CBD testing labs: 5 steps to check accreditation

Record at least the legal name, site address and claimed accreditation number. Cofrac distinguishes technical accreditation from ISO 9001 certification of a management system. These recognise different things: management certification alone does not demonstrate competence to perform the particular analysis you want to check (Cofrac).

Start with the complete report supplied by the seller. Identify its issuing organisation, contact details and any information about the testing location. The name displayed on a commercial page may refer to a brand or group. Find the entity and site involved in testing, without automatically attributing a group's status to every establishment.

Copy the number exactly, including its separators. Don't confuse it with the report reference, sample code or batch number. Put these references in separate fields. If no accreditation body is named, request that information before continuing the search. Otherwise, you may be searching the wrong register from the outset.

Also prepare your exact question. Are you checking a cannabinoid measurement in an oil, a pesticide test on a flower or another service? That wording will guide how you read the scope. CBD alone is too broad to identify the material, parameter being investigated and method used.

Use the search provided by the body said to have granted accreditation. Cofrac offers 2 routes: a quick search using identifiers and an advanced search by sector. Its FAQ lists the name, accreditation number and SIREN business identifier among the criteria. Start with your most precise identifier (Cofrac).

Open the official Cofrac register and enter the number. Compare the result with the report's contact details. If several establishments appear, open the documents for the relevant site. An almost identical name is not sufficient: also check the address and the entity holding accreditation.

If there is no result, try the legal name, then the SIREN identifier if available. Ask the laboratory for a direct link to its entry. Treat the answer as something to verify in the official register, rather than a replacement for it. This avoids relying on an isolated copy of an accreditation certificate.

Check current status and the testing date. Cofrac's register publishes full withdrawals or terminations from less than 5 years ago, reduced to 2 years for terminations following a transfer. This publication window is not the validity period of an accreditation. Read the individual record to establish its status (Cofrac).

Keep the report date, testing date where stated and your own access date separate. If the report is old, a current certificate cannot establish the previous position by itself. Request the scope document applicable when the service took place, together with confirmation if the chronology remains unclear.

Read the extent of any decision mentioned. Cofrac provides for suspensions and withdrawals affecting all or part of an accreditation (Cofrac, GEN PROC 03, 2022). Don't draw a conclusion from the word “suspension” alone. Identify the activities and dates to which the decision relates.

A useful check keeps two records: the status consulted today and the coverage applicable to the tests. You need to establish that they correspond. How recently a seller appears to have produced or sent a PDF does not show it.

Compare the material analysed, parameter investigated and method with the scope documents. Cofrac distinguishes profiles including FLEX1, FLEX2 and FLEX3; for flexible scopes, also consult the detailed activities. Read the general scope together with the details that establish its boundaries before drawing a conclusion about a particular test (Cofrac, LAB REF 08, 2024).

Here, matrix means the material submitted for analysis: oil, flower, extract or cosmetic product, for example. Don't assume that one category covers another. The parameter describes what the laboratory measures or looks for. The method specifies how it performs that operation. Compare these elements together rather than treating them as interchangeable labels.

If the report uses an abbreviation absent from the scope, ask the laboratory which line covers the service. A difference in wording may require a technical explanation and does not by itself establish missing coverage. Conversely, similar wording is not enough to confirm that the analysis falls within scope.

Reasoning example A line covering cannabinoids in an oil cannot, by itself, establish coverage for pesticide testing on a flower. Both the material and service differ. This example shows the comparison to make. It does not describe the scope of an actual laboratory.

If the annex points to a detailed scope, open it. If it is unavailable, request the relevant version from the laboratory. Keep the document and its reference with the report. The aim is to make your conclusion verifiable, without copying a whole list of methods or interpreting measured concentrations.

Finally, check the accreditation reference on the report itself. Cofrac's GEN REF 11, applicable from 1 February 2026 (01/02/2026), provides for an accreditation mark or a textual reference. An absent logo therefore cannot settle the question: also look for the wording and any exclusions before deciding what the report claims (Cofrac, 2026).

If the report carries neither an accreditation mark nor a textual accreditation reference, do not describe it as covered by accreditation. Ask the laboratory for clarification and attach the complete report. This check concerns the document's coverage. It does not establish that the laboratory lacks accreditation for other services.

Read the notes alongside results to identify services presented as outside accreditation. If the report combines several analyses, ask about each one that matters to your decision. Avoid the overly broad question “is your laboratory accredited?” You need an answer about this report and this particular service, with its relevant details.

You could write: “For this report and sample, which scope entry covers the analysis being checked? Please specify the testing site, method and accreditation status of this service when testing took place.” Add the document references you already recorded. This helps the laboratory provide a technical answer you can compare with the documents.

The evidence needs to connect in both directions: from the report to the scope, then from the scope to the actual service. A valid certificate that cannot be connected to the analysis leaves an open question. It supports neither blanket approval nor an accusation against the laboratory.

A sound conclusion identifies the laboratory, site, service and documents checked. If something is missing, specify it: status on the testing date, material covered or method correspondence. That targeted qualification is more useful than a broad judgement based on a logo. It also lets the seller provide the document still needed.

Keep the report, scope and laboratory's reply together. The guide to CBD product quality checks complements this record with the other information to examine.

Sources and dates

All linked sources were accessed on 12 September 2026. An effective date is not an access date; registers describe the information published when checked.

• ISO: ISO/IEC 17025:2017, 2017 edition.
• Cofrac: “Accréditation et certification, quelles différences ?”, publication date not established here.
• Cofrac: “Informations sur les organismes accrédités” FAQ and official directory, pages accessed without a publication date established here.
• Cofrac: suspension, termination and withdrawal register, status checked on the stated date; publication windows of 5 years and 2 years following transfer.
• Cofrac: GEN PROC 03, effective from 15 October 2022; effective date verified, revision not recorded here.
• Cofrac: LAB REF 08, effective from 15 December 2024; effective date verified, revision not recorded here.
• Cofrac: GEN REF 11, revision 11, effective from 1 February 2026 (01/02/2026).
• ENAC: “Quiero acreditarme”, page explaining the scope of accredited activities; publication date not established here.
• NIST: “NIST Tools for Cannabis Laboratory Quality Assurance”, introduction to CannaQAP; publication date not established here.