Source: https://www.everycrsreport.com/changes/20170310_RL32725_fc67c6787b0193b43b4d1cd2b6a954a1608b66ed__20180622_RL32725_f3c135aee90da2fe6e53efc2b0861d55e2f4adfd.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:14:55+00:00

Document:
Appendix B. Joint DEA/USDA/FDA "Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp"
Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that is cultivated for use in the production of a wide range of products, including foods and beverages, cosmetics and personal care products, nutritional supplements, fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, construction and insulation materials, and other manufactured goods. Hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or other dual-purpose crop. However, hemp is also from the same species of plant, Cannabis sativa, as marijuana. As a result, production in the United States is restricted due to hemp's association with marijuana, and the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and as ingredients for use in further processing (mostly from Canada and China). Current industry estimates report U.S. hemp product sales at nearly $600700 million annually.
In the early 1990s there was a sustained resurgence of interest to allow for commercial hemp cultivation in the United States. Several states conducted economic or market studies and initiated or enacted legislation to expand state-level resources and production. Congress made significant changes to federal policies regarding hemp in the 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, §7606). The 2014 farm bill provided that certain research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow hemp under an agricultural pilot program. The bill further established a statutory definition for industrial hemp as "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis." Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol is the dominant psychotrophic ingredient in Cannabis sativa. In subsequent omnibus appropriations, Congress has blocked the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and federal law enforcement authorities from interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research. Appropriators have also blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from prohibiting the transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in accordance with the 2014 farm bill provision.
Despite these efforts, industrial hemp continues to be subject to U.S. drug laws, and growing industrial hemp is restricted. Under current U.S. drug policy, all cannabis varieties—including industrial hemp—are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.). Although hemp production is generally allowed following requirements under the 2014 farm bill, some aspects of production remain subject to DEA oversight, including the importation of viable seeds, which still requires DEA registration according to the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. §§951-971). Other guidance from DEA, USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration et seq.), and DEA continues to control and regulate hemp production. Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on its production and enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must be grown, making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. In other words, a grower needs to get permission from DEA to grow hemp or faces the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation. Further guidance from DEA, USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), issued in August 2016, provides additional clarification regarding federal authorities' position on industrial hemp and its future policies and enforcement actions regarding its cultivation and marketing. Although many in the U.S. hemp industry were encouraged by parts of the 2016 guidance, they have expressed concerns about other aspects of the statement.
This guidance supports DEA's contention that the commercial sale or interstate transfer of industrial hemp continues to be restricted.
Congress has continued to introduce legislation to further advance industrial hemp and could further address theseaddress these types of concerns in the next farm bill. Legislation introduced in the House,Introduced legislation as part of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act—first introduced in the 109th Congress—would and greatly expanded over the past few years—seeks to further facilitate hemp production in the United States but would also amend the CSA to specify that the term marijuanamarihuana does not include industrial hemp. A Senate companionAn expanded version of this bill was introduced in the 114115th Congress in both the House and Senate (H.R. 5485; S. 2667). Many of the provisions in these bills are included in the Senate version of the 2018 farm bill legislation (S. 3042) that is now being debated in Congress. Similar provisions are not part of the House version of the 2018 farm bill (H.R. 2). Myriad other bills introduced in both the House and the Senate would further amend the CSA and other federal laws to address industrial hempth Congress. In addition, in the 114th Congress, bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate that would amend the CSA "to exclude cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana" intended to promote the possible medical applications of industrial hemp. These bills may be reintroduced in the 115th Congress.
Congress made significant changes to federal policies regarding hemp in the 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79). The 2014 farm bill provided that certain research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow hemp under an agricultural pilot program. In addition, in subsequent omnibus appropriations, Congress has blocked the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and federal law enforcement authorities from interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research. Appropriators have also blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from prohibiting the transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in accordance with the 2014 farm bill provision.
Despite these efforts, industrial hemp continues to be subject to U.S. drug laws, and growing industrial hemp is restricted. Under current U.S. drug policy, all cannabis varieties—including industrial hemp—are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),1 and DEA continues to control and regulate hemp productioncannabis production. Although hemp production is now allowed in accordance with the requirements under the 2014 farm bill provision, other aspects of hemp production are still subject to DEA oversight, including the importation of viable seeds.
Congress has sought to further distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana. Among the bills addressing industrial hemp, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act would amend the CSA to specify that the term marijuana (or marihuana, as it is spelled in the older statutes) does not include industrial hemp, thus excluding hemp from the CSA as a controlled substance subject to DEA regulation. This bill was reintroduced and expanded from bills introduced in previous Congresses dating back to the 109th Congress. An expanded version of this bill was introduced in the 115th Congress in both the House and Senate (H.R. 5485; S. 2667). Other provisions in these bills would further facilitate hemp production in the United States. Many of the provisions in these bills are included in the Senate version of the 2018 farm bill legislation (S. 3042) that is now being debated in Congress. Similar provisions are not part of the House version of the 2018 farm bill (H.R. 2). Other introduced legislation would amend the CSA "to exclude cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana" intended to promote the possible medical applications of industrial hemp. The 115th Congress may consider reintroducing these bills and other legislation in the lead up to the next farm bill debateMyriad other bills introduced in both the House and the Senate would further amend the CSA and other federal laws to address industrial hemp.
Botanically, industrial hemp and marijuana are from the same species of plant, Cannabis sativa, but from different varieties or cultivars that have been bred for different uses.2 However, industrial hemp and marijuana are genetically distinct forms of cannabis3 that are distinguished by their use, chemical makeup, and differing cultivation practices in production. While marijuana generally refers to the psychotropic drug (whether used for medicinal or recreational purposes), industrial hemp is cultivated for use in the production of a wide range of products, including foods and beverages, personal care products, nutritional supplements, fabrics and textiles, paper, construction materials, and other manufactured goods.
For more background information, see CRS Report R44742, Defining "Industrial Hemp": A Fact Sheet. However, joint guidance issued in August 2016 by DEA, USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that there continues to be questions about what constitutes industrial hemp and its oversight under federal law.
Hemp fibers are used in fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. Hurds are used in animal bedding, material inputs, papermaking, and oil absorbents. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages (e.g., salad and cooking oil and hemp dairy alternatives) and can be an alternative food and feed protein source.8 Oil from the crushed hemp seed is used in soap, shampoo, lotions, bath gels, and cosmetics.9 Hemp is also being used in nutritional supplements and in medicinal and therapeutic products, including pharmaceuticals. It is also used in a range of composite products. Hempcrete (a mixture of hemp hurds and lime products) is being used as a building material. Hemp is also used as a lightweight insulating material and in hemp plastics and related composites for use as a fiberglass alternative by the automotive and aviation sectors.10 Hemp hasis also been promoted as a potential biodiesel feedstock11 and cover crop.
These types of commercial uses are widely documented in a range of feasibility and marketing studies conducted by researchers at USDA and various land grant universities and state agencies. (A listing of these studies is in the Appendix A.) Currently, finished hemp products and raw material inputs are mostly imported into the United States and sold for use in further processing and manufacturing for a wide range of products.
Source: Industrial Hemp Association of Tasmania, http://www.ihat.org.au/.
Notes: Other hemp product charts include D. G. Kraenzel et al., "Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota," AER-402, North Dakota State University, July 23, 1998; and National Hemp Association, http://nationalhempassociation.org/.
No official estimates are available of the value of U.S. sales of hemp-based products. The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) reports that total U.S. retail sales of hemp products of nearly $600700 million in 20152016,12 which includes food and body products, dietary supplements, clothing, auto parts, building materials, and other consumer products (Figure 2). HIA further claims that growth in U.S. hemp retail sales averaged more than 15% annually over the 2010-2015 time framehave increased by about 10% to more than 20% annually since 2011. Much of this growth has beenis attributable to increased sales of hemp-based body products, supplements, and foods. Combined, these categories accountaccounted for more than 60%two-thirds of the value of U.S. retail sales in 2016.
Little detailed information is available on some other hemp-based sectors, such as for use in construction, biofuels, paper, textiles, or other manufacturing uses. Data are also not available on existing businesses or processing facilities.
Source: HIA, "2015 Annual Retail Sales for Hemp Products Estimated at $573 Million," May 9, 2016.
Given these data limitations, available trade statistics indicate that the value of U.S. imports under categories actually labeled "hemp," such as hemp seeds and fibers—which are more often used as inputs for use in further manufacturing—was nearly $78.2 million in 2015. Compared to 2005, when the value of imports totaled $5.6 million, imported hemp products for use as inputs and ingredients has increased sharply. However, import volumes for other products, such as hemp oil and fabrics, are lower (Table 1). Trade data are not available for finished products, such as hemp-based clothing or other products including construction materials, carpets, or paper products.
The single largest supplier of U.S. imports of raw and processed hemp fiber is China. Other leading country suppliers include Romania, Hungary, India, and other European countries. The single largest source of U.S. imports of hemp seed and oilcake is Canada. The total value of Canada's exports of hemp seed to the United States has grown significantly in recent years following resolution of a long-standing legal dispute over U.S. imports of hemp foods in late 2004 (see "Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004)"). European countries have also supplied hemp seed and oilcake to the United States.
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Data are by Harmonized System (HS) code. Data shown as "—" indicate data are not available as breakout categories or, for some product subcategories, were established only recently. Data are not adjusted for inflation.
Notes: Historical data for hemp seeds combine reported statistics for three HTS categories: HTS 1207990320 (2012-present), HTS 1207990020 (2007-2011) and HTS 1207990120 (2005-2006). Data for hemp oil combine HTS 15150904010 (1999-2001) and HTS 15159008010 (2002-present).
Three forms of seed are imported:13 (1) de-hulled seed, often referred to as hemp hearts, hulled seeds, or hemp nut, used in a range of food products; (2) non-viable whole seed, rendered non-viable through a sterilization process, usually through temperature exposure; and (3) viable whole seed, capable of germination under suitable conditions.
Purchasing viable seed for germination can be a complicated process. It can be difficult to locate a seed source, since there are no U.S. cultivars, and any seed must be sourced internationally. Also, the grower must submit a DEA 357 import form, and any seed source must be pre-screened by DEA and also meet USDA phytosanitary rules. Once the permit is obtained, a copy of the permit is then sent to the seed supplier and may be shipped by air freight.14 Other requirements include entry approval and ground transport to field sites and field site security.
Most hemp seed cultivars originate in the EU (mostly from Canada is the single largest supplier of U.S. hemp imports, accounting for about 90% of the value of annual imports. Other leading country suppliers include China (about 3-5% of annual imports) and Romania (2-4%). Remaining imports are supplied by other European countries, India, the Dominican Republic, and Chile. Canada is the primary source of U.S. imports of food-grade hemp seed and oilcake, with supplies also from China and Europe. China and some European countries are major suppliers of raw and processed hemp fiber and yarn. Three forms of seed are imported:13 (1) de-hulled seed, often referred to as hemp hearts, hulled seeds, or hemp nut, used in a range of food products; (2) non-viable whole seed, rendered non-viable through a sterilization process, usually through temperature exposure; and (3) viable whole seed, capable of germination under suitable conditions. Most hemp seed cultivars originate in Europe (France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Romania), Russia, Ukraine, and China.
In the past two decades, researchers at the USDA and various land grant universities and state agencies (for example, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Vermont; see Appendix A) have conducted several feasibility and marketing studies.
Studies by researchers in Canada and various state agencies provide a mostly positive market outlook for growing hemp, citing rising consumer demand and the potential range of product uses for hemp. Some state reports claim that if current restrictions on growing hemp in the United States were removed, agricultural producers in their states could benefit. A 2008 study reported that acreage under cultivation in Canada, "while still showing significant annual fluctuations, is now regarded as being on a strong upward trend." Most studies generally note that hemp "has such a diversity of possible uses, [and] is being promoted by extremely enthusiastic market developers." Other studies highlight certain production advantages associated with hemp or acknowledge hemp's benefits as a rotational crop or further claim that hemp may be less environmentally degrading than other agricultural crops. Other studies claim certain production advantages to hemp growers, such as relatively low input and management requirements.
Other studies differ from the various state reports and provide a less favorable aggregate view of the potential market for hemp growers in the United States, highlighting challenges facing U.S. growers. For example, a 2000 study by USDA projected that U.S. hemp markets "are, and will likely remain, small, thin markets." It also cited "uncertainty about long-run demand for hemp products and the potential for oversupply" among possible downsides of potential future hemp production.16 Similarly, a study by University of Wisconsin-Madison concluded that hemp production "is not likely to generate sizeable profits," and, although hemp may be "slightly more profitable than traditional row crops," it is likely "less profitable than other specialty crops" due to the "current state of harvesting and processing technologies, which are quite labor intensive, and result in relatively high per unit costs."1617 The study also noted that U.S. growers could be affected by competition from other world producers and by production limitations in the United States, including yield variability and lack of harvesting innovations and processing facilities, as well as difficulty transporting bulk hemp. The study further claimed that most estimates of profitability from hemp production are highly speculative and often do not include additional costs of growing hemp in a regulated market, such as the cost associated with "licensing, monitoring, and verification of commercial hemp."
A 2013 study by researchers at the University of Kentucky predicted that despite "showing some positive returns, under current market conditions, it remained unclear whether anticipated hemp returns would be large enough to entice Kentucky grain growers to shift out of grain production" under most circumstances. They also noted that "short run employment opportunities evolving from a new Kentucky hemp industry appear limited (perhaps dozens of new jobs, not 100s)," because of continued uncertainty in the industry.1718 Overall, the study concluded that there were many remaining unknowns and that further analysis and production research was needed.
Given the absence since the 1950s of any commercial and unrestricted hemp production in the United States, it is not possible to predict with any degree of confidence the potential market and employment effects of relaxing current restrictions on U.S. hemp production. While expanded market opportunities might exist in some states or localities if current restrictions on production are lifted, it is not possible to predict the potential for future retail sales or employment gains in the United States, either nationally or within certain states or regions. Little information isInformation on these types of probable effects is not available from previous market analyses that have been conducted by researchers at USDA and land grant universities and state agencies.
Approximately 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp. Aggregated production data from the United Nations do not include all countries (most notably Canada) and may differ from other sources but comprise the most readily available source of information. Based on these data, worldwideexcluding Canada, global acreage in hemp cultivation in 2016—both hemp seed and hemp tow waste—is reported at about 175192,000 acres (Figure 3), growing by less than 375with a reported total production of 355 million pounds annually (Figure 4).18 Reported global production is highly variable year to year, and totaled about 375 million pounds in 2014.
The U.N. data do not include Canada, which is a major hemp producing and exporting country. Canada is also major supplier of U.S. hemp imports, particularly of hemp-based foods and food ingredients and other related imported products.
Leading global hemp producers include China, South Korea, Russia, and Europe (Figure 4). United Nations data do not include Canada, which is a major hemp producing and exporting country. Including other data for Canada, in 2016, aggregate acreage totaled at about 225,000 acres. Canada is also major supplier of U.S. hemp imports, particularly of hemp-based foods and food ingredients and other related imported products.
Preliminary information for 2017 indicate that hemp acreage in Canada and the European Union (EU) countries reached record levels, which could put global acreage at more than 330,000 acres. Still, as a share of total crop production in these countries, hemp production accounts for a negligible share (less than 0.5%) of total acreage.
Figure 3. Hemp Fiber and Seed, Global Acreage (2000-2016) Source: FAOSTAT, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/. Does not include all producing countries, including Canada.
Figure 4. Hemp Fiber and Seed, Global Production (2000-2016) Source: FAOSTAT, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/. Does not include all producing countries, including Canada. Global Production (Excluding Canada) Leading global hemp producers include Europe, China, South Korea, and Russia. Some countries never outlawed production; other countries banned production for certain periods in the past and later lifted these restrictions. Hemp production across these countries and regions account for nearly all the reported production and acreage reported in the U.N. database.
Total production across all European countries is reported at nearly 250 million pounds on more than 70,000 acres, accounting for about two-thirds of the U.N.-reported global production. Most of this production is in Western Europe. The European Union (EU)According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations data, Europe is the world's single largest hemp producing market. In 2016, European countries produced hemp on more than 80,000 acres—a record high20 and accounting for about 40% of FAO-reported global acreage. The EU has an active hemp market, with production in most member nations. Production is centered in France, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Romania.2021 Many EU countries lifted their bans on hemp production in the 1990s and, until recently, also subsidized the production of "flax and hemp" under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.2122 Most EU production is of hurds, seeds, and fibers.fibers, and pharmaceuticals.23 Other non-EU European countries with reported hemp production include Russia, Ukraine, and Switzerland.
China is another major producer, mostly of hemp textiles and related products, as well as a major supplier to the United States. In 2016, China's hemp was grown on about 20,000 acres. FAO data also report hemp production in Chile, China, Iran, Japan, South and North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, and Turkey. Other countries with active hemp grower and/or consumer markets not included in FAO's annual compilation are New Zealand, India, Egypt, South Africa, Thailand, Malawi, and Uruguay.
Source: CRS from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada data, "Industrial Hemp Statistics," http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/substancontrol/hemp-chanvre/about-apropos/stat/index-eng.php, and "Industrial Hemp Production in Canada," http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631.
and "Industrial Hemp Production in Canada," and other press reports (D. Brown, "Canada on Course for Record Hempseed Crop in 2017," June 2017).
Note: The downturn in 2007 is viewed as a correction of overproduction in 2006 following the "success of the court case against the DEA in 2004, and continued improvements in breeding, production, and processing," which resulted in part in a "dramatic reduction in hemp acreage planted" in 2007. The 2007 downturn is also attributed to "increasingly positive economics of growing other crops" (Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008, prepared for Food and Rural Initiative Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada).
Criminal record check valid now for one year.
The potential impact could greatly facilitate hemp production for Canadian farmers, which could continue to give them an advantage over U.S. growers, where hemp production remains restricted and legal in only few cases.
Source: CRS from information from Colorado Department of Agriculture, "2016 National Hemp Regulatory Meeting Survey," October 2016; HIA, "National Hemp Update," May 2016; J. Anderson, "Opportunities Take Root for Hemp Farmers," HempBiz Journal, no. 1 (2016); and various news sourcesVote Hemp, "2017 U.S. Hemp Crop Report," January 2018 (number of acres), and the Colorado Department of Agriculture, "2016 National Hemp Regulatory Meeting Survey," October 2016 ("purposes grown"). "NA" indicates that information is not available.
Between 1914 and 1933, in an effort to stem the use of Cannabis flowers and leaves for their psychotropic effects, 33 states passed laws restricting legal production to medicinal and industrial purposes only.3741 The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act defined hemp as a narcotic drug, requiring that farmers growing hemp hold a federal registration and special tax stamp, effectively limiting further production expansion.
Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hempcannabis illegal; rather, it places strict controls on theits production of hemp, making it illegal to grow the crop without a DEA permit.
Regarding industrial hemp, however, growers that comply with the 2014 farm bill provision (discussed in the next section) do not need DEA approval.
The 113th Congress considered various changes to U.S. policies regarding industrial hemp during the omnibus farm bill debate.4246 The 2014 farm bill43 (Agricultural Act of 2014 [P.L. 113-79], §7606)47 provides that certain "institutions of higher education"4448 and state departments of agriculture may grow industrial hemp, as part of an agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state laws where the institution or state department of agriculture is located. The farm bill also established a statutory definition of industrial hemp as "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis." The provision was included as part of the research title of the law. The provision did not include an effective date that would suggest any kind of program rollout, and there appears to be nothing in the conference report or bill language to suggest that the states might not be able to immediately initiate action on this provision.
As the farm bill did not include an effective date distinct from the date of enactment, several states responded by making immediate plans to initiate new hemp pilot projects. In addition, several states enacted legislation to allow for hemp cultivation, which is a precondition for allowances under the 2014 farm bill.
Some have speculated whether the industrial hemp provision in the 2014 farm bill could terminate, expire, or require reauthorization in a subsequent farm bill.4549 Although some individual authorizations in the farm bill specifically have provisions indicating that they expire in 2018 (such as authorized funding levels), the industrial hemp research provision in the 2014 farm bill does not have such language. Furthermore, the farm bill does not contain a default sunset provision for all its authorizations. Accordingly, the industrial hemp research provision in the 2014 farm bill appears to be intended to have some degree of permanence.
Selected Appropriations Actions Immediately following the 2014 farm bill, some states quickly responded by expanding their efforts to grow industrial hemp. However, these initiatives were slowed by the absence of viable seeds in the United States to grow industrial hemp and DEA actions blocking the importation of viable seed. (For more information, see "DEA's Blocking of Imported Viable Hemp Seeds".) To avoid future similar DEA actions that might further stall full implementation of the hemp provision of the farm bill, Congress acted swiftly. Both the House and Senate FY2015 Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bills contained provisions to block federal law enforcement authorities from interfering with state agencies and hemp growers and counter efforts to obstruct agricultural research. The enacted FY2015 appropriation blocked federal law enforcement authorities from interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research.4651 The provision stated that "none of the funds made available" to the U.S. Justice Department and DEA "may be used in contravention" of the 2014 farm bill.
During both the FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations debates, the House CJS bills also included provisions farm bill provision "within or outside the State in which the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated."52 The FY2017 and FY2016 Agriculture appropriation contained similar language.53 Language referring to selling industrial hemp within a state addresses intrastate commerce, whereas language referring to selling hemp outside the state may be considered to address interstate commerce.
Other proposed appropriations bills had also addressed industrial hemp. For example, the Senate FY2018 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriation proposed to prohibit regulators from denying hemp growers access to water if hemp is grown or cultivated in accordance with the laws of the state in which such use occurs.55 The provision was not enacted as part of the omnibus appropriation.
In prior appropriations debates, the House CJS bills also included provisions stating that no funds be used to prevent a state from implementing its own state laws that "authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp" as defined in the 2014 farm bill.5056 These provisions were not adopted.
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a resurgence of interest in the United States in producing industrial hemp. Farmers in regions of the country that are highly dependent upon a single crop, such as tobacco or wheat, have shown interest in hemp's potential as a high-value alternative crop, although the economic studies conducted so far paint a mixed profitability picture. Beginning around 1995, an increasing number of state legislatures began to consider a variety of initiatives related to industrial hemp. Most of these have been resolutions calling for scientific, economic, or environmental studies, and some are laws authorizing planting experimental plots under state statutes. Nonetheless, the actual planting of hemp, even for state-authorized experimental purposes, remains regulated by DEA under the CSA.
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Industrial Hemp Statutes (http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/state-industrial-hemp-statutes.aspx).
Some states have well-developed guidelines for growers, covering issues such as registration and reporting requirements, inspection, THC testing and threshold determination, seed availability and certification, pesticide use, production standards, and other information. Other general requirements may apply under some circumstances. For example, in 2016, USDA published guidance on organic certification of industrial hemp products.5864 Some are calling for the need to develop more far-reaching consensus standards for a range of cannabis varieties given concerns about the general lack of standards and test methods.5965 Production of industrial hemp has been reported in several states (Table 2).
Figure 6. State Laws Related to Industrial Hemp Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Industrial Hemp Statutes (http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/state-industrial-hemp-statutes.aspx). Accessed May 29, 2018.
AlthoughPrior to the 2014 farm bill, although many states havehad established programs under which a farmer may be able to grow industrial hemp under certain circumstances, a grower would still need to obtain a DEA permit and abide by DEA's strict production controls. This relationship hassituation resulted in some high-profile cases, wherein in which growers have applied for a permit but DEA has not approveddid not approve (or denied) a permit to grow hemp, even in states that authorize cultivation under state laws.
Even if DEA approvesEven if DEA were to approve a permit, production might be discouraged because of the perceived difficulties of working through DEA licensing requirements and installing the types of structures necessary to obtain a permit. Obtaining a DEA permit to produce hemp requiresrequired that the applicant demonstrate that an effective security protocol will be in place at the production site, such as security fencing around the planting area, a 24-hour monitoring system, controlled access, and possibly armed guards to prevent public access.68 DEA application requirements also include a nonrefundable fee, FBI background checks, and extensive documentation. It could also be argued that the necessary time-consuming steps involved in obtaining and operating under a DEA permit, the additional management and production costs from installing structures, and other business and regulatory requirements could ultimately limit the operation's profitability.
In recent years, U.S. producers have begun to grow hemp under state law (Table 2). Some arewas also ongoing tension between federal and state authorities over state hemp policies. After North Dakota passed its own state law authorizing industrial hemp production in 1999,69 researchers repeatedly applied for, but did not receive, a DEA permit to cultivate hemp for research purposes in the state.70 Also in 2007, two North Dakota farmers were granted state hemp farming licenses and, in June 2007, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court (North Dakota) seeking "a declaratory judgment" that the CSA "does not prohibit their cultivation of industrial hemp pursuant to their state licenses."71 The case was dismissed in November 2007.72 The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) but was again dismissed in December 2009.73 As some states began to allow U.S. producers to grow hemp under state law, some growers were foregoing the requirement to obtain a federal permit. For example, in 2009, Montana's Agriculture Department issued its first state license for an industrial hemp-growing operation in the state, and media reports indicated that the grower did not intend to request a federal permit.7274 Such cases continue to poseposed a challenge to DEA of whether it iswas willing to override the state's authority to allow for hemp production in the state. It is also a test of states' rights.
Source: CRS from DEA, "DEA History in Depth," 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources. DEA-cited court cases: New Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d I (1st Cir 2000); United States v. White Plume, supra; Monson v. DEA, 522 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. N.D. 2007), No. 07-3837 (8th Cir. 2007).
Starting in late 1999, DEA acted administratively to demand that the U.S. Customs Service enforce a zero-tolerance standard for the THC content of all forms of imported hemp—and hemp foods in particular. Development of DEA's rules to support its actions sparked a fierce battle over the permissibility of imported hemp-based food products that lasted from 1999 until 2004.
DEA followed up, in October 2001, with publication of an interpretive rule in the Federal Register explaining the basis of its zero-tolerance standard.8078 It held that when Congress wrote the statutory definition of marijuana in 1937, it "exempted certain portions of the Cannabis plant from the definition of marijuana based on the assumption (now refuted) that such portions of the plant contain none of the psychoactive component now known as THC."
In March 2003, DEA issued two final rules addressing the legal status of hemp products derived from the cannabis plant. It found that hemp products "often contain the hallucinogenic substance tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) ... the primary psychoactive chemical found in the cannabis (marijuana) plant."8179 Although DEA acknowledged that "in some cases, a Schedule I controlled substance may have a legitimate industrial use," such use would be allowed only under highly controlled circumstances. These rules set forth what products may contain "hemp" and also prohibit "cannabis products containing THC that are intended or used for human consumption (foods and beverages)."
Both the proposed rule (which was published concurrently with the interpretive rule) and the final 2003 rule gave retailers of hemp foods a date after which DEA could seize all such products remaining on shelves. On both rules, hemp trade associations requested and received court-ordered stays blocking enforcement of that provision. DEA's interpretation made hemp with any THC content subject to enforcement as a controlled substance.
Hemp industry trade groups, retailers, and a major Canadian exporter filed suit against DEA, arguing that congressional intent was to exempt plant parts containing naturally occurring THC at non-psychoactive levels, the same way it exempts poppy seeds containing trace amounts of naturally occurring opiates.8280 Industry groups maintain that (1) naturally occurring THC in the leaves and flowers of cannabis varieties grown for fiber and food is already at below-psychoactive levels (compared with drug varieties); (2) the parts used for food purposes (seeds and oil) contain even less; and (3) after processing, the THC content is at or close to zero. U.S. and Canadian hemp seed and food manufacturers have in place a voluntary program for certifying low, industry-determined standards in hemp-containing foods. Background information on the TestPledge Program is available at http://www.TestPledge.com. The intent of the program is to assure that consumption of hemp foods will not interfere with workplace drug testing programs or produce undesirable mental or physical health effects.
In May 2018, DEA issued an internal directive to further clarify the ruling in the 2004 court case.86 The directive acknowledges that products and materials made from the cannabis plant that fall outside the CSA's definition of marihuana—such as sterilized seeds incapable of germination, oil or cake made from the seeds, mature stalks, and fiber from mature stalks—are exempt from CSA and may be "sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States without restriction under the CSA or its implementing regulations."87 Exempt cannabis plant material also includes "any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation" of the above items, despite the presence of cannabinoids. The directive further acknowledges that such exempt products and materials may be imported into the United States without restriction (under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C. §§951-971) or exported from the United States ("provided further that it is lawful to import such products under the laws of the country of destination"). The directive does not address marijuana extracts and resins.
Some in the hemp industry are interpreting the 2018 directive as providing an indication of DEA's position regarding extracts such as CBD from exempt plant materials, including industrial hemp. They claim that this could provide an indication that CBD extracted from hemp could be considered exempt from CSA regulation and DEA's jurisdiction.88 They also acknowledge that some research indicates that meaningful levels of CBD might not be readily extracted from exempt plant materials such as industrial hemp In late September 2004 the Bush Administration let the final deadline pass without filing an appeal.
8. Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
Changes to Colorado's state laws in November 2012 now allow for industrial hemp cultivation. Industrial hemp was reported as being grown in Colorado in 2013.8791 However, growers and state authorities continue to face a number of challenges implementing Colorado's law, including sampling, registration and inspection, seed availability and sourcing, disposition of non-complying plants, and law enforcement concerns, as well as production issues such as hemp agronomics, costly equipment, and limited manufacturing capacity, among other grower and processor concerns.8892 There is also general uncertainty about how federal authorities will respond to production in states where state laws allow cultivation.
In November 2012, state authorities in Colorado requested clarification from DOJ about how federal enforcement authorities might respond to its newly enacted laws and forthcoming regulations.8993 Since federal law regards all varieties of the cannabis plant as "marijuana," many continue to regard DOJ's August 2013 guidance as also likely applicable to the regulation of industrial hemp.9094 In November 2013, Colorado officials requested further clarification regarding the cultivation of industrial hemp specifically.9195 It is not known whether either federal agency has responded to the state's requests.
In response to the enactment of the 2014 farm bill provision allowing for the cultivation of industrial hemp by research institutions and state departments of agriculture, several states made immediate plans to initiate new hemp pilot projects.
Kentucky announced plans for several pilot projects through the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. However, in May 2014, U.S. Customs officials blocked the department's shipment of 250 pounds of imported viable hemp seed from Italy at Louisville International Airport. DEA officials contend that the action was warranted since the "importation of cannabis seeds continues to be subject to the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (CSIEA)"96102 and to the implementing regulations, which restrict persons from importing viable cannabis seed unless they are registered with DEA and have obtained the necessary Schedule I research permit, among other requirements.
To facilitate release of the hemp seeds, the Kentucky Department of Agriculture filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against DEA, DOJ, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Attorney General.98104 In the lawsuit, the department contends that its efforts to grow industrial hemp are authorized under both state and federal law and that DEA should not seek to impose "additional requirements, restrictions, and prohibitions" on hemp production beyond requirements in the 2014 farm bill or otherwise interfere with its delivery of hemp seeds.
Although Kentucky's seeds were eventually released and planted. However, these actions, these circumstances have resulted in uncertainty for U.S. hemp growers. Some in the industry claim that DEA continues to initiate policy changes intentionallyintended to block hemp cultivation.99105 In response, Congress enacted additional legislation to stop DEA from intervening in the implementation of the 2014 farm bill provision. (For more information, see "Selected Appropriations Actions".
Although hemp production is now allowed in accordance with the requirements under the 2014 farm bill provision, the importation of viable seeds still requires DEA registration according to CSIEA (21 U.S.C. §§951-971). This requirement was reinforced in a 2016 joint "Statement of Principles" on industrial hemp from DEA, USDA, and FDA.106 Purchasing viable seed for germination continues to be a complicated process. It can be difficult to locate a seed source, since there are no U.S. cultivars, and any seed must be sourced internationally. Also, the grower must submit a DEA 357 import form, and any seed source must be pre-screened by DEA and also meet USDA phytosanitary rules. Once the permit is obtained, a copy of the permit is then sent to the seed supplier and may be shipped by air freight.107 Other requirements include approval for entry and ground transport to field sites and field site security.
In August 2016, DEA issued three major decisions on marijuana and industrial hemp.102108 Regarding marijuana, DEA announced it was rejecting a petition to reschedule marijuana (affirming its continued status as an illegal Schedule I controlled substance).103109 It also announced certain policy changes regarding authorized marijuana cultivators for research.104110 Regarding industrial hemp, DEA issued a joint statement with USDA and FDA on the principles on industrial hemp.
The three federal agencies acknowledged that the 2014 farm bill provision regarding industrial hemp "left open many questions regarding the continuing application of Federal drug control statutes to the growth, cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of industrial hemp products, as well as the extent to which growth by private parties and sale of industrial hemp products are permissible."105111 The 2014 farm bill also "did not remove industrial hemp from the controlled substances list." Federal law continues to restrict hemp-related activities that were not specifically legalized under the farm bill provision, which did not amend CSA requirements regarding the manufacture and distribution of "drug products" containing controlled substances. The farm bill provision also did not amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act106112 regarding the approval process for new drug applications.
The joint statement restates the 2014 farm bill's requirement that hemp be grown and cultivated "in accordance with an agricultural pilot program ... established by a State department of agriculture or State agency ... in a State where the production of industrial hemp is otherwise legal under State law."107113 It further notes that "state registration and certification of sites used for growing or cultivating industrial hemp" were not addressed in the 2014 farm bill and recommends that "such registration should include the name of the authorized manufacturer, the period of licensure or other time period during which such person is authorized by the State to manufacture industrial hemp, and the location, including Global Positioning System coordinates, where such person is authorized to manufacture industrial hemp."
Among the noted positive aspects of the joint statement is clarification by the federal agencies about who is able to grow or cultivate industrial hemp as part of a state's agricultural research pilot program and the applicability of USDA research and other programs to support industrial hemp. Other aspects of the joint statement, however, have raised concerns regarding how the federal agencies view the statutory definition of industrial hemp and also possible restrictions on the sale of industrial hemp products and the importation of viable seeds for growing and cultivation. Each of these is discussed in the following sections.
Many in Congress and in the hemp industry had much anticipated clarification regarding DEA's position on industrial hemp by, given continued uncertainty and despite support for hemp cultivation in the 2014 farm bill. The joint statement provides guidance to "individuals, institutions, and states" on a number of issues pertaining to the growing and cultivation of industrial hemp. While some in Congress and the U.S. hempin the industry are encouraged by parts of the joint statement, they have also expressed concerns about other aspects of the joint statement.108114 A summary of these issues is as follows.
Clarification regarding who can grow/cultivate hemp. The joint statement acknowledges that the 2014 farm bill authorized "State departments of agriculture, and persons licensed, registered, or otherwise authorized by them" and "institutions of higher education or persons employed by or under a production contract or lease with them" to grow or cultivate industrial hemp as part of an agricultural pilot program in accordance with the 2014 farm bill. This seemingly clears up confusion regarding the potential participation of private farmers licensed or under contract with authorized state departments of agriculture and institutions of higher learning.
Clarification regarding USDA research support for hemp. The joint statement clarifies that institutions of higher education and other authorized participants "may be able to participate in USDA research or other programs to the extent otherwise eligible for participation in those programs." This seemingly addresses questions raised in November 2015 by some Members of Congress as part of a letter sent to USDA requesting clarification on the extent to which federal funds may be used to support research on industrial hemp.
Confusion regarding the definition of industrial hemp. Some in the hemp industry worry that the joint statement reinterprets the statutory definition of industrial hemp to cover fiber and seed only, excluding flowering tops, which they believe is covered by the farm bill definition.109115 The flowering heads of the plant have the greatest cannabinoid content. They also worry that the joint statement expands upon inherent restrictions to the statutory definition in that it broadly highlights the term THC, which is defined to include "all isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers of tetrahydrocannabinols," whereas the statutory definition in the 2014 farm bill specifies delta-9 THC, the dominant psychoactive cannabinoid of cannabis. Some in Congress claim that the executive branch is defining industrial hemp more narrowly than that defined in statute in that it "drops the 'delta-9' when describing tetrahydrocannabinol" and "adds isomers, acids, and salts of isomers of THC to count against the 0.3% THC threshold."110116 These Members of Congress have asked that the definition be removed from the guidance.
Confusion regarding possible restrictions on commerce. Some in Congress note that the 2014 farm bill defined ''agricultural pilot program'' to mean "a pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp" (italics added).111117 These Members of Congress have asked for confirmation that "general commercial activity" does not prevent any types of sale from occurring from the framework of an approved pilot program. Likewise, the hemp industry remains concerned about the inclusion of language in the joint statement indicating that "industrial hemp products ... may not be sold in States where such sale is prohibited."112118 Broadly speaking "industrial hemp products" are already widely marketed, sold, and distributed. Some claim that this restriction on sales is contrary to provisions in both the CSA and the 2014 farm bill.
The joint statement's guiding principles are provided in the Appendix B.
Additional confusion remains, however, since the joint statement explicitly says it "does not establish any binding legal requirements," further raising questions about whether guidance in the statement could influence future DEA policies and enforcement action regarding industrial hemp cultivation and marketing.
In April 2018, the Small Business Administration (SBA) prohibited banks from issuing SBA-backed loans to any "business that grows, produces, processes, distributes or sells products purportedly made from 'hemp' … unless the business can demonstrate that its business activities and products are legal under federal and state law. Examples of legal hemp products include paper, clothing and rope." Given the continued uncertainty about the legality of the marketing of industrial hemp products, it may be difficult for SBA to determine if a business's activities and products are legal under federal law, which could restrict hemp businesses from obtaining SBA-backed loans.
USDA has supported research on alternative crops and industrial uses of common commodities since the late 1930s. Some alternative crops have become established in certain parts of the United States—kenaf (for fiber) in Texas, jojoba (for oil) in Arizona and California, and amaranth (for nutritious grain) in the Great Plains states. Many have benefits similar to those ascribed to hemp but are not complicated by having a psychotropic variety within the same species.
The Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-284, 7 U.S.C. §178) supports the supplemental and alternative crops provisions of the 1985 and 1990 omnibus farm acts and other authorities and funds research and development on alternative crops at USDA and state laboratories.116122 In addition, Section 1473D of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. §3319d(c)) authorizes USDA to make competitive grants toward the development of new commercial products derived from natural plant material for industrial, medical, and agricultural applications. To date, these authorities have not been used to develop hemp cultivation and use.
The United States is a signatory of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.117123 The principal objectives of the convention are to "limit the possession, use, trade in, distribution, import, export, manufacture and production of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes and to address drug trafficking through international cooperation to deter and discourage drug traffickers."118124 The convention requires that each party control cannabis cultivation within its borders. However, Article 28.2 of the convention states, "This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes." Thus the convention need not present an impediment to the development of a regulated hemp farming sector in the United States.
Congress has continued to introduce legislation to further advance industrial hemp and address continued perceived obstacles to hemp production in the United States. Specifically, an expanded version of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act—first introduced in the 109th Congress—was introduced in the 115th Congress in both the House and Senate (H.R. 5485; S. 2667). These bills are further discussed in "Industrial Hemp Farming Act". Many of the provisions in these bills are included in the Senate version of the 2018 farm bill legislation (S. 3042) that is now being debated in Congress.
A number of hemp-related amendments to the House Agriculture Committee bill (Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, H.R. 2) were proposed and/or considered but not adopted.
During House committee markup, Representative Comer considered but did not propose an amendment to H.R. 2 that would clarify that federally recognized Indian tribes are eligible to grow hemp in accordance with the conditions specified in the 2014 farm bill.125 It would have also required USDA to develop guidance on standardized testing procedures for the THC concentration for industrial hemp.
Amendments regarding hemp were also submitted for consideration by the House Rules Committee but were not made in order and so were not allowed to proceed during the House floor debate on H.R. 2. One bipartisan proposal submitted by Representatives Massie and Polis proposed to remove industrial hemp from the CSA definition of marihuana. Another proposal submitted by Representatives Comer and Blumenauer, among others, also proposed to remove industrial hemp from the CSA definition and place hemp in the jurisdiction of the USDA as an agricultural commodity. Another amendment proposed by Representative Barr would create a safe harbor for financial institutions that provide services to hemp businesses authorized under the 2014 farm bill. None of these amendments or other provisions regarding industrial hemp are included in H.R. 2.
Senate Farm Bill (S. 3042) The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, S. 3042) includes a number of provisions regarding industrial hemp within the bill's Horticulture title, Research title, Crop Insurance title, and Miscellaneous title (Appendix C). Many of these provisions originated in the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2018 (S. 2667; H.R. 548).126 Chief among these is a provision that would amend the CSA to exclude industrial hemp as it is defined in the 2014 farm bill (i.e., as containing no more than a 0.3% THC concentration) from the statutory definition of marihuana.127 The Senate farm bill also creates a new hemp program under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. §1621 et seq.), expanding the existing statutory definition of hemp and expanding eligibility to other producers and groups, including tribes and territories. States or Indian tribes wanting primary regulatory authority over hemp production would be required to implement a "plan" to further monitor and regulate hemp production. Other provisions in the Crop Insurance title would make hemp producers eligible to participate in federal crop insurance programs, while provisions in the Research title of the bill would make hemp production eligible for certain USDA research and development programs. Industrial Hemp Farming Act The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2018 (Comer/H.R. 5485; McConnell/S. 2667) is intended to facilitate the possible commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States. The bills would amend Section 102 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) to exclude "industrial hemp" from the statutory definition of marihuana. Industrial hemp would be defined based on its THC content and set at a threshold of 0.3% THC. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance subject to DEA regulation, thus allowing for industrial hemp to be grown and processed under some state laws. The bill could grant authority to any state permitting industrial hemp production and processing to determine whether any such cannabis plants met the limit on THC concentration as set forth in the CSA. In any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding, the state's determination may be conclusive and binding. The House and Senate bills differ in that S. 134 includes a provision that would allow states to override this determination if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the state law does not "reasonably" comply with the requirements of the proposed CSA amendments. H.R. 525 does not include this language.
Two other bills introduced in the 114th Congress would amend CSA "to exclude cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes." Both bills would also amend the CSA to define a "cannabidiol-rich plant" to mean "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis" and so would be consistent with the statutory definition for industrial hemp. The two bills are related but are not identical. One way the two bills differ is that the House bill (Charlotte's Web Medical Access Act of 2015, H.R. 1635) would further exclude cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants from being applicable to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This provision is not part of the Senate bill (Therapeutic Hemp Medical Access Act of 2015, S. 1333). A similar version of the House bill was introduced in the 113th Congress (Charlotte's Web Medical Hemp Act of 2014, H.R. 5226).
H.R. 5485 and S. 2667 further address industrial hemp as part of the federal crop insurance program and include hemp as eligible for research funding under the Supplemental and Alternative Crops Act131 and the Critical Agricultural Materials Act,132 which are authorized to receive $1 million in annual appropriations through FY2018. Finally, the bills require that USDA conduct a study of USDA agricultural pilot programs, including the hemp pilot program, which would be repealed one year after enactment. USDA would also be required to conduct a study of USDA agricultural pilot programs, including the hemp pilot program in the 2014 farm bill.
In the 115th Congress, the Therapeutic Hemp Medical Access Act of 2017 (S. 1008) and the Charlotte's Web Medical Access Act of 2017 (H.R. 2273)141 would amend CSA by excluding cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants, defined as having a delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Similar versions of these bills were introduced in the 114th Congress and 113th Congress.142 The House and Senate bills are related but are not identical. In addition to removing cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants, as defined, from regulation under CSA, the House bill would further exclude these from being applicable to requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which broadly regulates the quality and safety of foods and dietary supplements. This provision is not part of the Senate bill.
There is also growing concern that hemp-based CBD products, derived from industrial hemp, are being marketed as being rich in CBD and as having comparable therapeutic uses to CBD extracts. Medicine-grade CBD is not produced or pressed from hemp seeds. Hemp seed oil, marketed as "hemp oil," is made by pressing hemp seeds that contain low levels of CBD (typically less than 25 parts per million). Most of the CBD extracts currently being marketed for certain therapeutic purposes are generally formulated from strains of cannabis with THC levels higher than 0.3% but generally less than 1% THC.125143 Some claim that scientific research shows that meaningful levels of CBD cannot be extracted from hemp.144 Also, FDA has continued to issue a number of notices and warning letters regarding its concerns about CBD, which is being marketed across a range of therapeutic/medicinal products.145 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10391, Potential Use of Industrial Hemp in Cannabidiol Products.
In June 2015, the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, led by Senators Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, held a hearing on the barriers to research and the potential medical benefits of CBD.
Source: CRS based on opening statement of Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman, Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control Committee, June 24, 2015; and Senator Dianne Feinstein, "Feinstein, Grassley Announce New Federal Policy on Cannabidiol Research," press release, June 23, 2015. See also letter from DOJ to Senator Feinstein, January 5, 2015; letter from HHS to Senator Grassley, May 13, 2015; and letter from DOJ to Senators Grassley and Feinstein, June 23, 2015.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has broadly reviewed this issue. In February 2017, NASEM published a comprehensive review of existing cannabis research that provides a broad set of evidence-based research conclusions on the health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and provides recommendations to support advancing future research and inform public health decisions.151 It claims that there is conclusive or substantial evidence that oral cannabinoids are effective antiemetics in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and for improving patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms.152 Others have also documented possible medical uses of cannabis.153 The study, however, does not distinguish between cannabinoids from low and high THC strains or between hemp-derived cannabinoids and cannabinoids from other cannabis strains.
A number of other bills regarding industrial hemp have been introduced in the 115th Congress. The Industrial Hemp Banking Act (H.R. 4711) would identify hemp production as a legitimate business. It would similarly exempt hemp production from CSA's definition of marihuana and would also prohibit regulators from denying banking services to hemp producers.154 In addition, the Industrial Hemp Water Rights Act (H.R. 4164, S.1576) would prohibit regulators from denying hemp growers access to water—regardless of whether the water is part of a federal water project—if the hemp cultivation is authorized under the laws of the state where it is grown.
In November 2015, several Members of Congress sent a letter to USDA requesting clarification of the agency's research funds for industrial hemp.136155 This action was in response to questions by a number of state and private research institutions on the extent to which industrial hemp initiatives were eligible for U.S. federal grant awards (both USDA and non-USDA program funds). These questions arose, in part, given mixed messages received by some land grant universities about whether they would qualify for USDA competitive grants to do industrial hemp research and initial indications that they would be denied such support. Some groups feared they could jeopardize eligibility for other grants if they pursued research into industrial hemp.
In late 2015, CRS staff attempted to get further clarification on USDA's policy regarding industrial hemp and federal grants and loans to support research of industrial hemp with limited success. Information provided from USDA was not always consistent and often conflicting.137156 According to USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency had not awarded any competitive research grants for industrial hemp (as of September 2015).138157 However, subsequent searches of USDA's Current Research Information System (CRIS) database139158 indicate that NIFA formula-funded grants were used at Colorado State University for 2015 under available Hatch Act funding to study hemp cultivation as part of bigger grants about profitability of alternative agriculture in southern Colorado.140159 Other available information, including correspondence between USDA and various congressional staff, suggests that USDA has no record of any application for industrial hemp research being denied. No additional information is available on whether any such applications had been proposed or would or could be approved.
A USDA memo dating back to December 2014 states that "NIFA supports" grants for industrial hemp research so long as that research meets existing state requirements consistent with the requirements in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §7606; 7 U.S.C. 5940).141160 However, USDA staff indicated that the December 2014 memo pertains only to what the statutory provision authorizes and does not say anything explicitly about federal funding of industrial hemp research.142161 Although this response did not address the underlying issue regarding federal funding, it likely indicates that researchers working on industrial hemp may carry on with this work at least on their own (according to requirements specified in the 2014 farm bill) without threatening their status and working relationship with USDA.
Other communication with USDA's Rural Development Agency indicated that the agency's Rural Business-Cooperative Service has initiated conversation with USDA's Office of the General Counsel to review whether its programs could potentially support the industrial hemp industry.143162 There does not appear to be any legal reason why USDA would not be able to provide grant funding for research activities on industrial hemp within the language of the 2014 farm bill provision, and the question remains about whether USDA will fund such applications in the future. Specifically, clarification is needed regarding whether industrial hemp research projects are eligible for USDA competitive grants (e.g., under USDA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative program) and/or for Hatch Act formula funds, as well as clarification about whether hemp producers are eligible for other types of agricultural support from other USDA agencies (such as loans and grants administered by USDA's Rural Development Agency).
Some constituent groups have also expressed an interest in applying for other non-USDA grants, such as the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) intended to help certain small businesses conduct research and development and is coordinated by the Small Business Administration. CRS has not contacted other federal agencies aside from USDA.
The bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus—launched in February 2017 by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher, Don Young, Earl Blumenauer, and Jared Polis—is focused on policy reforms regarding federal drugs laws and issues regarding legalization in some states.
170 NASDA first adopted a policy on industrial hemp in 2002.
Given DEA's current policy positions and perceived DEA opposition to changing its current policies because of concerns over how to allow for hemp production without undermining the agency's drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana, hemp proponents say that further policy changes regarding industrial hemp are likely not forthcoming absent congressional legislative action.
Hemp production in the United States faces a number of obstacles in the foreseeable future, such as U.S. government drug policies and DEA concerns about the ramifications of U.S. commercial hemp production. These concerns are that commercial cultivation could increase the likelihood of covert production of high-THC marijuana, significantly complicating DEA's surveillance and enforcement activities and sending the wrong message to the American public concerning the government's position on drugs. DEA officials and a variety of other observers also express the concern that efforts to legalize hemp—as well as those to legalize medical marijuana—are a front for individuals and organizations whose real aim is to see marijuana decriminalized.
Hemp production in the United States also faces competition from other global suppliers. The world market for hemp products remains relatively small, and China, as the world's largest hemp fiber and seed producer, has had and likely will continue to have major influence on market prices and thus on the year-to-year profits of producers and processors in other countries. Canada's leadhead start in the North American market for hemp seed and oil would also likely affect the profitability of a start-up industry in the United States.
A Review of Hemp as a Sustainable Agricultural Commodity, Task Force Report by the University of Washington's Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, 2018.
J.H. Cherney and E. Small, "Industrial Hemp in North America: Production, Politics, and Potential," Agronomy, vol. 6, no. 56 (2016).
L. Lane et al., Industrial Hemp: Legal, Political/Social and Economic Issues Raised Over Time, University of Arkansas and National Agricultural Law Center, 2016.
University of Kentucky, Economic Considerations for Growing Industrial Hemp: Implications for Kentucky's Farmers and Agricultural Economy, July 2013.
C. A. Kolosov, "Regulation of Industrial Hemp Under the Controlled Substances Act" UCLA Law Review, vol. 57, no. 237 (October 2009).
Maine Agricultural Center, An Assessment of Industrial Hemp Production in Maine, January 2007.
N. Cherrett et al., "Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester," Stockholm Environment Institute, 2005.
T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, "Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production," Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, vol. 26, no. 1 (2004), pp. 97-117, 2004.
E. Small and D. Marcus, "Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America," Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002.
T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, "Is Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the U.S.? A Survey of the Literature," Staff Paper No. 443, July 2001.
J. Bowyer, "Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) as a Papermaking Raw Material in Minnesota: Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations," Department of Wood and Paper Science Report Series, May 2001.
K. Hill, N. Boshard-Blackey, and J. Simson, "Legislative Research Shop: Hemp," University of Vermont, April 2000.
USDA, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000.
D. G. Kraenzel et al., "Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota," North Dakota State University, AER 402, July 1998.
D. T. Ehrensing, Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States Pacific Northwest, Oregon State University, SB 681, May 1998.
Section 7606 specifically authorized certain entities to "grow or cultivate" industrial hemp but did not eliminate the requirement under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act that the importation of viable cannabis seeds must be carried out by persons registered with the DEA to do so. In addition, any USDA phytosanitary requirements that normally would apply to the importation of plant material will apply to the importation of industrial hemp seed.
Federal Crop Insurance Program. The federal crop insurance program makes available subsidized crop insurance to producers who purchase a policy to protect against individual farm losses in yield, crop revenue, or whole farm revenue. In general, policies offer a guarantee at the individual farm level or area-wide (e.g., county) level. The producer selects coverage level and absorbs the initial loss through the deductible. The insurance guarantee is based on the expected market price (i.e., no statutory minimum prices as in some farm programs).
Source: CRS from H.R. 2 and S. 3042.
21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.
See, for example, "Purdue University Industrial Hemp Initiative," NC-FAR Capitol Hill seminar, April 29, 2016.
In this report, cannabis refers to the plant species Cannabis sativa L and all of its industrial, medicinal, and recreational varieties. The terms industrial hemp and hemp are used interchangeably, and the term marijuana (or marihuana) refers to the plant used as a medicinal or recreational drug.
7 U.S.C. §5940(b)(2). In contrast, marijuanamarijuana ("marihuana") is defined at 21 U.S.C. §802.
R. C. Clarke and M. D. Merlin, Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013). A psychotrophic drug is capable of affecting mental activity, behavior, or perception and may be mood-altering.
Different developed varieties may be better suited for one use or the other. Cultivation practices also differ depending upon the variety planted. For more information, see CRS Report R44742, Defining "Industrial Hemp": A Fact Sheet.
For more background information, seeSee USDA, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000.
Some are promoting use of hemp as a rotational crop for use as an animal feed supplement (CRS communication with an Iowa cattle producer, February 28, 2016). See also B. Weaver, "Not Your Grandpa's Farm: Hemp Industry Faces Growing Pains in Colorado," The Tribune, October 1, 2016.
Some have suggested similarities between hempseed oil and hash oil. However, there is evidence suggesting differences regarding initial feedstock or input ingredients (hash oil requires high-THC marijuana, whereas hempseed oil uses low-THC industrial hemp), how they are produced (hash oil is extracted often using a flammable solvent, whereas hempseed oil is expeller-pressed or extracted mechanically, generally without chemicals or additives), and how they are used (hash oil is used as a psychoactive drug, whereas hempseed oil is used as an ingredient in hemp-based foods, supplements, and body care products). For more background information, contact the author of this report.
Virginia Industrial Hemp Coalition, "2015 Virginia Industrial Hemp Recommended Research Topics."
See, for example, M. H. Renfroe, "Investigation of Industrial Hemp for Oil and Biofuel Production in Virginia," Annual Report to Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, August 30, 2016.
HIA, "20152016 Annual Retail Sales for Hemp Products Estimated at $573688 Million," May 9, 2016April 14, 2017. The reported retail value of the U.S. hemp market is an estimate based on SPINS survey data, which tracks data and market trends on natural product industry sales. SPINS data do not track retail sales for Whole Foods Market, Costco, and other retail outlets that market hemp-based products, and the reported data has been adjusted. HIA adjusted SPINS-data upward to account for these gaps.
Seed CX, Ltd., "Overview of U.S. Hemp Seed Imports," 2016.
NC-FAR Capitol Hill seminar, April 29, 2016 ("Purdue University Industrial Hemp Initiative")Ibid. 15. R. Hansen, "Industrial Hemp," Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, July 2015.
IbidUSDA, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000.
University of Kentucky, Considerations for Growing Industrial Hemp: Implications for Kentucky's Farmers and Agricultural Economy, July 2013.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT crop data, http://faostat.fao.org/en. Does not include all producing countries, including Canada. Data are self-reportedJ. H. Cherney and E. Small, "Industrial Hemp in North America: Production, Politics, and Potential," Agronomy, vol. 6, no. 56 (2016).
IbidEuropean Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA), "Press Release: Record Cultivation in Industrial Hemp in Europe in 2016," May 4, 2017.
European Hemp Industry AssociationEIHA, "The European Hemp Industry," May 2016. Other producing countries include Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain.
For a list of countries, see National Hemp Association, "Countries Where Hemp Is Grown," http://nationalhempassociation.org/countries-where-hemp-is-grown/EIHA, "The European Hemp Industry," May 2016.
See, for example, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, "Grow Hemp," http://www.hemptrade.ca/grow-hemp.
See, for example, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, "Grow Hemp."
Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, "Health Canada Issues an Interim Class Exemption for Hemp," press release[?], November 22, 2016.
Ibid.Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, "Health Canada Issues an Interim Class Exemption for Hemp." See also Health Canada, "Notice to Industry" and "Section 56 Class Exemption in Relation to the Industrial Hemp Regulations," November 2016.
Estimates according to Vote HempVote Hemp, "Vote Hemp Releases 2017 U.S. Hemp Crop Report Documenting Industrial Hemp Cultivation and State Legislation in the U.S.," October 31, 2017.
See A. Crawford, "Kentucky's Industrial Hemp Program Expanding in Third Year," wkms.org, February 18, 2016.
33Hemp Industry Daily, Hemp State Highlight: Kentucky," March 1, 2018.
Hemp Industry Daily, "Hemp State Highlight: Tennessee," January 23, 2018.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, "Industrial Hemp Pilot Program, Registered Processors," accessed May 22, 2018, http://www.ncagr.gov/hemp/ProcessorsInfo.htm.
Hemp Industry Daily, "$3.2 Million Hemp Processing Plant in New York Gets State Funding," January 9, 2018.
See, for example, editions of USDA Agricultural Statistics. A compilation of U.S. government publications is available at http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html.
Regarding papermaking, see L. H. Dewey and J. L. Merrill, "Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material," USDA Bulletin No. 404, October 14, 1916.
CSA was enacted as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-513). For more information, see CRS Report R43749, Drug Enforcement in the United States: History, Policy, and Trends.
For farm bill information, see CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
Although not defined in the 2014 farm bill, the 2016 joint statement defines "institutions of higher education" according to the Higher Education Act of 1965, Section 101 of (20 U.S.C. §1001).
See, for example, comments made during a National Agricultural Law Center webinar, "Production of Industrial Hemp in the U.S.: Overview, Status, and Legal Issue," October 13, 2015.
81 Federal Register 156: 53395-53396, August 12, 2016; also DEA/USDA/FDA joint "Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp," August 2016.
P.L. 113-235, Division B, §539.
P.L. 114-113115-141, Division B, §543A, §729.
P.L. 114-113115-31, Division A, §773, and P.L. 115-141, Division A, §763729, respectively.
See, for example, S. 2956, §722 (114P.L. 115-31, §538, P.L. 113-235, Division B, §539; and P.L. 114-113, Division B, §543, respectively. 55. S. 1609, §204 (115th Congress).
H.R. 4660, §557 (113th Congress); H.R. 2578, §557 (114th Congress).
HIA, et al., v. DEA, et al., amicus brief of Members of the U.S. Congress, 9th Circuit, No. 17-70162, https://polis.house.gov/uploadedfiles/amicus_brief.pdf. This amicus brief was written by attorneys for Members of the U.S. Congress. The 9th Circuit ultimately dismissed the case in April 2018 on procedural grounds.
Information from the National Hemp Association at, http://nationalhempassociation.org/.
Resources for updated information include the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), "State Industrial Hemp Statutes," and the advocacy group Vote Hemp.
National Agricultural Law Center, "Production of Industrial Hemp in the U.S."
Ibid.; NCSL, state industrial hemp statutes.
Certified seed varieties are those proven to produce mature hemp plants with a THC below 0.3% in variety test plots across a range of climatic conditions. See, for example, Colorado Department of Agriculture, "Industrial Hemp: An Emerging Agricultural Crop in Colorado," February 2, 2016; and Oregon State University, Oregon Seed Certification Service, "Certification Standards: Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.), December 2014. Seed certification standards and procedures are generally based on national standards adopted for industrial hemp by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) and follow state guidelines for all other agricultural crops.
USDA, "Instruction: Organic Certification of Industrial Hemp Production," NOP 2040, August 23, 2016.
J. Murphy, "ASTM International Says Interest Is Growing for Cannabis Quality Standards," Food Chemical News, July 29, 2016. ASTM International is a voluntary standards developing organization.
Based on information collected in September 2015 provided by state analyst Brittany Dement.
Registration requirements are at 21 C.F.R. 823. DEA's registration procedures and applications are at http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/process.htm.
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture issued final regulations in 2007 on licensing hemp production.
See, for example, letter from North Dakota State University to DEA, July 27, 2007.
David Monson and Wayne Hauge v. Drug Enforcement Administration and United States Department of Justice, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, June 18, 2007.
University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, "Industrial Hemp—Legal Issues," September 2012M. Brown, "First License Issued to Montana Hemp Grower," Missoulian, October 27, 2009.
B. Bakst, "Minnesota to Go Slow on Industrial Hemp Pilot Project, Frustrating Farmers Eager to Grow Crop," Minneapolis Star Tribune, August 8, 2015.
M. Brown, "First License Issued to Montana Hemp Grower," Missoulian, October 27, 200966 Federal Register 51530, October 9, 2001.
National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Marijuana: Facts for Teens," http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-facts-teens/letter-to-teens21 U.S.C. §802 (19) and (20).
DEA, "DEA History in Depth," 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources68 Federal Register 14113, March 21, 2003.
HIA v. DEA, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004).
Despite the plain language of the statute supporting DEA's position, the ninth circuit ruled in 2004 that the DEA rules were impermissible under the statute and therefore ordered DEA to refrain from enforcing them. Subsequently, in 2006, another federal court of appeals (the eight circuit) took a different view, stating, as DEA had said in its rules: "The plain language of the CSA states that schedule I(c) includes 'any material ... which contains any quantity of THC' and thus such material is regulated."… Thus, the federal courts have expressed conflicting views regarding the legal status of cannabis derivatives.
HIA; Centuria Natural Foods, Inc.; and RMH Holdings, LLC v. DEA, Petition for Review, January 13, 2017. The DEA final rule is at 81 Federal Register 90194, December 14, 2016.
HIA, et al. v. DEA, Nos. 03-71336, 03-71603, February 6, 2017 (9th Circuit). For more information, see L. K. Houck and R. vanLaack, "Hemp Industries Association Seeks Contempt Against DEA; Alleges Violation of 2004 Hemp Order," FDA Law Blog, February 20, 2017.
DEA, "DEA Internal Directive Regarding the Presence of Cannabinoids in Products and Materials Made from the Cannabis Plant," May 22, 2018.
D. Shortt, "DEA Confirms It Cannot Regulate All Parts of the Cannabis Plant," Canna Law Blog, May 29, 2018.
Ibid. and other DEA published resources. DEA-cited court cases: New Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d I (1st Cir 2000); United States v. White Plume, supra; Monson v. DEA, 522 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. N.D. 2007), No. 07-3837 (8th Cir. 2007).
S. Raabe, "First Major Hemp Crop in 60 Years Is Planted in Southeast Colorado," Denverpost.com, May 13, 2013; also see E. Hunter, "Industrial Hemp in Colorado," presentation at the 2013 HIA conference, November 17, 2013.
R. Carleton, "Regulating Industrial Hemp: The Colorado Experience," presentation at the 2014 National Association of State Department of Agriculture winter meeting, February 3, 2013; and E. Hunter, "Industrial Hemp in Colorado," presentation at the 2013 HIA conference, November 17, 2013.
Letter from the governor and attorney general of the state of Colorado to Eric Holder Jr., U.S. Attorney General, November 13, 2012.
Letter from Joe Sandler, counsel for Vote Hemp, to interested parties, November 13, 2013.
Letter from the commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, November 13, 2013.
Letter from Representative Earl Blumenauer to Oregon Department of Agriculture and State Board of Agriculture officials, September 17, 2013.
Letter from S. Amanda Marshall, U.S. Attorney, District of Oregon, to Representative Earl Blumenauer, November 7, 2013.
Memorandum for all United States Attorneys from AG Jefferson B. Sessions regarding "Marijuana Enforcement," January 4, 2018. For more background, CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10054, Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Marijuana Enforcement: Possible Impacts.
HIA, "State Legalized Hemp Farming Programs Remain Legal Under Farm Bill," January 11, 2018; and "Hemp Industry Questions Whether Marijuana Memo Includes Hemp," Hagstrom Report, January 17, 2018.
21 U.S.C. 951 et seq. and 21 C.F.R. 1311.
Kentucky Department of Agriculture v. DEA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Justice Department, and Eric Holder (Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division), May 2014.
See, for example: J. Beckerman, "The Curious Legal Status of CBD & Industrial Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids," The Seminar Group webinar, September 13, 2016.
81 Federal Register 156: 53395-53396, August 12, 2016; also DEA/USDA/FDA joint "Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp," August 2016. The statement reads: "Section 7606 specifically authorized certain entities to "grow or cultivate" industrial hemp but did not eliminate the requirement under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act that the importation of viable cannabis seeds must be carried out by persons registered with the DEA to do so." For more information, see "2016 Joint "Statement of Principles" on Industrial Hemp".
NC-FAR Capitol Hill seminar, April 29, 2016 ("Purdue University Industrial Hemp Initiative").
81 Federal Register 156: 53395-53396, August 12, 2016; also DEA/USDA/FDA joint "Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp," August 2016. For more information, see CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1667, DEA Will Not Reschedule Marijuana, But May Expand Number of Growers of Research Marijuana.
For more information on marijuana's current status and on rescheduling, see CRS Report R43034, State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues, and CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1423, The Legal Process to Reschedule Marijuana.
For other related information, see J. A. Gilbert Jr. and L. K. Houck, "DEA Issues a Trifecta of Significant Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Decisions, Including Rejecting Rescheduling for Legitimate Medical Use," FDA Law Blog, August 12, 2016.
81 Federal Register 53395-53396, August 12, 2016.
21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.
Letter from several House and Senate Members of Congress to officials at DEA, USDA, and FDA, October 27, 2016; and HIA press releases, August 15 and August 17, 2016.
See, for example, HIA press releases, August 2016; and J. Beckerman, "The Curious Legal Status of CBD and Industrial Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids," The Seminar Group webinar, September 13, 2016.
Letter from House and Senate Members of Congress to DEA, USDA, and FDA officials, October 27, 2016.
See, for example, HIA press releases, August 2016; and Beckerman, "The Curious Legal Status of CBD."
J. B. Kahn, "Hemp ... Why Not?" Berkeley Electronic Press Legal Series, Paper 1930, 2007.
In 2014, funding for the program totaled $1.1 million, but no funding was requested for subsequent years.
As amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, Article 28.
Some studies have raised issues related to hemp production and cultivation on tribal lands. See, for example, A Review of Hemp as a Sustainable Agricultural Commodity: Tools and Recommendations for Winona LaDuke's Hemp Farm and Sovereign Native American Tribes, Task Force report by the University of Washington's Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, 2018; and J. S. Hipp and C.D. Duren, Regaining Our Future: An Assessment of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill, University of Arkansas School of Law, June 2017.
Prior to S. 3042, media reports indicated that S. 2667 was planned to be fast-tracked in the Senate through a procedural move (Rule 14), allowing the bill to skip over the committee process and go directly to the Senate floor for consideration. J. Carney, "Senate Fast-Tracks Bill Legalizing Hemp As Agriculture Product," The Hill, April 16, 2018.
Amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. §1621 et seq.) by adding "Subtitle G—Hemp Production" with a new statutory definition at section 297A and other program requirements.
As defined in Section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. §5304.
Additional recommendations to H.R. 3530 are noted in a March 2018 statement by the U.S. Hemp Roundtable.
As defined at 18 U.S.C. §1151 ("Indian country").
Required information would include the name of the person engaged in such authorized activity, the period of time authorized, and the specific location of authorized activity.
Previous versions of the bill have differed. Section 3 of the 2009 bill would apply when a state has an industrial hemp regulatory scheme, whereas the 2011 bills would apply whenever state law permits "making industrial hemp," which a state might do by exempting hemp making from its controlled substance regulatory scheme. Section 3 of the 2009 bill would have afforded state officials "exclusive authority" to construe the proposed hemp exclusion from the definition of marijuanamarihuana (amending 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(B)), whereas the 2011 bills would include within the proposed industrial hemp exclusion (amending 21 U.S.C. §802(57)) any industrial hemp grown or possessed in accordance with state law relating to making industrial hemp.
113th Congress (H.R. 525, S. 359); 114th Congress (H.R. 525, S. 134).
See, for example, B. Schreiner, "Senate Committee Approves Hemp Legislation," Associated Press, February 11, 2013; also Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, "Industrialized Hemp Will Help Spur Economic Growth and Create Jobs in Kentucky," press release, January 31, 2013, and S. Chase, "McConnell Lends His Voice to Industrial Hemp Legislation," Agri-Pulse, March 26, 2018.
For more information, see CRS Report R44742, Defining "Industrial Hemp": A Fact Sheet.
FDA, "Warning Letters and Test Results," https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm484109.htm.
Named after Charlotte Figi, who suffers from a rare pediatric seizure disorder and has reportedly experienced relief from seizures with this strain of medical marijuana that is high in CBD and low in THC.
S. 1333 and H.R. 5226 (114th Congress), and H.R. 2273 (113th Congress).
126FDA, "FDA Warns Companies Marketing Unproven Products, Derived from Marijuana, that Claim to Treat or Cure Cancer," November 1, 2017. See also FDA, "Warning Letters and Test Results for Cannabidiol-Related Products," https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm484109.htm. 146.
For more direct assistance on the role of CBD within U.S. drug industry, as regulated by the FDA, contact [author name scrubbed] ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed]) or [author name scrubbed] ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed]).
See, for example, PHYS.org, "Research on Industrial Hemp Continues to Progress," August 2015. See also "The Kentucky Department of Agriculture Industrial Hemp Pilot Projects—2014 Summary" (includes KDA CBD Project: "This project is focusing on the production of a very specific type of hemp to develop a nutritional supplement containing cannabidiol (CBD) and evaluate its health benefits").
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineNASEM, The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (Washington, DC: National Academies Press). See also J. E. Joy, S. J. Watson Jr., and J. A. Benson Jr., eds., Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, Institute of Medicine, 1999.
Opening statement of Senator Chuck Grassley, Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control Committee, June 24, 2015.
NASEM, The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research, January 2017.
See, for example, letter from the DOJ to Senator Feinstein, January 5, 2015; and letter from HHS to Senator Grassley, May 13, 2015. See also letter from DOJ to Senators Grassley and Feinstein, June 23, 2015comments submitted by the American Botanical Council to FDA on Rescheduling of Cannabis, Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1072, April 23, 2018.
See also H.R.1823 and S.776, Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act.
Press release by Senator Feinstein, "Feinstein, Grassley Announce New Federal Policy on Cannabidiol Research," June 23, 2015.
This section was written with contributions from [author name scrubbed] ([email address scrubbed]; [phone number scrubbed]), who handles issues regarding USDA's research programs.
Includes (1) "Research and Education to Enhance the Sustainability of Farming in Southwestern Colorado" (COL00615A) and (2) "Field Crop Testing and Management in Southwestern Colorado" (COL00615). The Hatch Act of 1887 provides for multistate research funding to conduct agricultural research programs at State Agricultural Experiment Stations across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.
Letter from NIFA director Ramaswamy to Eric Young, executive director of the Southern Association of Agriculture Experiment Station Directors, December 23, 2014.
"Specialty crops" are defined in statute as "fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and horticulture and nursery crops (including floriculture)" (7 U.S.C. §1621 note). Industrial hemp is considered among the "List of Ineligible Commodities" (http://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/scbgp/specialty-crop).
Letter from House and Senate Members of Congress to officials at DEA, USDA, and FDA, October 27, 2016.
Letter from NASDA to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Representative James Comer, May 8, 2018.
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, "Hemp…" September 8, 2017, and HIA, press release, September 13, 2017.
NASDA, "New Uses of Agricultural Products," 2010.
Agri-Pulse, "AFBF Delegates Fine Tune Policies on WOTUS, Embrace Hemp," January 14, 2015.
See, for example, J. Patton, "American Farm Bureau Calls for End to Federal Ban on Hemp Production," Lexington Herald-Leader, January 22, 2014; and Lane Report, "Farm Bureau Passes Policy Urging Removal of Industrial Hemp Classification as Controlled Substance," January 22, 2014.
North Dakota Farmers Union, "2010 Program of Policy and Action," p. 8.
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, "Policy 2010," pp. 6, 15-16, 24.
National Grange, "Legislative Policies" and "Hemp Policy."
North American Industrial Hemp Council, "Petition to Legalize Industrial Hemp," June 12, 2016.
CRS conversation with John Coleman, former DEA official, August 22, 2011.
Information and comments provided to CRS by Jeanette McDougal, National Alliance for Health and Safety, August 22, 2011, and March 26, 2017.

References: §7606
 §7606
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §178
 §3319
 §1621
 §7606
 §5940
 §802
 §1001
 §539
 §543
 §729
 §773
 §763729
 §722
 §538
 §539
 §543
 §204
 §557
 §557
 v. 
 v. 
 §802
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §301
 §1621
 §5304
 §1151
 §802
 §802
 §1621