When "Dry Weight" Stops Making Sense
- Rhiannon Yard, MBA
- 1 hour ago
- 5 min read
How an Agricultural Standard Becomes More Complicated in Finished Consumer Products
"Sometimes the biggest questions in regulation aren't what the law says, they're what the law doesn't explain."
If you've spent any time in the Texas hemp industry over the past few years, you've probably heard someone say:
"The product has to be under 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis."
At first glance, that seems straightforward.
But there's one question that sits at the center of the entire discussion, and it's a question few people seem to be asking.
Dry weight of what, exactly?
It may sound like a simple question, but it could be one of the most important scientific questions hidden inside Texas's new hemp testing rules.
This article isn't about politics.
It isn't about finding loopholes.
It isn't about criticizing regulation.
It's about asking whether the law, the science, and laboratory testing are all speaking the same language.
Because sometimes they aren't.
Dry Weight Makes Perfect Sense... for a Hemp Plant
When Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp was defined as cannabis containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis.
That makes perfect scientific sense.
Plants naturally contain different amounts of moisture depending on weather, harvest timing, storage conditions, and humidity. Testing flower on a dry-weight basis removes water as a variable, allowing laboratories to compare one crop to another consistently.
For agricultural commodities, dry-weight testing is logical.
No disagreement there.
But Hemp Doesn't Stay a Plant
Today's hemp industry is no longer built around raw flower alone.
Manufacturers produce finished consumer products, including:
Beverages
Gummies
Chocolates
Baked goods
Capsules
Tinctures
Syrups
Other edible and drinkable formulations
These products are no longer agricultural commodities.
They are manufactured consumer products.
And that's where the questions begin.
A Real Certificate of Analysis Raises an Important Question
To better understand how these rules apply in practice, we reviewed a Certificate of Analysis from an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory for a finished hemp nano beverage.
The report identifies the product as:
Serving Size: 60 mL
Unit Weight: 76.620 grams
Delta-9 THC: 164.166 mg per unit
THCA: Not Detected (ND)
Total THC: 164.166 mg per unit
Reported THC Concentration: 0.2143%
At first glance, everything appears straightforward.
The laboratory measured the cannabinoids.
It reported the cannabinoid concentrations.
It identified the serving size, unit weight, and density of the finished product.
Nothing about the report appears unusual.
In fact, if you work in the hemp industry, it looks exactly like the kind of Certificate of Analysis you would expect to receive from an accredited laboratory.
Then we compared what the laboratory reported with what the Texas rules require.
Those rules require THC compliance to be evaluated on a dry-weight basis.
That raises an important question.
Is the reported 0.2143% calculated using the beverage exactly as it exists, or after the product has been converted to a dry-weight basis?
The Certificate of Analysis reports the finished product as tested.
One thing the report does not visibly identify is how a dry-weight value—if one is required—was determined.
a moisture determination;
a total solids measurement;
a loss-on-drying result;
a calculated dry sample weight; or
a separate dry-weight THC concentration.
That observation should not be interpreted as criticism of the laboratory. Rather, it highlights a broader scientific question about how finished products are evaluated under a dry-weight standard.
It simply highlights an important scientific question.
How should a laboratory determine the dry weight of a finished beverage?
If the percentage is calculated using the beverage exactly as it is sold, that's one measurement.
If the product must first be dried before calculating THC concentration, that may be a different measurement entirely.
And that distinction matters if compliance is determined on a dry-weight basis.
The Same Problem Exists With Edibles
Now imagine two gummies.
Each contains exactly 10 milligrams of Delta-9 THC.
The first gummy is sugar-free.
The second contains significantly more sugar.
The cannabinoid content is identical.
The serving size is identical.
The intended consumer serving is identical.
But if THC concentration is calculated against the product's dry weight, adding more non-cannabinoid solids changes the denominator in the equation.
The amount of THC hasn't changed.
The consumer serving hasn't changed.
The amount of THC available to the consumer hasn't changed.
Only the recipe has changed.
Should adding sugar determine whether a product legally qualifies as hemp?
That isn't a legal argument.
It's a mathematical one.
Flower and Finished Products Are Different
The distinction matters because the analytical challenges of measuring cannabinoids in harvested biomass are not necessarily the same as measuring cannabinoids in a finished manufactured product.
This is not an argument against dry-weight testing.
Dry-weight calculations are scientifically appropriate for agricultural hemp.
Plants naturally gain and lose moisture.
Removing water allows laboratories to compare crops consistently regardless of growing conditions or storage.
Finished products are different.
A beverage isn't a hemp plant.
A gummy isn't harvested biomass.
A chocolate bar isn't agricultural material.
Once hemp has been formulated into a finished consumer product, the scientific question changes.
The issue is no longer how much THC exists within a plant.
The issue becomes how THC should be measured within a manufactured product.
Those are fundamentally different analytical questions.
Then We Read the Law
Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 443 requires finished consumable hemp products to be tested by an accredited laboratory to determine the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of the product.
The adopted DSHS rules require laboratories to report additional measurements, including Total Delta-9 THC and Total THC, while evaluating compliance using a dry-weight standard.
Those terms are related.
They are not identical.
That doesn't automatically mean the rules are wrong.
But it does raise an important question.
Are laboratories, manufacturers, regulators, and the statute all measuring exactly the same thing?
What Does the Laboratory Actually Measure?
Modern accredited laboratories can accurately report:
Milligrams per serving
Milligrams per package
Milligrams per milliliter
Delta-9 THC
THCA
Individual cannabinoids
Residual solvents
Heavy metals
Microbials
Pesticides
These are validated analytical measurements.
They are reproducible.
They are standardized.
But if a finished beverage or edible must comply on a dry-weight basis, another question appears.
What is the standardized laboratory procedure for determining the dry weight of a finished product?
Because without one standardized method:
Different laboratories could calculate different dry weights.
Different dry weights produce different percentages.
Different percentages could determine whether a product passes or fails.
That isn't good for laboratories.
It isn't good for manufacturers.
And it isn't good for regulators.
The Questions Texas Still Needs to Answer
Before the industry can confidently move forward under a dry-weight standard for finished products, several questions deserve clear answers.
What validated analytical method should laboratories use to determine the dry weight of beverages and edibles?
Should two products containing the exact same amount of THC produce different legal percentages simply because one contains more sugar or less water?
How should laboratories report dry-weight calculations on Certificates of Analysis?
Does the current testing framework distinguish clearly between agricultural hemp and finished consumer products?
These aren't rhetorical questions.
They're scientific, analytical, and regulatory questions.
And they deserve equally scientific answers.
Good Regulation Depends on Good Science
Good regulation begins with clear statutory authority.
Good science depends on validated analytical methods.
Good laboratory testing depends on reproducible measurements.
When those three elements align, businesses understand how to comply, laboratories know what to measure, regulators know what to enforce, and consumers gain confidence in the products they purchase.
The goal isn't to criticize regulation.
The goal is to understand it.
Because when science, laboratory practice, and regulatory language don't clearly align, everyone, from manufacturers to regulators, is left asking the same question:
If compliance depends on a dry-weight standard, then perhaps the most important question isn't whether a product passes or fails.
It's whether everyone involved is measuring the same thing in the same way.
Comments