When Connecticut’s nearly 34,000 medical cannabis patients purchase their medicine, they do so with the trust that it is safe, pure, and held to the highest legal standards. That trust is the very foundation of our state’s regulated cannabis program.
But a recent, quietly issued interpretation from the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) threatens to erode that foundation, raising serious questions about whether consumer safety is being compromised.
The issue stems from a March 6, email from the DCP’s General Counsel, which stated that cannabis is not considered “adulterated” even if it has been treated with radiation. This technique, often called remediation, is used to kill mold, yeast, and bacteria on cannabis that may have failed initial testing. In essence, it’s a way to clean up a potentially contaminated product after it has already been grown.
On the surface, this might sound like a reasonable safety measure. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate contaminants? But it sidesteps a much more important question: why was the product contaminated in the first place?
Connecticut state law is clear on this point. The law defines a drug as “adulterated” if it contains any “filthy, putrid or decomposed substance” or was “prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions” that could make it harmful. The purpose of this law is to ensure products are clean from the start, not cleaned up at the end. Allowing producers to remediate failed batches with radiation creates a loophole that could incentivize cutting corners on cultivation and handling practices.
Think of it this way: if a restaurant kitchen is repeatedly cited for unsanitary conditions, the solution isn’t to simply douse the finished plates of food with a disinfectant. The solution is to fix the kitchen.
The DCP’s new guidance suggests that a bureaucratic approval for a processing technique can override a clear consumer protection law passed by our legislature. Connecticut’s statutes and cannabis-specific regulations do not appear to grant the department such broad authority. In fact, the commissioner’s discretion is typically limited to very specific circumstances, like authorizing pesticides to prevent a catastrophic crop loss. It was not intended to create a blanket approval for processes that may alter a product that would otherwise be deemed unfit for sale.
This isn’t just a legal debate; it’s a matter of public health and trust. Patients, many with compromised immune systems, rely on the integrity of the medical cannabis program. They deserve to know the history of the product they are consuming —was it grown in pristine conditions, or was it cleaned with radiation because it was initially contaminated?
The current guidance from the DCP creates ambiguity where we need absolute clarity. It puts the burden on consumers to question the purity of their medicine and weakens the very regulations designed to protect them.
Our shared goal must be a safe, transparent, and trusted cannabis program for all residents of Connecticut. To achieve this, we need clear standards grounded in unambiguous statutory authority. Prevention of contamination should always be prioritized over after-the-fact remediation.
Therefore, we call on the Department of Consumer Protection to provide a public, legally sound explanation for its position. It should clarify how an agency-level approval can preempt state law. Ultimately, state regulators must ensure their policies align with the legislative intent of protecting patients and consumers.
Connecticut’s cannabis program was built on a promise of safety and accountability. It’s a promise our state must keep.
Lou Rinaldi is a resident of Guilford and a patient advocate writing on behalf of Connecticut’s medical cannabis community.