In the U.S., cannabis track-and-trace systems—often referred to as seed-to-sale platforms—are not standardized nationwide. Instead, they vary significantly by state, shaped by local regulations, state-selected vendors, and differing technical implementations.

State-Mandated, Vendor-Configured Systems

Virtually all cannabis-legal states require licensed operators to use a state-mandated track-and-trace platform to report plant and product movements to regulators. In most cases, a single vendor is selected per state; Metrc and BioTrack are the two most common systems. Industry data shows Metrc alone is used in nearly half of U.S. cannabis jurisdictions, while BioTrack serves a significant portion as well.

Each state’s version of a platform—say, Metrc—is independently configured to align with that state’s specific legal requirements. Even neighboring states using the same vendor may differ on compliance workflows, reporting fields, acceptable traceability methods (barcodes, RFID), or API behaviors.

API Integration and Operational Complexity

Track-and-trace systems are not typically designed for day-to-day business operations. Instead, regulators expect cannabis operators to use third-party solutions—like POS systems—that integrate via APIs to the mandated trace system. However, variations in API performance, rate limits, and error handling are common. Poor integration or downtime can cause compliance delays and retail disruptions statewide.

Learn More: Enhancing Cannabis Dispensary Operations Through POS Integration

Disparate Testing and Labeling Rules

Beyond tracking supply chains, states impose different testing, labeling, and packaging requirements, which must be reflected in their track-and-trace data models. While all states require potency testing (e.g., THC, CBD), specifics differ—such as “total THC” definitions, sampling protocols, or mandatory contaminant panels. For instance, while California and Oregon require pesticide screening, Washington also mandates heavy metal testing starting from 2022.

Even broader standards like the International Intoxicating Cannabis Product Symbol (ASTM D8441) are optional, with limited adoption in only a few states.

The Resulting Patchwork

This state-by-state, vendor-specific, rule-driven design means the U.S. cannabis industry lacks a unified national track-and-trace standard. As a result:

• Multistate operators face operational inefficiencies adapting to system variants.
• Data aggregation across jurisdictions remains challenging.
• Regulatory reciprocity (e.g., accepting testing data across states) is rare.
• Federal-level standardization remains absent due to cannabis’s current federal status.

Efforts Toward Standardization

There are ongoing industry efforts to ease this fragmentation. Organizations like ASTM D37 aim to develop universal cannabis standards, including guidelines for cultivation, lab testing, packaging, and security. Moreover, technological approaches—like blockchain—are being proposed to enable truly interoperable seed-to-sale systems nationwide.

Until such standards gain wider regulatory adoption, the U.S. cannabis industry will continue to operate within this fragmented ecosystem—driven by state autonomy, vendor dynamics, and variable compliance requirements.