Identification and quantification of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and the synthetic cannabinoid MDMB-4en-PINACA in edible products seized by United Kingdom police in 2024.

Gardner M.; Proctor K.; Old M.; Cozier G.; Sutcliffe O.; Scott J.; Husbands S.; Freeman T.; Sunderland P.; Pudney C. · Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026

**Background & Methods** This cross-sectional analytical study examined 79 illicit cannabis edible products (from 31 unique products) seized by UK police forces in 2024 using convenience sampling from Merseyside and Avon & Somerset. Products underwent visual packaging analysis, laboratory quantification of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and synthetic cannabinoids via liquid chromatography-high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry (LC-HR-MS/MS), and field-portable device evaluation for rapid drug identification. **Key Findings** • THC was detected in 88.6% (70/79) of individual edibles with a median dose of 13.71 mg (IQR = 8.57 mg); however, 95% (65/68) of products labelled with claimed THC doses contained less than 55% of stated content, demonstrating substantial dosing inaccuracy. • Significant variability existed both between products (6.07-29.22 mg THC in edibles labelled as 75 mg) and within packs (dose differences >5 mg between items in 8/25 packs), indicating poor quality control and consistency. • Packaging analysis revealed 79% (19/24) of unique designs mimicked popular confectionery brands, suggesting deliberate marketing toward children; one product contained synthetic cannabinoid MDMB-4en-PINACA (mean 11.27 mg/edible) rather than THC, representing an unexpected adulterant. **Dosage & Administration** Median THC dose per edible: 13.71 mg (IQR = 8.57 mg). Claimed labelled doses ranged from 6.07 to 29.22 mg, with substantial underdosing relative to label claims. Route of administration: oral (edible products). **Safety & Adverse Effects** Not reported. The abstract references prior association between cannabis edible use and adverse health effects particularly in adolescents but does not document specific adverse events from this sample analysis. **Evidence Quality** Limitations include convenience sampling (acknowledged by authors), potential selection bias from limited geographic sources (two police forces), small sample size (n=79 edibles), and lack of long-term clinical outcome data. This represents descriptive laboratory analysis rather than clinical trial evidence. The field-portable device showed high accuracy (94% overall, 100% for solid products), supporting its utility for point-of-care identification. Evidence quality is moderate for product composition characterization but insufficient for clinical safety assessment.

More recent cannabis research