If something went wrong, here is where to report it.
If you or someone else is in immediate danger (difficulty breathing, chest pain, fainting or near-fainting, seizure, severe confusion, loss of consciousness, or any symptom that is getting rapidly worse), contact your local emergency services now, or your national poison-control or poisons-information service. A clinician or pharmacist you can reach also comes before anything on this page.
CBG Atlas is not a medical service and cannot help in an emergency. Nobody is standing by here, nothing on this page reaches anyone who can treat you, and a call for care always comes before anything on this site. Get help first. The rest will still be here afterwards.
A cannabinoid safety concern calls for two things, in this order: care, and a record. Care comes from emergency services or a clinician. The record belongs with the product's manufacturer and the authority that regulates such products where you live, because they can pull a batch or change a label. And when the mistake is ours, in something we published, this page explains how to tell us.
Report it to the people who can act on it.
A report earns its keep when it lands with someone who can change something: pull a batch, correct a label, or add one more case to a signal that builds, report by report, until an authority acts. Two destinations can do that, and neither passes reports to the other automatically. Send it to both.
The manufacturer, using the label.
The contact details are on the pack or the product page: a company name, an address, and usually an email or a customer-contact form. Quote the batch or lot number printed on the pack. It lets them trace the batch, check their own testing records and see whether anyone else has reported the same thing. Keep the packaging and whatever product is left until the report is in.
Your national regulator, on the record.
Most countries run an adverse-event reporting system that the public can use directly. Depending on how the product is classified where you live, it is operated by the national medicines regulator, the food-safety or food-supplement authority, or a poisons centre. Search for your national medicines or food-safety regulator's adverse-event or side-effect reporting service. Agency names, links and phone numbers differ by country and change over time, so we leave them out: an out-of-date number on a safety page is worse than none.
A clinician, if you were unwell.
A clinician or pharmacist who knows your history can assess what happened. In many systems they can also file a report for you, with clinical detail beyond what your own report can carry. Tell them exactly what you took, including the lot number. That conversation is care, and it comes before either report.
We do not operate an adverse-event reporting system, and we cannot file a report for you. CBG Atlas is an editorial reference, with no pharmacovigilance function, no clinical staff, and neither the duty nor the means to forward anything to an authority. Only the manufacturer and your regulator can put your experience on an official record, which is why the advice above sends you to them alone.
Eight things that make a report usable.
Whoever reads your report, at the manufacturer or the regulator, can act on it only if it carries enough to trace. These eight details do that. Write them out once and send the same text to both. Answer what you can and skip what you can't; a partial report still counts. Never delay medical care to write it.
What happened
Describe the event in your own words: what you noticed, how it started, how long it lasted, and whether it has resolved.
When it happened
The date and the approximate time of day.
The product, and its lot number
Brand and product name, the cannabinoid(s) named on the label, the format (oil, capsule, gummy, vape, topical), and the batch or lot number printed on the pack. The lot number is the most useful line in the report, because it lets a manufacturer trace the batch. Keep the packaging.
Amount and timing, if known
How much was taken, how it was taken, and how long before the event. An estimate helps, so write one down even if you are unsure.
What else was involved
What you were doing at the time, and anything else taken that day, including prescription medicines, other supplements, alcohol and caffeine.
Whether you sought care
Whether you contacted a clinician, pharmacist, poison-control service or emergency service, and if so, what you were told.
Who you have already told
Whether you have already reported this to the manufacturer, a regulator or a clinician, and any reference or case number you were given. This stops one event being counted twice and links the records.
How you can be contacted
An address or phone number the manufacturer or authority can use to follow up. Many reporting systems accept a report without your name; check the wording on the form you are using before you decide.
Show the template as plain text
CANNABINOID SAFETY EVENT REPORT Write under each heading. Leave blank what you do not know; a partial report still counts. 01. WHAT HAPPENED (Describe the event in your own words: what you noticed, how it started, how long it lasted, and whether it has resolved.) 02. WHEN IT HAPPENED (The date and the approximate time of day.) 03. THE PRODUCT, AND ITS LOT NUMBER (Brand and product name, the cannabinoid(s) named on the label, the format (oil, capsule, gummy, vape, topical), and the batch or lot number printed on the pack. The lot number is the most useful line in the report, because it lets a manufacturer trace the batch. Keep the packaging.) 04. AMOUNT AND TIMING, IF KNOWN (How much was taken, how it was taken, and how long before the event. An estimate helps, so write one down even if you are unsure.) 05. WHAT ELSE WAS INVOLVED (What you were doing at the time, and anything else taken that day, including prescription medicines, other supplements, alcohol and caffeine.) 06. WHETHER YOU SOUGHT CARE (Whether you contacted a clinician, pharmacist, poison-control service or emergency service, and if so, what you were told.) 07. WHO YOU HAVE ALREADY TOLD (Whether you have already reported this to the manufacturer, a regulator or a clinician, and any reference or case number you were given. This stops one event being counted twice and links the records.) 08. HOW YOU CAN BE CONTACTED (An address or phone number the manufacturer or authority can use to follow up. Many reporting systems accept a report without your name; check the wording on the form you are using before you decide.) --- Send the same text to the product's manufacturer and to your national regulator's adverse-event system. CBG Atlas is not a medical service or a regulator and does not file reports. If you need care, contact a clinician or your local emergency services.
You are about to hand health information to a company or a public authority. Send only what the report needs: what you took, what happened, and how to reach you. A full medical history and identity documents can stay at home, and scans or photographs of them should stay out of it. Regulators publish their own privacy terms. Read them on the form, and check whether the system accepts an anonymous or pharmacist-mediated report if you would rather stay unnamed. A manufacturer works under different rules from a regulator's.
Something on this site is wrong.
Here the mail does come to us. An adverse event belongs with the manufacturer and the regulator; an error in what we published belongs with us alone, and we want to hear about it. Every claim here carries a grade, and every grade traces to an entry in our evidence registry. Fixes happen in the open: a changed claim or grade goes into a tamper-evident audit chain instead of being swapped in quietly.
A statement that outruns its evidence.
A sentence that reads stronger than the grade beside it, or that drops a caveat the underlying study insisted on. Over-statement is the error we most want to catch.
A citation that does not say what we say it says.
A finding credited to the wrong source, a study we summarised wrongly, a paper since retracted or corrected, or a link that resolves to the wrong record.
Something newer, or something missing.
Evidence published since our last registry update, or a gap we missed. Send the PMID or DOI; we only add citations we can verify against PubMed.
Where this site came into it.
If something you read here influenced what you did, send us the page address and the exact sentence. It counts as a content error too, and it is how we find our own mistakes.
There is no address to write to today. One goes up here only once it routes to a real, monitored inbox. An address that silently drops mail is worse than none, because you would believe you had been heard. If you have a correction, write it out now: note the page address, the exact sentence and the PMID or DOI, and send it as soon as an address appears here. Meanwhile, the open questions we already know about are mapped in the gap-map, and every underlying study is browsable in the Research Library.
The cardiovascular note.
Of everything in our registry, one item bears most directly on safety, and it doubles as a lesson in how little a laboratory mechanism can tell you on its own.
CBG may influence blood pressure via α2-adrenoceptor activity; the direction and magnitude of any human effect are uncharacterized. The grade is Hypothesized: mechanistic plausibility only. The receptor activity has been measured in the laboratory; no study has measured an actual blood-pressure effect of CBG in a person. Read that as neither reassurance nor warning. Nobody knows yet. If you take blood-pressure medication or have a cardiovascular condition, consult a clinician first.
CBG Atlas is a scientific reference. Nothing here diagnoses, treats, cures or prevents any disease, and nothing here replaces a clinician who knows your history. Nearly all of what is known about CBG comes from cells and animals. See the gap-map for what we have and lack evidence for, and the grading standard for what each grade allows us to say. Peregrine Biopharma funds the platform and holds no editorial authority.
What we don't know, and why it matters here.
Everything so far assumes something has already gone wrong. Better that it never does, and for that it helps to know where the research stops. Our registry holds no study of CBG in pregnancy, in breastfeeding, in children, over the long term, or alongside prescription medicines. Those gaps are the finding, and each default that follows comes from one of them.
The registry is silent on CBG in pregnancy or breastfeeding: no evidence of harm, no evidence of safety, no evidence at all. With a compound untested in pregnancy, the responsible default is to avoid it and to raise it with your midwife, obstetrician or doctor, who can weigh your situation in a way a reference page cannot.
No study in our registry examines CBG in anyone under 18. Children are not small adults: dose, metabolism and development all differ, so adult findings (and there are very few) cannot be scaled down. Give CBG to a child only on the guidance of a paediatric clinician.
Every human study in the registry is short. Its one human trial of CBG's effects, on anxiety and stress, gave 34 people a single dose on a single occasion. Its pharmacokinetic work is in mice. Nobody has measured what daily use does over months or years. If you plan to take CBG regularly, you are deciding without evidence, and that decision is worth making with a clinician who knows your history.
Two published human studies that are not registry entries come up further down, a single-dose tolerability trial and a pharmacokinetic study, and neither closes the gap: the first covers a single day, the second measures exposure rather than effect. More on both under acute tolerability and the chronic limit.
The registry holds no test of CBG alongside any prescription medicine, so calling an interaction unlikely would be a guess. If you take prescription medication, particularly for blood pressure, the heart, epilepsy, blood thinning, or anything with a narrow safe range, speak to a pharmacist or prescriber before starting CBG. A pharmacist can check your specific list; we cannot.
One mechanism has been measured, and it bears on this. CBG is a potent α2-adrenoceptor agonist in vitro (Cascio et al., PMID 20002104), and α2 agonism can lower blood pressure. Whether it does so in a person is uncharacterised; the cardiovascular note above has the detail.
A reference that prints only what it knows sounds surer than the evidence allows. These four gaps rank among the most consequential facts about CBG, and every one of them is an absence. Silence is easy to mistake for safety. Here it is only silence.
What one dose showed, and what it cannot tell you.
Healthy adults have taken single oral doses of CBG under trial conditions and tolerated them. Nobody has given CBG to a person every day for weeks or months and measured what happened. The two facts always appear together here: the first is the easy one to quote, and on its own it reads like a clearance it is not.
In a single-ascending-dose trial (Wolinsky et al., 2026), twelve healthy adults took single oral doses of CBG isolate in MCT oil at 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg, with a placebo randomised into the dose sequence. No drug-related adverse events were reported, and liver function tests did not exceed the upper limit of normal after either of the two highest doses. Blood levels rose in dose order but varied considerably between people. Subjective effects were minimal, with three exceptions. Participants rated themselves significantly less “Jittery” and less “Active” at 50 mg, and significantly less “Calm” at 100 mg (Wolinsky et al., 2026), the opposite of the effect CBG is popularly sold for. At 200 mg they reported more appetite. The authors' own conclusion is the one to remember: CBG was well tolerated with no robust pharmacodynamic effects, and chronic dosing studies are needed. (Wolinsky et al., 2026, J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2026:104984, PMID 42575778, trial registration NCT05324982.)
Verified against its PubMed record and cited in prose. The paper has yet to become a graded entry in the CBG Atlas registry, so it stays ungraded here. Twelve people, each dosed on single occasions, give a tolerability signal rather than a safety guarantee. Disclosed interest: one co-author is affiliated with Charlotte's Web, a cannabinoid product company.
Chronic human safety is not established. The result above covers single occasions and tells you nothing about the fiftieth dose. No published study has given CBG to people repeatedly over weeks or months and measured what happened, which is why the trial's own authors say chronic dosing studies are needed.
Repeated-dose data do exist, in animals. In a 90-day study in rats, CBG given daily by orogastric tube at 0.66 and 1.33 mg/kg/day moved several markers the wrong way. Total oxidative stress rose significantly, malondialdehyde and carbonylated proteins were elevated, the white cell count was disrupted, and ALT activity, creatinine and ionised calcium were altered, alongside regressive (hepatotoxic) changes in the liver. CBD at 0.66 mg/kg/day did the opposite and improved redox status. The authors attribute the difference to the extra dimethyloctadienyl group CBG carries. (Polanska et al., 2023, Toxicology 488:153460, PMID 36796712.)
Now the brake, because this finding is easy to over-read. These are rats, at low doses, and an animal finding does not establish that CBG harms a person. Species differ, and nobody has looked for this in a human. The rat study earns its place for one reason: it rules out calling repeated human use of CBG well tolerated on the strength of a single-dose trial. Normal liver tests on one day are not a normal liver at ninety days, and there is no ninety-day measurement in people. Anyone planning to take CBG daily is deciding without human evidence, and should make that call with a clinician who knows their history.
Verified against its PubMed record and cited in prose. The paper has yet to become a graded entry in the CBG Atlas registry, so it stays ungraded here. An animal toxicology finding could not ground a human safety grade in any case.
Apart, each one misleads. “No drug-related adverse events in healthy adults” on its own reads as a clearance CBG has not been given. “Regressive liver changes at 90 days” on its own reads as a warning about people that rat data cannot support. The evidence supports the pair: a single oral dose was tolerated in a small trial, and what repeated use does in a human has not been measured. We never print either sentence without the other. Quote one, quote both.
The same dose is not the same exposure.
Two bottles with the same number on the label can behave like two different products, and the difference can come down to what was on the plate. What you eat with an oral CBG dose changes how much of it reaches your bloodstream. Of everything in the published human record, this food effect is the most practical finding, though it concerns absorption rather than benefit.
In a double-blind, double-crossover pilot trial (Story et al., 2024), participants took a single 25 mg oral dose of CBG under different conditions, and concentrations were measured by tandem mass spectrometry. A high-fat meal significantly raised total exposure, peak concentration and terminal half-life compared with a low-fat meal. The difference was wide enough that the threshold for bioequivalence between the two conditions was not met. Dietary fat affected exposure more than the emulsified delivery vehicle did. (Story et al., 2024, Cannabis Cannabinoid Res 9(6):1543-1555, PMID 38574248.)
Verified against its PubMed record and cited in prose. The paper has yet to become a graded entry in the CBG Atlas registry, so it stays ungraded here. The published abstract omits the participant count, so the figure stays blank here; read it as a pilot study on that basis alone.
The same number of milligrams can put different amounts of CBG into your blood depending on what you ate. Dietary fat is the bigger factor; in this trial it mattered more than the delivery format being tested. If you are comparing two products, or wondering why one occasion felt unlike another, hold the meal constant before you draw any conclusion about the product.
What it does not mean is that more is better. Pharmacokinetics tracks where a compound goes and how long it stays, and leaves open what it does to you. No study in our registry links a CBG blood level to any outcome in a person, so a higher level is just a higher level. Taking more, or taking it with a fatty meal to “get more out of it”, is not a strategy this evidence supports.
The anti-doping note.
For one group of readers, a hemp product carries a concrete, foreseeable risk that has nothing to do with health: a failed test. The matter belongs to regulation and testing, goes ungraded, and is silent on whether CBG or CBDV does anything for anyone. One study measured both compounds, so both appear here, each figure labelled with the molecule it belongs to.
CBG is prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency — CBD is the only exempt cannabinoid. In a randomised trial of a broad-spectrum CBD product containing only trace CBG, CBG was detectable in urine after repeated daily use, and concentrations appeared higher after exercise. This is regulatory and testing status, not a health claim. Check the current WADA Prohibited List and your product's COA. (Gillham et al., PMID 40920736.)
Cited as an attributed regulatory and testing note. This paper is in intake review and is not yet a graded entry in the CBG Atlas registry, so it carries no evidence grade here.
The concern rests on more than one paper. A separate, ethics-approved human study gave commercial hemp products as single doses and analysed volunteers' urine afterwards. Its stated subject was the risk of unintentional anti-doping rule violations from consuming hemp products, meaning from the cannabinoids other than CBD that such products contain. Two independent groups with different designs reach the same practical warning: a product bought and used as a CBD product can carry minor cannabinoids, and CBD is the only one WADA exempts. (Mareck et al., 2023, Drug Test Anal 15(1):27-41, PMID 35633098; the author group includes researchers at the German Sport University Cologne.)
Verified against its PubMed record and cited in prose. The paper has yet to become a graded entry in the CBG Atlas registry, so it stays ungraded here. Its published abstract itemises neither urine concentrations nor a volunteer count, so neither appears here; an unverified figure would make the note sound more precise than the evidence behind it. If a threshold matters to your eligibility, get it from your anti-doping organisation, not from us.
The note at the top of this section is about CBG. The same trial also measured CBDV and detected it at a higher rate. After ten weeks of daily use of a broad-spectrum CBD product that contained only trace CBDV, CBDV was detected in 68% of pre-exercise urine samples and 84% of post-exercise samples, and measured concentrations rose from before to after exercise. Nothing was detectable at baseline. CBDV is prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency too. CBD is the exempt cannabinoid, and the exemption does not extend to its propyl homolog. The authors conclude that athletes should avoid broad-spectrum CBD products. (Gillham et al., 2025, PMID 40920736; the same paper cited above, read here for a different compound.)
The finding concerns detection and regulatory status, not a health claim, and leaves open both whether CBDV does anything for anyone and whether it is safe. The trials that asked those questions are set out under CBDV safety, above. What it does say is practical and specific: a product bought, labelled and used as a CBD product put a prohibited cannabinoid into most users' urine, and exercise raised the reading.
Verified against its PubMed record and cited in prose. This paper is in intake review and is not yet a graded entry in the CBG Atlas registry, so it carries no evidence grade here. The CBG figures in the note above and the CBDV figures here come from the same study but are not interchangeable. CBG and CBDV are different molecules and were detected at different rates.
The Prohibited List is revised, and a copy kept here would sooner or later become a confident error, so the list stays with the people who own it; we are not an anti-doping authority. Check the current list with the World Anti-Doping Agency or your national anti-doping organisation, and ask them before using any cannabinoid product. Read the product's certificate of analysis too: a broad-spectrum or full-spectrum extract can contain minor cannabinoids the front label never names. Nothing here is medical, legal or eligibility advice.