States Submit Final Comments To USDA On Hemp Rule
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s comment period on the Interim Final Rules on the Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program has closed, and state agriculture departments are sharing their submitted comments with constituents.
Comments submitted touched on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s involvement in testing, the time frame for testing THC levels, increasing the THC limit, and disposal of hemp that exceeds the acceptable THC levels.
Below is a summary of comments submitted by states on the days leading up to the end of the comment period.
Michigan, submitted on Jan. 29
MDARD’s comments document several concerns about the focus of the rule which leans heavily on references to the Controlled Substance Act, the involvement of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the presumption hemp will be non-compliant. MDARD encouraged USDA to evaluate typical hemp testing outcomes; specifically, the low THC range typically found and documented for non-compliant hemp and to relax the DEA emphasis in the rule.
Comments submitted also express concern about the economic impact the rule could have on Michigan growers if destruction is the only allowable option for hemp determined to exceed acceptable THC levels. MDARD urged USDA to work with DEA to re-evaluate the destruction only option and allow state flexibility for re-direction of non-compliant hemp to an appropriate market.
Lastly, MDARD encouraged USDA to allow the states some flexibility in determining a realistic timeframe for sampling, testing and harvesting as opposed to the 15-day window mandated in the rule. Factors including, weather, temperature and acreage could all impact hemp harvesting activities and must be considered when determining an appropriate window of time for harvest completion.
Colorado, submitted on Jan. 29
The feedback from the state points to significant concerns with the interim final rule, which include concerns about the negligence threshold for crops that go over the THC limit, overly restrictive disposal requirements, burdensome sampling protocol, and the unnecessary requirement of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registered labs to test an agricultural crop.
“We want to unleash this industry to grow and innovate. The proposed interim final rule, as currently written, does not support best practices in hemp production at a critical time in the development of this important industry,” said Governor Jared Polis.
Vermont, submitted on Jan. 27
The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets acknowledged the complexity of developing a national hemp production program, but asked USDA to revise its rule to stay within the federal statutory mandate and avoid creating unnecessary restrictions that significantly increase costs and risks to producers.
VAAFM commented on the interim final rule’s untenable negligence standard that exclusively relies on THC potency test results without evaluating producer culpability, no opportunity for remediation of crops exceeding a strict 0.3% THC standard, the rule’s restrictive sampling and testing procedures, and other miscellaneous issues.
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, submitted on Jan. 29
NASDA is concerned that in several key areas the rule either lacks clarity or fails to provide the flexibility many states will need to meet the federal requirements in a way that best facilitates the development of hemp production. At least 30 states reported to NASDA that they will have to revise their own laws or regulations to comply with one or more of the requirements promulgated by the rule. Thus, it is important that these states have a clear understanding of the ways they may meet the new federal standards. Without some flexibility, NASDA fears the rule could exacerbate competitive differences between these states and hamper the growth of the U.S. industry.
All comments submitted by organizations, associations or individuals can be viewed at Regulations.gov.
— Ana Olvera, Cannabis Product News and Hemp Production News