Are My THC Gummies Going Away?

FLORA LICHTMAN: Hey, it’s Flora Lichtman, and you’re listening to Science Friday. Have you ever been in a gas station and seen CBD gummies with THC in them and thought, wait, is this legal? If so, you are right to be dazed and confused. These products are on nondispensary shelves thanks to chemistry, maybe some botany confusion, and a weird legal loophole in the 2018 Farm Bill.

So that law began regulating so-called hemp with low THC content differently from other cannabis. But enter chemistry. People started extracting THC from that hemp and selling unregulated products that could get you high. Think of the buzzy bevs in the liquor store. Now a bunch of states are working on laws to ban these hemp-derived products that contain even tiny amounts of THC. And a federal law is slated to close this loophole in November, which would end up possibly snuffing out a multibillion-dollar CBD business.

OK, if you’re confused, don’t worry. Rolling up to sort some of this out is Dr. Cinnamon Bidwell, a clinical psychologist focused on cannabis at the University of Colorado. She co-directs the CU Change Lab. Hey, Cinnamon.

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Hi, good to be here.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Did I get that synopsis right?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

FLORA LICHTMAN: This is confusing, though, because the law is legislating plants even though CBD and THC can be found in hemp, right?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Absolutely. And cannabis, it’s a complex plant. And we really have to embrace the complexity here. So the Farm Bill essentially draws a line for a certain type of cannabis that has very, very low THC. But biologically, from a plant perspective, cannabis itself is all under one type of plant, right? It just draws a line of, hey, this very specific form of cannabis with very low THC, which is the psychoactive component, gets to sort of fall under this special regulatory umbrella.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And that’s what we’re calling hemp, right?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Correct.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Legally. So hemp and cannabis, same plant botanically?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: This is what everyone is so confused about. And I’m so happy to try to help clarify. Yes, all of this is cannabis. We are all talking about cannabis and these components of cannabis that interact with the human body to produce different effects. So people know a lot about THC, which is the primary psychoactive component. It’s the reason that we’re concerned about cannabis being a drug of abuse and has to do a lot with it being scheduled at a very high risk level and illegal federally. So that’s THC.

And then there’s another prevalent cannabinoid called cannabidiol. People know it as CBD. And that is a lower risk in terms of abuse liability, potentially has some important medicinal or harm reduction components. And so the Farm Bill allowed CBD, or cannabis that was predominantly CBD, to be regulated a little differently with a bit more flexibility even though they all fall under the same umbrella of all being cannabis.

FLORA LICHTMAN: OK. So when we talk about hemp and marijuana, I mean, are we talking about different varieties of tomatoes, like beefsteak versus cherry or something, same species, different variety?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Yeah, essentially, we know how to breed plants. We know how to breed biological species to have certain traits. And so that’s what we’re talking about with different components of cannabis, different types of cannabis. They’re essentially bred to favor certain cannabinoids or certain traits. And hemp-derived CBD has been bred to favor high levels of CBD and lower levels of THC.

FLORA LICHTMAN: OK. All right. So these hemp-derived products that you find in gas stations and convenience stores– gummies, tinctures– are they tested differently than what you would find at a dispensary, for example?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Absolutely. So every state market, every state cannabis market that’s more THC focused, has some kind of testing procedures, testing regulations. They do differ across states, but they do tend to include making sure the THC levels are quantified clearly, making sure pesticides are tested, other contaminants. And that tends to all go on the label. And there’s a lot of important information that’s acquired through those testing processes. With CBD, it’s much more patchwork. It’s much more state dependent. And some of these products are sold state to state. And they may or may not be tested or regulated much at all.

FLORA LICHTMAN: You said CBD products, but some of these CBD products have THC in them. Can you trust even the dosage of THC in these hemp-derived CBD products if you’re getting them in a gas station rather than a dispensary?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Correct. The testing is not even guaranteed or systematic, so you really don’t know. The other piece is that people have learned that they can basically extract or concentrate that THC from these hemp-derived CBD products. So technically, it was, quote, “safe,” and so it could be sold in a gas station. But then they take this THC from that hemp-derived product and create a THC-focused product out of that hemp-derived product. So you can have products that are, quote unquote, “legal” but are essentially predominantly THC and, again, as you said, not tested or not regulated in the same way as a state dispensary-type product.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And that’s what this federal law and many of these state laws, that’s the loophole that they’re trying to close, basically.

CINNAMON BIDWELL: The intention is to close it. And I think the idea is to prevent these risks. I have concerns just about patchwork legislation and patchwork regulation. I think cannabis industry has been sort of a victim to that for a long time. And I think more comprehensive plans could really get at some of the risks they’re trying to get but also not remove products that are relatively safe or may actually help people. So there’s a balance here that might be being lost with this federal law.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Right. Also, why would you regulate based on botany, not based on the actual chemicals that you’re trying to regulate?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Absolutely.

FLORA LICHTMAN: That doesn’t make any sense.

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Exactly. And this arbitrary definition of certain types of this plant have certain regulations and other types of plant have other regulations creates a lot of confusion, a lot of opportunity for loopholes, and just a lot of confusion from the consumer, right? What’s safe? What’s not? What’s regulated? What’s tested? So we’re not in a good position there.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Well, let’s talk about some of these other cannabinoids. I mean, I’ve seen the laws call out Delta-9 THC, but I’ve also seen Delta-8 and THCV on packages.

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Correct.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Are there different kinds of THC? What are we talking about here?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Yeah. So Delta-9 is sort of the main known psychoactive culprit, let’s say, for cannabis. And this is, again, the reason why cannabis has a strong abuse liability and is of concern for vulnerable populations to be using cannabis. But there are slightly biochemically different versions of THC– like you said, Delta-8 or THCV– that may still have some psychoactive properties. We’re really still working to crack that nut and figure out exactly what the risks of those other forms of THC are that seem biochemically quite similar to THC-9. But again, that’s really new research. We’re still figuring that out. And so the regulations allowed those forms of THC to fall through the cracks right now.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Are there other cannabinoids on your radar that you’re like, yeah, that’s going to be the next one that people are going to look into?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: I mean, people are so innovative and smart. And I think one of the problems of these patchwork laws is that it’s allowing these innovation or alteration of cannabis in a way that may actually produce more forms of it that are psychoactive that we’re not even familiar with yet.

FLORA LICHTMAN: So this federal law, if it goes into effect, it will restrict hemp-derived products, including ones that really have almost barely detectable levels of THC. Are you hearing from people in this industry? Are people concerned?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: I think certainly from a research perspective, we’re worried about not being able to access these projects for research. This is a very important burgeoning area of research that we really need to understand from a public health perspective. And so by creating these restrictions, we’re worried that there’s just going to be limitations on research, which could really pave the path for therapeutic effects and better understanding of what cannabis does to the human body.

And certainly, industry members are concerned and, again, just don’t necessarily support this idea of regulating the plant based on these arbitrary cannabinoid definitions or separating it out in certain ways. It’d be much better to have an overarching, comprehensive regulation that fit all the aspects of cannabis that we do know about.

FLORA LICHTMAN: What are the big research questions before us?

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Yeah, I think it’s a really exciting area of research, but one that I think the public doesn’t understand how much more work we need to be doing to really understand, how does CBD affect sleep? How can I really get an appropriate dose of CBD that might help my sleep? Those clinical trials, that human work, has not really been done, in part because the regulations are so confusing. It makes the research really hard to do. And so by having clearer regulations, by having more permanent and science-based policies, it’s going to open the door for research that will actually matter to people.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

And so things like sleep, pain, anxiety, all these potential therapeutic effects of CBD, we can actually have real data to understand, is there a dose that’s helpful? Is there a dose that’s harmful? Are there concerns about combination with other cannabinoids? And how do we really create a solid evidence base for consumers to make healthy decisions?

FLORA LICHTMAN: Dr. Cinnamon Bidwell, a clinical psychologist focused on cannabis at the University of Colorado. Thanks for joining us today.

CINNAMON BIDWELL: Thank you.

FLORA LICHTMAN: After the break, moving from the pungent vape store in the corner to the pungent slush pile in front of it– I’m talking about an urban wintertime icon, the dirty snowbank. What’s in it? We’ll find out. That’s after the break.

Moving from the pungent vape store in the corner to the pungent slush pile in front of that vape store– I’m talking about an urban wintertime icon, the dirty snowbank. Every winter, we watch pristine downy flake transform into a ragout of black, yellow, and brown streaks. Are these frosty sidewalk toilets as disgusting as they seem? My next guest wondered the same thing and dug in to find some answers. Joe Hong is the investigative data reporter for WNYC and Gothamist. And he tested the soiled snowbanks of New York City. Hey, Joe.

JOE HONG: Hey, thanks for having me.

FLORA LICHTMAN: No problem. Was this a passion project for you?

JOE HONG: A little bit, but I think collectively, as a newsroom, we’ve always sort of wondered, oh, man, what is in that gross snow that’s just been sitting there for weeks? And it got to the point where my editor was like, I think we have a lab where we can get this stuff tested. So we decided to scoop some up, put them in some sterilized bottles, and ship them off to this lab in Long Island.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Well, yes. Tell me a little bit more about the process. Where did you collect your snow, and why did you select certain spots?

JOE HONG: Yeah, absolutely. So we picked three spots. The first one is Williamsburg.

FLORA LICHTMAN: So a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York.

JOE HONG: Yes, yes. And that neighborhood is known for its really bad air pollution. And so we wanted–

FLORA LICHTMAN: And hipsters.

JOE HONG: Exactly.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Just so people know.

JOE HONG: Yeah. Yeah, so we want to know, is the snow sort of soaking up all this air pollution like a sponge? And so we went there. And then I went to the Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue subway station.

FLORA LICHTMAN: So we’re talking Queens now.

JOE HONG: In Queens, yeah, and got snow from under the elevated subway track. We know that the subway tracks, they shed lead from the old lead paint that’s on them. And I also found quite a bit of bird poop from the avian residents who live under that track. That had accumulated on the snow.

And then we went to Washington Heights in Upper Manhattan. We chose that neighborhood because I did a story earlier last year that found that Washington Heights residents had the highest number of 311 complaints related to people not picking up after their dogs. And so, yeah, we wanted to see, is this snow just full of dog poop?

FLORA LICHTMAN: This is very scientific. I mean, were you in rubber gloves? Did you have test tubes? How should I picture it?

JOE HONG: Yeah, yeah. So we just wanted to be very cautious. This is stuff that we look at all the time but don’t really want to think about or touch. So we got one bucket for each sample. And then we used a brand-new set of rubber gloves and a brand-new scooper for each one of these samples. So we didn’t want to cross-contaminate or anything.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Oh, of course.

JOE HONG: So yeah, so we wore sort of like PPE as we collected them.

FLORA LICHTMAN: [LAUGHS] PPE.

JOE HONG: Yeah.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And were you– just in terms of methodology here, because we’re a science show, were you scooping up the worst bits in the pile, or were you homing in on the brown streaks or the pink chunks that we all know are there?

JOE HONG: So we were kind of trying to get a representative sample of the grossness that we see. So that meant skimming an inch layer off the top of a pile that looked particularly bad. But if I saw like an actual piece of dog poop just sitting on the snow, I didn’t just grab that piece of dog poop and put it in my bucket.

FLORA LICHTMAN: I mean, we have the results. We know what that is.

JOE HONG: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

FLORA LICHTMAN: OK, we got to get to the results. Were any of the results PP? And by that, I mean particularly perplexing.

JOE HONG: [LAUGHS] Yes. Well, I should say they were initially perplexing. And then we talked to some experts. But we found some high levels of metals like chromium and lead as well in some of the snow. And the levels that we were seeing were significantly higher than what we would find in drinking water. But once we started talking to experts, we realized, oh, if there’s even a little bit of dirt mixed in with the snow– New York City’s soil contains just high levels of lead and various types of metals across the board, so that’s what caused those readings.

And I guess another thing in the Jackson Heights sample, I mentioned all that bird poop that I definitely skimmed some of. What we found, though, is high levels of this bacteria called Enterococcus. And that bacteria is found in the fecal matter of warm-blooded animals. And so this was likely dog poop or, god forbid, human feces.

FLORA LICHTMAN: What about squirrels? Or there are other warm-blooded–

JOE HONG: You know? You’re right.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Rats.

JOE HONG: I did not– rats, yeah. I did not– I didn’t consider that. So yeah, that Jackson Heights sample was particularly rich.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Any other findings that made you scratch your head?

JOE HONG: Not necessarily scratch my head, but the lead readings, I think, were a little eyebrow raising, shall we say, because it’s not inconceivable that small children will be running around and playing in the snow right after it falls. And they might fall or grab some off the top and put it in their mouth.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And eat it. Joe, come on. We all know. Yeah.

JOE HONG: Yeah. I mean, I’m not a parent, so I want to be sensitive here. But I mean, as a kid, I was known to do that as well. But seeing these lead readings made me think, oh, maybe parents should be a little more careful about letting their kids just sort of run around and putting this stuff in their mouths.

FLORA LICHTMAN: So do you think that these findings are transferable to other cities, or did your experts think this is New York specific?

JOE HONG: Yeah, so I think a lot of the metals that we found, like lead and chromium, have a lot of industrial applications, or they’re sort of the byproducts of urban environments. And so, yeah, you’re going to find more of these materials in bigger cities. And the interesting thing, though, if you think about it, is that these snowbanks are just kind of laying bare what’s already on our streets and what’s in our air and in our environment year round. And so, yeah, they’re not grosser than the city on a good day, necessarily. So these snow banks are kind of holding up a mirror to our city’s air and air quality.

FLORA LICHTMAN: [SIGHS] A brown, yellow mirror. Joe Hong is the investigative data reporter for WNYC and Gothamist based in New York. This episode was produced by Kathleen Davis. And if you want to complain about all the potty talk in the app or how we compared poop-encrusted snow piles to a ragout, we always welcome your feedback and also your suggestions and questions. Have you wanted to do an experiment like this? Give us a call. Maybe we can help. 877-4-SCIFRI. We’ll catch you next time. I’m Flora Lichtman.

Copyright © 2026 Science Friday Initiative. All rights reserved. Science Friday transcripts are produced on a tight deadline by 3Play Media. Fidelity to the original aired/published audio or video file might vary, and text might be updated or amended in the future. For the authoritative record of Science Friday’s programming, please visit the original aired/published recording. For terms of use and more information, visit our policies pages at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/policies/