A powerful House panel has approved a budget bill with provisions that stakeholders in the hemp industry say will destroy the sector. These include the prohibition of most cannabinoid consumable products, which were federally legalized under the Trump first administration.
On Monday, the House Appropriations Committee approved agriculture funding legislation with a vote of 35 to 27. The Rules Committee will prepare the bill for consideration on the floor.
The panel did adopt a manager’s amendment in a report that was attached to the bill this month. This provided clarification language that stated that the members didn’t intend to ban non-intoxicating products that contain “trace or small amounts of THC.” However, the actual bill remained unchanged despite industry concerns.
This large-scale bill covers many issues. But for hemp supporters and stakeholders there is one part that’s of concern. It would define the crop in federal law so that cannabis products that contain any “quantifiable amount” of THC, or “any cannabinoids which have similar (or marketed as having similar) effects on animals or humans” would be prohibited.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)—chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies—championed the hemp ban, which he said “closes the loophole” in the 2018 Farm Bill allowing for consumable hemp products with THC that led to the proliferation of the market.
Harris, who spoke this month, said that Congress should act now to close the gap and safeguard industrial hemp while closing this loophole. It’s not true that the language included in the bill would harm legitimate business. This is clear for anyone who carefully reads the language.
Harris has been vocal in his opposition to marijuana reform, and has also criticized the use of hemp products to induce intoxication. But the manager of Harris who submitted the amended report to the committee that was approved expresses the desire of the panel to adopt a more flexible regulation approach for certain cannabis items.
The Committee states that it does not want to affect industrial hemp cannabinoid-derived products or those non-intoxicating ones with trace amounts or small amounts of THC.
However, the wording of the bill would eliminate most hemp products that are currently marketed in the US. This is because even the non-intoxicating items sold all over the country contain THC traces. According to current laws, these products can be sold if the dry weight of THC is less than 0.3 per cent.
Harris’ proposed policy would change this dramatically. Instead, it would keep the status of industrial hemp under a revised legal definition which permits the sale of products such as hemp fibers, oils, cakes, nuts, hulls and microgreens.
Last week, the Congressional Research Service released a study that stated that legislation will “effectively prohibit” hemp-derived products. The CRS originally stated that a similar ban would also prevent the sale CBD, but for unknown reasons the report has been updated to remove that specific language.
An Appropriations Committee press release on Monday said the bill “supports the Trump Administration and mandate of the American people by…closing the hemp loophole that has resulted in the proliferation of unregulated intoxicating hemp products, including Delta-8 and hemp flower, being sold online and in gas stations across the country.”
The hemp language is largely consistent with appropriations and agriculture legislation that was introduced, but not ultimately enacted, under the last Congress.
Hemp industry participants rallied to oppose that proposal. A previous version of the bill was included in last year’s base bill by the subcommittee. It’s virtually identical to a provision of the 2024 Farm Bill that was attached by a separate committee last May via an amendment from Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), which was also not enacted into law.
This latest spending bill has a few differences from the previous version, including what amounts of THC are considered “quantifiable”. Hemp products would be banned unless they meet this new definition.
It is now stated that the amount of the quantifiable substance or item will be “determined in consultation between the Secretary and the Secretary for Health and Human Services.” Previously, the amount was simply defined as “determined in consultation by the secretary in consultation to the Secretary for Health and Human Services.”
In the new proposed legislation, it is also specified that “a drug which has been approved by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act under subparagraph (c), or (j), of Section 505 (21 U.S.C. This appears to be a way of making an exception for FDA-approved drugs like Epidiolex that is made from CBD.
A leading alcohol industry association, meanwhile, has called on Congress to dial back language in the House spending bill that would ban most consumable hemp products, instead proposing to maintain the legalization of naturally derived cannabinoids from the crop and only prohibit synthetic items.
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) President and CEO Francis Creighton said in a press release that “proponents and opponents alike have agreed that this language amounts to a ban.”
He stated that “by pushing a rapidly developing industry into the darkness, Congress creates even more chaos in a marketplace. It undermines state initiatives and penalizes responsible actors.” We urge the entire House to reconsider its approach. States can safely regulate intoxicating product through effective systems that protect consumer confidence and public safety. “It’s time Congress followed their lead and did not interfere with their authority.”
Members of WSWA also met with lawmakers and staffers in April to advocate for three key policy priorities that the group says is based on “sound principles of alcohol distribution.” The group also met with lawmakers and staffers in April to advocate for three key policy priorities that are based on “sound principles of alcohol distribution.”
Separately, key GOP congressional lawmakers—including one member who supports marijuana legalization—don’t seem especially concerned about provisions in the bill despite concern from stakeholders that it would put much of the hemp industry in jeopardy by banning most consumable products derived from the plant.
—
MEDCAN24 has been tracking the hundreds of bills relating to cannabis, psychedelics or drug policies that have passed through state legislatures as well as Congress in this past year. Patreon members who pledge at least $25/month gain access to interactive maps, charts, and hearing schedules so that they do not miss anything.
Discover more about the marijuana bills tracker. Become a patron on Patreon and you will have access.
—
Jonathan Miller, general counsel of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told congressional lawmakers in April that the market is “begging” for federal regulations around cannabis products.
Rep. James Comer, R-KY, also asked about FDA’s inaction on regulations. He asked sarcastically if “a gazillion of bureaucrats who work at home” would be required to regulate CBD and other cannabinoids.
A report from Bloomberg Intelligence (BI) last year called cannabis a “significant threat” to the alcohol industry, citing survey data that suggests more people are using cannabis as a substitute for alcoholic beverages such a beer and wine.
Last November, meanwhile, a beer industry trade group put out a statement of guiding principles to address what it called “the proliferation of largely unregulated intoxicating hemp and cannabis products,” warning of risks to consumers and communities resulting from THC consumption.
Texas GOP Governor ‘Wants To Legalize Recreational Marijuana,’ Lieutenant Governor Claims
Kimzy Nanney provided the photo.
MEDCAN24 could not exist without readers’ support. Please consider making a Patreon monthly pledge if you depend on our cannabis journalism for information.
