should be unregulated. It means Texas needs a more intelligent regulatory line.
The cannabinoid name tells us what the target molecule is.
It does not tell us how the molecule was produced, whether the process was controlled, what else the reaction created, or whether the finished ingredient was properly purified and documented.
Texas should stop trying to determine manufacturing history from the name printed on the package.
Follow the ingredient. Follow the records. Follow the supply chain.
And regulate where the chemistry happens.
Continue the Series
This is Part 2 of CRAFT Strategies’ Fix the Rules, Not the Plant series—a practical framework for science, consumer safety, and enforcement.
Part 1 examined the 0.3% dividing line and what happens when a plant-based percentage is applied to finished products.
Next, Part 3 turns to The Product: regulating milligrams, serving sizes, formulation, packaging, and labeling according to the product consumers actually purchase.
Comments