California Forced Cannabis Operators to Use Millions of METRC Tags. Now the Tags Have Reportedly Tested Positive for Prop 65 Chemicals.

Jeff Nordahl is not saying California’s METRC plant tags are definitely dangerous. That distinction matters, and it should be made clearly from the beginning.

What he is asking is more basic, more reasonable, and frankly more troubling: if California requires cannabis operators and workers to handle millions of these tags every year, and if lab testing shows the tags contain chemicals listed under Proposition 65, has anyone actually done a worker-safety analysis? Has anyone determined whether a warning is required? Has anyone issued handling guidance? Has anyone explained how operators are supposed to dispose of them?

Those are not conspiracy questions. Those are common-sense workplace safety and environmental questions.

A recent series of posts and reels from Jeff, reposted from @jade_grove_farm, pushed this issue from a cannabis compliance complaint into a larger accountability story. In his public service announcement, Jeff said METRC plant tags tested positive for Prop 65 chemicals, including lead, arsenic, and BPA. He also emphasized that he is not claiming the tags are dangerous. He is asking whether they might pose a concern for employees who handle hundreds or thousands of tags a day, and whether the public deserves clear guidance from the state and METRC.

That is the right frame for this story. It is not panic. It is not fearmongering. It is the kind of question regulators should have asked before forcing an entire industry to use these tags for years.

Editor’s Note

Beard Bros Media reviewed a Dec. 1, 2025 Certificate of Analysis from Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs, CA, for a sample labeled “METRC PLANT TAGS.” The report listed the batch number as “without the RF strip” and showed a metals failure driven by arsenic at 0.538 µg/g against a listed limit of 0.2 µg/g. Lead was detected at 0.166 µg/g, below the listed limit of 0.5 µg/g. The report does not include BPA testing. Jeff Nordahl has stated that a separate Anresco test detected BPA in the same tags, but Beard Bros Media has not yet reviewed that Anresco report.

The Lab Results Move This Beyond Social Media

The strongest version of this story does not rest on a caption, a reel, or a frustrated operator venting online. It rests on a lab report.

The Certificate of Analysis reviewed by Beard Bros Media was produced by Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs, CA, on Dec. 1, 2025. The sample was labeled “METRC PLANT TAGS” and submitted by Good Farma – Jade Nectar. The sample ID was ICC-251126-10-005, and the report lists the batch number as “without the RF strip.” That detail is important because it supports Jeff’s repeated point that the concern is not about the RFID chip buried inside the tag. The concern is about the tag material workers actually handle.

The report showed arsenic at 0.538 micrograms per gram, above the listed limit of 0.2 micrograms per gram, resulting in a fail. Lead was detected at 0.166 micrograms per gram, below the listed limit of 0.5 micrograms per gram, resulting in a pass for lead, but still confirming that lead was present in the tested sample. Cadmium was reported as less than the limit of quantitation, and mercury was not detected.

The same report also included additional metals testing. Chromium, copper, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, selenium, thorium, uranium, and vanadium were detected at various levels, while antimony and silver were not detected. Not all of those additional metals had pass/fail limits listed on the report, so they should not be framed as regulatory failures. Still, their presence adds another reason for the Department of Cannabis Control, METRC, and worker-safety advocates to ask what these tags are made of and whether any safety analysis exists.

“Without the RF Strip” Is an Important Detail

Jeff has repeatedly said the chemicals appear to be in the exterior material, not the RFID chip. The COA’s batch description, “without the RF strip,” makes that detail central to the article.

Cultivation workers are not cracking open RFID chips and touching internal electronics. They are touching the outside of the tags. They are handling them while tagging plants, prepping twist ties, moving inventory, harvesting, cleaning rooms, sorting compliance materials, and working through the physical reality of regulated cannabis cultivation.

On a small farm, that may mean repeated handling throughout the day. On a large farm, it may mean employees handling hundreds or even thousands of tags during a shift. Anyone who has worked around cultivation knows how that looks in real life. People move fast. Their hands are full. They touch their face. They grab food. They take quick breaks. Sometimes someone may hold a tie, tag, or tool in their mouth for a second because both hands are busy.

That may not be best practice, but it is human behavior. Worker-safety policies are supposed to account for real life, not pretend every cultivation employee is operating inside a sterile laboratory.

If the material workers actually touch contains arsenic above the lab’s listed action limit and detectable lead, then the state should not wait for someone else to ask whether handling guidance is needed.

Jeff’s Position Is Careful, and That Matters

One reason Jeff’s updated posts make the story stronger is that he is being careful with his language. He is not saying the tags are proven to be a health hazard. He is saying he does not know whether the levels found in the tags create a health concern, and that is exactly why he believes DCC and METRC should investigate.

That is a responsible position.

In his post, Jeff wrote that he is an OSHA-certified safety manager and feels required to alert employees when they are handling Prop 65 chemicals. He also said he feels a moral and ethical obligation to let others know. At the same time, he made clear that he does not know whether the tags are dangerous, only that they tested positive for arsenic and lead, and that another lab test reportedly found BPA.

That distinction should not be lost. The issue is not whether one touch of a METRC tag creates harm. The issue is whether workers who handle large quantities of these tags deserve notice, guidance, and a safety review. That is exactly what Proposition 65 is supposed to be about: giving people information so they can make informed decisions.

Should workers wear gloves? Should they wash their hands after handling the tags? Should they avoid eating while handling them? Should they avoid putting tags or twist ties in their mouth? Should employers treat used tags as normal trash, recyclable material, e-waste, or something else entirely?

Those are practical questions. Right now, it does not appear that California has provided practical answers.

Cannabis Products Are Tested. What About the Tags?

The contradiction here is difficult to ignore.

California cannabis products are tested for heavy metals before they can be sold in the legal market. Lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury are regulated. If cannabis product testing comes back over the action limit, that product does not simply move through the supply chain like nothing happened. It gets flagged, held, remediated where allowed, or destroyed.

That is the standard operators live under every day.

Yet the state-mandated tags attached to cannabis plants appear to have raised their own testing concerns. The COA reviewed by Beard Bros Media shows a metals failure for arsenic in a METRC plant tag sample, with lead also detected. Again, this does not mean the tags are contaminating cannabis plants. That is not the claim being made here.

The question is different: if cannabis operators are required to prove their products are clean, should the state be required to confirm the safety and disposal standards for the compliance materials it forces those same operators and their employees to handle?

That should not be a hard question.

DCC Was Publicly Alerted

Jeff says he publicly alerted the California Department of Cannabis Control during a November 2025 Cannabis Advisory Committee meeting. He says he clearly stated that he had lab tested METRC tags and that the tags tested positive for multiple Prop 65 chemicals. He also says he offered to share the lab results with DCC.

According to Jeff, DCC never responded.

If accurate, that silence is hard to defend. A licensed operator publicly telling the state cannabis regulator that a required compliance material tested positive for Prop 65-listed chemicals should trigger basic follow-up. At minimum, DCC should request the lab results, review the findings, contact METRC or the tag supplier, evaluate whether a worker exposure analysis exists, and determine whether handling or disposal guidance should be issued.

That is not an extreme demand. That is routine due diligence.

When a licensee makes a compliance mistake, the state does not usually respond with casual indifference. There can be notices, fines, corrective actions, product holds, and plenty of paperwork. Operators are expected to move quickly and document everything. If that is the standard applied to the industry, the same urgency should apply when a licensee raises a safety question about a state-required system.

UFCW Was Also Put on Notice

Jeff’s updated posts also raise an uncomfortable labor question. He says a member of UFCW, the union that represents many cannabis workers and is supposed to advocate for worker safety, was present on the Cannabis Advisory Committee when he raised the issue.

According to Jeff, UFCW did not respond either.

That matters because this is not only a regulatory issue for license holders. It is a potential workplace safety issue for employees who physically handle these tags. If there is no safety concern, that should be established with evidence. If warnings or best practices are appropriate, workers should not have to learn that through Instagram.

Worker safety cannot just be a talking point when it is convenient. UFCW should ask for the lab reports, request a worker exposure review, and push for clear handling guidance. The response does not need to be dramatic. It needs to be serious.

If the tags are safe to handle as currently used, say so and show the analysis. If workers should wear gloves or follow certain hygiene practices, say that. If disposal requires special handling, document it. But nobody should be guessing after eight years of use and hundreds of millions of tags.

The Disposal Question May Be the Bigger Problem

The most important update from Jeff may not be the Prop 65 warning question. It may be the disposal question.

Jeff says he asked METRC on July 2, 2026, how operators are supposed to dispose of METRC tags. According to him, a METRC technical support person told him in writing to recycle the tags but could not cite any official documentation from METRC or DCC. He says the question was escalated within METRC support, but as of July 13, 2026, 11 days later, he had not received an answer.

That is a problem.

California has required operators to use these tags for years. The industry has burned through millions and millions of them. Public reporting around SB 622 cited 43 million plant tags issued in 2022 alone. Other public estimates have put the five-year total somewhere between 200 million and 250 million tags. Yet operators still may not have clear written guidance on whether these tags should be recycled, trashed, treated as e-waste, or handled differently because of the RFID component, adhesives, or chemical content.

That is not a minor paperwork gap. That is an entire waste stream without a clear public disposal protocol.

If a METRC support person told Jeff to recycle the tags but could not cite official documentation, that answer is not good enough. Operators should not be relying on informal help desk guidance for a material the state forces them to use, especially if the tags contain lead, arsenic, BPA, RFID components, adhesives, or other materials that could affect disposal rules.

This is where the absurdity becomes hard to ignore. California has required the legal cannabis industry to use these tags for years, but when a licensee asks how to dispose of them properly, the answer appears to be: we’ll escalate that.

After eight years, “we’ll escalate that” is not a policy.

Are These Tags Recyclable, E-Waste, or Something Else?

Jeff raises another question that deserves real review: if the tags contain lead, arsenic, and BPA, is recycling even appropriate?

That is not something operators should have to guess. Recycling rules can vary depending on the material, contamination risk, local processing standards, and whether the item contains electronic components. RFID tags may also complicate disposal because they can include electronic material and adhesives that make them difficult or impossible to recycle through normal channels.

DCC’s own 2026 economic analysis around group tagging has acknowledged that reducing reliance on physical tags would reduce cultivator waste and create environmental benefits. It also noted that Metrc’s newer tags use less plastic than older versions, but are still considered e-waste because of the RFID component and are not fully recyclable because of adhesives.

That admission matters. Even the improved version of the tag is still disposable. Even with less plastic, it still contributes to waste. Even if the state eventually moves toward group tagging, operators still need to know what to do with the millions of tags already used and the millions more still moving through the system.

California does not need a slightly greener version of a broken system. It needs a clear, documented, enforceable answer.

The Waste Math Is Still Absurd

Even if these tags had never raised chemical safety or disposal questions, the waste problem alone should have forced California to modernize the system years ago.

Industry estimates have put California’s annual tag use around 35 million. Public reporting around SB 622 cited a Senate analysis stating that 43 million plant tags were issued to licensed cultivators and microbusinesses in 2022 at a state cost of roughly $15 million. Jeff has also pointed to the massive cumulative impact of eight years of use.

Using the 35 million annual estimate and Jeff’s cited tag weight of 1.85 grams per tag, the math is ugly. That equals about 64.75 million grams of tag waste every year. Converted into pounds, that is approximately 142,750 pounds, or more than 71 tons, of plastic-and-metal waste annually.

Over eight years, that becomes more than 571 tons of waste.

That is not consumer packaging. That is not branding. That is not cultivators choosing convenience over sustainability. This is waste created by regulation.

And unlike other forms of packaging, operators cannot simply decide to opt out or choose a cleaner method. They have to wait for the state to allow a better system.

California Says It Cares About Single-Use Plastic

This is where the hypocrisy gets loud.

California has spent years reducing single-use plastics. Plastic bags, plastic straws, disposable packaging, and other consumer waste streams have all been targeted in the name of environmental responsibility. In many cases, that work is necessary and worth supporting.

But the same state has forced cannabis operators to use millions of single-use plastic-and-metal plant tags every year.

These tags are not meaningfully reusable. They are not clearly recyclable in any practical, documented statewide cannabis workflow. Once they serve their compliance purpose, they become waste. And now, with testing showing arsenic above the listed action limit in a tag sample, detectable lead, and Jeff’s claim of separate BPA detection, the disposal question becomes even more important.

California cannot claim to care about plastic waste while leaving the cannabis industry with a massive state-created pile of compliance trash and no clear public instructions for what to do with it.

SB 622 Was Supposed to Open the Door

The Legislature already recognized that the single-plant tag system was a problem.

In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 622, which was intended to move California away from the rigid single-use plant tag requirement. The law gave DCC authority to determine, by regulation, how unique plant identifiers should be recorded.

In plain English, lawmakers gave DCC room to create alternatives.

Batch tagging. Digital tracking. Lot-based tracking. Room-level systems. Canopy-based approaches. There are multiple ways to maintain traceability without forcing the industry to generate tens of millions of pieces of physical tag waste every year.

But passing a law and implementing a real solution are two different things.

DCC Has Finally Proposed Group Tagging

There has now been a meaningful development.

On June 12, 2026, DCC opened formal rulemaking for “Group Tagging of Cannabis Plants.” The proposal would allow cannabis plants to be tagged individually or in groups, rather than requiring every mature plant to carry its own physical tag.

That matters because it proves DCC now publicly recognizes that group tagging can work. Under the proposed rules, plant groups would need to meet certain requirements. They would generally need to be uniform in strain or cultivar where applicable, uniform in pesticide or agricultural chemical application, planted within a limited time window, contiguous, and separated from other plants by a physical indicator.

The Department says inspectors would still be able to confirm that the number of plants onsite aligns with what licensees record in track-and-trace. That undercuts the old argument that physically tagging every mature plant is the only way to maintain accountability.

The legal industry has been saying this for years. DCC is finally moving in that direction.

But group tagging does not answer the safety and disposal questions raised by Jeff’s testing and follow-up with METRC.

The Rulemaking Does Not Answer the Worker-Safety Question

The new rulemaking may address labor costs, administrative burden, and environmental waste. That is important and overdue.

But it does not answer whether the tags already used, and the tags still being used during the transition, are safe for workers to handle at scale. It does not answer whether a Prop 65 warning should be printed on the tags. It does not answer whether workers should receive handling guidance. It does not answer whether the tags should be recycled, treated as e-waste, or disposed of another way.

Those are separate questions, and they still need answers.

If a state-mandated tag sample tested “without the RF strip” failed for arsenic and also contained detectable lead, DCC should publicly review the lab results, request supplier safety documentation, and determine whether interim guidance is necessary. The existence of group-tagging rulemaking does not make the testing concern disappear.

If anything, it makes the timeline more urgent. If DCC already knows the current individual-tagging system is costly, wasteful, and no longer necessary at the same scale, then any unresolved worker-safety or disposal concern tied to those tags should move to the front of the line.

What DCC and METRC Should Do Now

DCC should not need another committee cycle to take basic action.

The Department should request the lab results Jeff offered to share. It should review the testing with appropriate toxicology, occupational safety, and materials experts. It should contact METRC and the tag manufacturer, require full material safety documentation, and publicly disclose whether these tags have ever been evaluated for lead, arsenic, BPA, or other Prop 65-listed chemicals.

DCC should also issue interim handling guidance while the issue is reviewed. That guidance does not need to be complicated. Workers should be advised to wash their hands after handling tags, avoid eating while handling them, avoid putting tags or ties in their mouth, and use gloves where appropriate until the safety questions are answered.

METRC should also provide clear written disposal instructions. Not a support-chat shrug. Not an informal “recycle it” without documentation. Operators need written guidance that explains whether tags can be recycled, whether they are e-waste, whether RFID components or adhesives change disposal requirements, and whether the presence of lead, arsenic, BPA, or other chemicals affects disposal practices.

The Department should also move quickly to finalize and implement group-tagging rules that reduce or eliminate unnecessary single-plant tagging. This system has gone on long enough.

UFCW Should Ask Questions Too

If UFCW was alerted to this issue, it should not sit on the sidelines.

The union should ask DCC and METRC for the lab results, request a worker exposure review, and push for clear handling guidance. Cannabis workers should not have to rely on an Instagram post to learn that the materials they handle every day may contain chemicals listed under Prop 65.

Worker safety cannot just be a slogan. If the concern turns out to be minimal, say so with evidence. If warnings are needed, issue them. If gloves or hygiene guidance should be recommended, make that clear. If disposal needs to be handled through a specific waste stream, document it.

Doing nothing is not good enough.

This Is About Consistent Standards

California cannabis operators are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for consistent standards.

If a licensed cannabis business is expected to test products, document compliance, disclose risks, and follow worker-safety rules, then the state should be willing to do the same for the materials it forces the industry to use.

If DCC expects operators to respond quickly to compliance concerns, then DCC should respond quickly when a licensee publicly raises a concern about state-mandated materials.

If California wants to reduce plastic waste, then it should stop forcing one of its most regulated industries to generate millions of disposable plant tags.

And if worker safety matters, then workers deserve to know what they are handling.

The Bottom Line

The METRC tag issue is no longer just about cannabis compliance. It is about worker safety, environmental waste, disposal guidance, regulatory accountability, and basic common sense.

A Certificate of Analysis reviewed by Beard Bros Media shows that a METRC plant tag sample, listed as “without the RF strip,” failed heavy metals testing for arsenic, with arsenic reported at 0.538 micrograms per gram against a listed limit of 0.2 micrograms per gram. Lead was also detected at 0.166 micrograms per gram, though below the listed action limit on that report. Jeff Nordahl says separate Anresco testing also detected BPA, which should be reviewed directly before publication of the exact BPA value.

Jeff says he publicly alerted DCC and offered to share the lab results. He says DCC did not respond. He also says UFCW was present and did not respond. He further says METRC support told him the tags should be recycled but could not cite official documentation, then escalated his disposal question without providing a response as of 11 days later.

At the same time, DCC has now opened formal rulemaking to allow group tagging of cannabis plants, a move that could reduce the number of physical tags used in California’s legal cannabis market. That is progress, and it should be acknowledged.

But it does not answer the safety question. It does not answer the disposal question. It does not explain whether anyone has reviewed repeated worker handling. It does not tell operators what to do with the hundreds of millions of tags already used or the millions still in circulation.

The state cannot demand clean cannabis while ignoring questions about the materials it requires cannabis workers to handle. It cannot claim to support sustainability while forcing operators to use millions of disposable tags without clear disposal guidance. It cannot claim to prioritize worker safety while leaving basic exposure questions unanswered.

This can be fixed. DCC has the authority. METRC has the product information. UFCW has a worker-safety role to play. The Legislature already opened the door to a better system. The industry has been raising the issue. The data has reportedly been offered.

Now the system needs to answer for the tags.

Frequently Asked Questions

---

• METRC Introduces Pilot Program for New Sustainable RFID Tags
• METRC Money Grab? Delays Could Cost Oregon Cannabis Farmers Millions
• Colorado Removes Need For RFID Tags, Could METRC Be Next?
• California AB 622 To Change Plant Identification Program Heads to Governor Newsoms Desk
• Essential Safety Protocols for Handling Ethanol in Cannabis Laboratory Settings