Laboratory reliability depends on more than the instrument performing the analysis. The records connecting a batch, its sample, and its results also matter.
The proposed changes
As checked September 12, 2026, DCC’s page for DCC-2026-02-R describes proposed track-and-trace changes, with public notice issued June 5, 2026. The proposal includes safeguards against fraudulent transactions and lab shopping, changes to transfer approvals and data entry, and a requirement for retailers to provide certificates of analysis upon request. The page does not identify these proposed changes as an effective final rule. Source: DCC track-and-trace rulemaking.
What “lab shopping” means in this context
In its explanation, DCC describes incentives to seek more favorable results, including inflated cannabinoid values or testing practices that avoid failures. The department discusses proposed restrictions on obtaining multiple compliance samples from the same batch outside authorized retesting. Source: DCC initial statement of reasons.
The policy concern is that a favorable report can become detached from a trustworthy testing history. A tracking record should make that history easier to examine, rather than allowing inconvenient results to disappear from the story.
Distinguish a policy concern from an allegation
These documents explain the department’s rationale for a proposal. They are not evidence that every laboratory or business engages in misconduct, and they do not establish wrongdoing by any unnamed or named retailer.
The next meaningful update would be a modification, approval, withdrawal, or effective date in the official rulemaking record. Until then, report what the proposal would require. Do not silently change “would” to “does” or describe a closed comment period as proof that a rule has taken effect.