Six months after the release of the House draft of the Farm Bill, the Senate has now published its own draft version.
There are some very good things in it for Industrial Hemp, and some things that are concerning. This summary will first highlight the language specific to hemp in the Senate version, followed by a comparison with the House version which highlights the fact that the Farm Bill is not the right vehicle to fix the perceived problem of intoxicating cannabinoids.
Senate Version
Updated Definitions
The Senate draft updates the definition of hemp by changing “delta-9” THC to “total” THC, which includes tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) in its concentration measurement. Similar to the House version, the Senate draft defines “Industrial Hemp” as hemp grown specifically for its stalks, fibers, seeds, and related products, excluding cannabinoid resin extracts. States and tribes are required to create licensing systems that allow producers to grow only industrial hemp, bypassing the need for background checks for licensing. For those growing only industrial hemp, testing procedures may be simplified through visual inspections, certified seed programs, or approved sampling methods. Notably, the definition of industrial hemp does not specifically include microgreens, which is an area that should be addressed for further clarity.
This bifurcation of industrial hemp from cannabinoid hemp or ‘hemp for any purpose’ is the core of what the Industrial Hemp Act aimed to accomplish, and we are very pleased to see this language in both versions of the Farm Bill. While this bifurcation will reduce burdens for those growing industrial hemp for fiber or grain, the changing of the definition to total THC is an additional hardship, even for industrial hemp producers.
Certified Seed Program
The Senate version introduces a pilot program across up to five states or tribal lands to certify seed quality, ensuring compliance with the 0.3% THC limit. Producers using certified seeds may apply for a three-year exemption from standard testing, with an option for renewal.
State and Tribal Law
The Senate bill confirms that states and tribes can establish their own hemp production and sale regulations as long as these do not conflict with federal law.
Comparison to House Version
Commonalities
Both the Senate and House versions create a new definition of “industrial hemp” and introduce terms related to cannabinoid extraction. Both require producers to specify whether their crops are for industrial use, cannabinoid extraction, or both. Each version also includes provisions to reduce testing and inspection requirements for industrial hemp under specific compliance conditions. Additionally, both drafts outline exemptions from testing and establish penalties for violations, including disqualification for purposely failing to meet production standards.
Differences
Definitions of Industrial Hemp and Cannabinoid Extraction
The Senate draft changes the definition of hemp to be “total THC”. The House version, while not originally including this definition in the base text, incorporates similar language through the Miller amendment. This is misguided because the current compliance testing in the hemp program already mandates that testing be done post decarboxylation, which means the THCA must be converting to Delta 9. THCA does not convert 100% to D9 so changing the definition to total THC is in essence lowering the current 0.3% threshold. New limits are better suited for end user products and not a regulation on cultivation.
Additionally, the House version explicitly defines “hemp grown for cannabinoid extraction” and includes immature plants intended for human consumption and research within its “industrial hemp” definition.
Procedural Requirements
The Senate introduces a certified seed pilot program, enabling specific states and tribal lands to adopt simplified testing procedures. The House version allows all states to use certified seed as a basis for reduced regulation along with visual inspections.
Laboratory Certification and Reporting
The Senate version allows state or tribal departments to approve exemptions and monitor violations. The House version, however, mandates that the Department of Agriculture set up a laboratory accreditation process for testing and requires reporting on intentional violations.
Overall Comparison
Both versions aim to clarify regulations, streamline compliance, and establish enforcement measures. The House draft provides more detailed documentation requirements and producer flexibility, while the Senate focuses on defining industrial hemp and simplifying compliance through certified seed programs.
Concerns and Implications
While it is encouraging that key components of the Industrial Hemp Act appear in both versions, a significant concern remains: the shift to a “total THC” definition, present in both the Senate draft and the House version with the Miller amendment. While the intention is to curb the proliferation of intoxicating cannabinoids in the market, whether you agree with this intention or not, the fact remains that these products are produced post-harvest and not at the farm level. Adding this regulatory burden onto farmers is misplaced. A more effective solution would be to regulate these products separately from cultivation guidelines, placing the focus on post-harvest manufacturing practices instead.
As we await the transition to a new administration and the shift in Senate control to the Republicans, it is unlikely that there will be significant movement on the Farm Bill until next year. With the Republicans taking control of the White House and maintaining their majority in the House, it is expected that they will seek to introduce substantial changes to the bill. This political shift could lead to revisions in regulatory approaches and policy priorities, potentially impacting key provisions related to hemp production and compliance. Stakeholders should prepare for potential adjustments and remain engaged as the legislative process unfolds under new leadership.