On the 25th of October, I published an article about fake “Piattella” bars that have recently been circulating in the cannabis market.
Since then, I have received a lot of messages, including from cannabis clubs and smaller organizations. One of these clubs felt compelled to have their product tested after my article - which I am personally very happy about.
I would like to note that they communicated in Spanish, and I replied in English. Miscommunication may have happened in the tone of the conversation.
They did not seem pleased with my article, and I believe they ordered the test mainly so they could continue selling the product and convince their customers that it is clean.
This is where the issues start: the report they provided is what I would call a “sexy report”. It focuses on selling points for dealers while largely ignoring the safety aspect. Even the heavy metal testing is extremely limited, only checking for zinc, lead and cadmium. For a product that has undergone extraction - and in some cases may even be synthetic - it should be investigated much more thoroughly (you can read more about this here).
Before we delve into the report, I would like to note that I will not be exposing anyone who has contacted me - including those who are strongly against harm reduction and against what I am doing. I will also not name the laboratories mentioned in this article, to ensure that it remains lawful and does not cross any legal boundaries. This article is written purely from my personal perspective and assessment.
Let's get started with the data.
The laboratory is testing for the following in this report:
Cannabinoids
Terpenes
Some heavy metals
The report labels the sample as a solventless extract, but the CoA does not provide any analytical data to prove that it is truly solventless.
The report also notes Delta-8-THC as “Detected”, but without giving any percentage or numeric value. From a harm-reduction perspective, that is almost useless: you cannot see whether it is present at trace level or at a level that would point to a converted or semi-synthetic THC fraction. In natural cannabis, Delta-8-THC is usually present only in very low amounts, so explicitly flagging “Delta-8-THC: Detected” in a high-THC extract is at least a red flag that should have been followed up with proper quantification and, ideally, process information.
Because the report only says “Detected” and does not give a number, it is not possible to confirm from this CoA alone that the sample is synthetic or semi-synthetic. However, the combination of around 70 % Delta-9-THC, no reported THCA, and an explicit “Delta-8-THC: Detected” line is, in my view, more consistent with a converted THC fraction than with a traditional Piattella. This is my interpretation based on the data presented, not a proven fact about the production process.
How and why?
The sample is almost white in color, which is more typical of heavily processed high-purity concentrates than of a traditional, solventless, naturally derived product. It doesn’t prove anything on its own, but it’s a visual red flag.
(Very simplified) many conversion processes go: acidic/cannabinoid precursor → Delta-8-THC → predominantly Delta-9-THC, often leaving small amounts of Delta-8 behind as a by-product.
= In this context, seeing Delta-8-THC marked as “Detected” while no THCA is reported at all is, in my view, suspicious and more consistent with a converted THC fraction.
The test method is not described in the report, but the data format (only neutral cannabinoids, no acids) is consistent with either a fully decarboxylated extract or a method that effectively reports everything as Delta-9-THC. In any case, the CoA does not report THCA at all, which means you cannot see the original THCA/THC balance. For THCA products, the standard potency calculation is to convert THCA to THC using a factor of 0.877 (THC = THCA × 0.877) when calculating total THC.
We will use this calculation later in the article.
The report also does not show detection limits or numeric results for the heavy metals. It simply states “Free from Zinc | Lead | Cadmium” without any values or limits for those metals, and without mentioning arsenic or other potentially relevant metals. The “big four” heavy metals usually discussed in cannabis testing are lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium; here, arsenic and mercury are not mentioned at all. On top of that, there is a long list of other metals that are not evaluated in this “sexy report” format.
The data* from the laboratory report is:
Report Name: Piatella
Test date: 3/11/2025 - shortly after the "Fake Piatella" article.
Total Cannabinoids - 75.0068%
Δ9-THC - 70.445%
CBD - 1.0861%
CBG - 2.9745%
CBN - 0.1612%
CBC - Detected
Δ8-THC - Detected
THCV - N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
HHC - N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Total Terpenes - 4.6598%
Citronellol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Geranyl Acetate: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
trans-Nerolidol: 0.096%
Geraniol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Linalool: 0.4712%
β-Ocimene: 0.0831%
p-Cymene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
α-Terpinene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Cedrol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
α-Cedrene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
α-Pinene: 0.2271%
β-Pinene: 0.2759%
Camphene: 0.0881%
cis-Nerolidol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Caryophillene Oxide: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Bisabolol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Fenchone: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Borneol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
γ-Terpinene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Humulene: Detected
α-Phellandrene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Fenchol: 0.1592%
Isopulegol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Terpineol: Detected
Limonene: 1.5939%
Myrcene: 0.973%
Sabinene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Sabinene Hydrate: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Pulegone: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Terpinolene: 0.0684%
3-Carene: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Eucalyptol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
β-Caryophyllene: 0.263%
Guaiol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Isoborneol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Camphor: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Nerol: N̶o̶t̶ ̶D̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶
Free from Zinc | Lead | Cadmium
Limits of Detection
Cannabinoids: 0,1 | Terpenes: 0,04
Limits of Quantification
Cannabinoids: 0,14 | Terpenes: 0,06
-I interpret this as if cannabinoid content present must be more than 0.1% in order to be detected: Which means there is more than 0.1% D8-THC present in this sample!
*To ensure laboratory and client confidentiality, direct screenshots will not be shown of the report as of now.
The client was informed but would not follow up on the provided guidance to have the sample tested on a proper machine.
I personally suspect the testing in the first report may have been conducted using a GC-type method, which would also explain why THCA is not mentioned; only THC is reported. Depending on how the method is set up, the main THC peak in GC can include contributions from some THC analogues that the legal market has been pushing lately (such as THCP, THCJD and others), unless they are specifically separated.
As a basic minimum for this kind of product, an HPLC-based cannabinoid analysis is required to separate the main THC precursors and analogues into distinct peaks.
Without a complete analysis, the sample cannot be shown to be clean or naturally derived, and a fully synthetic or semi-synthetic origin cannot be ruled out.
After informing the client about this, I was immediately prompted with a message that the report I was sent was indeed the wrong report (even though the name is Piatella and was tested shortly after the article).
He sent me a extremely vague picture of some cannabinoids without laboratory accreditation or any kind of verification, and said that the first report (named Piatella) I received was for another product and was not the correct report. The picture he sent me is supposedly the correct analysis for this hash.
I believe he said the second one was a proper HPLC test and would overrule the report he first sent (which was named Piatella).
The data on the new report I was sent:
Δ9-THC: 0,385% ± 0,024%
THCA: 81,709% ± 0,071% <-- This is important.
CBD: 0,915% ± 0,006%
CBDA: < 0,05%
CBDV: N/D
CBDVA: N/D
THCV: N/D
THCVA: 0,252% ± 0,008%
CBG: 2,217% ± 0,009%
CBGA: 0,106% ± 0,012%
CBC: 0,087% ± 0,009%
CBCA: 0,214% ± 0,026%
CBN: < 0,05%
CBNA: N/D
Honestly, this report could just as well have been typed in a Word document: there is nothing on it that a consumer can use to verify that it comes from a real laboratory.
The "new report" is just a sole screenshot without even a name applied or anything:
So first of all, the new data doesn't even analyse the important cannabinoid in this aspect: Delta-8-THC.
Looking at the THCA content, we can calculate the D9-THC content by: 81.709 * 0.877 = 71,66% THC.
When correcting the first report for decarboxylation, the total cannabinoids (~75.8 %) and total THC equivalent (~72 %) line up extremely closely with the first reported result (75.0 % total cannabinoids, 70.4 % Δ9-THC). The cannabinoid totals and relative proportions are fully compatible with a decarbed/processed version of the same chemotype, but on their own they cannot prove that it is literally the same physical sample.
As a final conclusion/TL:DR version: The sample does not look clean and has not been proven as clean.
Safety testing is incomplete and vague
No data on residual solvents, pesticides, microbiology, mycotoxins or other common contaminants.
Heavy metals are reduced to a marketing line (“Free from Zinc | Lead | Cadmium”) with no numerical results, no limits, and no mention of arsenic, mercury or any other metals.
A product that has been extracted and may involve chemical conversion should never be declared “clean” on this basis.
The cannabinoid profile fits a converted fraction better than classic extractions
The first report shows ~70 % Δ9-THC, “Δ8-THC: Detected”, and no THCA at all, which is unusual for a “Piattella”-style product.
In traditional Piattella, you would expect a significant THCA fraction, not a fully neutral profile dominated by Δ9-THC.
In my view, high Δ9-THC, trace Δ8-THC and no reported acids are more consistent with a converted THC fraction than with genuine full-melt product. This is an interpretation based on the numbers, not proof of a specific synthesis route, but it is a serious red flag.
The second “correct” report does not resolve any of the concerns
The replacement screenshot is anonymous: no lab name, no accreditation information, no method, and no mention of Δ8-THC at all.
When you decarboxylate the THCA result from this second report, the calculated total THC and total cannabinoids line up almost perfectly with the first report – which is compatible with a processed version of the same chemotype.
However, the second report omits exactly the contentious analyte (Δ8-THC) and still provides no information on solvents, pesticides, microbiology, mycotoxins or extended heavy metals. In practice, it adds no meaningful safety information. It doesn't even include the terpenes.
Taken together, this means:
The available lab data do not demonstrate that the product is safe or naturally derived.
They also do not rule out synthetic or semi-synthetic origin.
The combination of a “sexy” COA, a Δ8-THC flag with no quantity, a white high-THC concentrate marketed as “Piattella”, and a second vague screenshot instead of a proper full report is, in my view, exactly the kind of pattern consumers should treat with caution.
Origin check (natural vs CBD-converted/synthetic) via impurity profiling / advanced methods – not done here.
Analogue profiling: proper separation and quantification of THC analogues (e.g. Δ8-THC, THCP, THCJD, etc.) instead of lumping them into a single “THC” peak is missing.
My final verdict: Based on the data presented so far, I would not consider this product safe to consume.
