November 1, 2026
What’s Happening to Hemp?
Understanding the New Federal Law
By Allison Justice, PhD | The Hemp Mine & The Cannabis Research Coalition | South Carolina
Our Family Was There at the Beginning
Our family’s story in hemp began with my mother, Deborah Justice, who was among the first 20 farmers selected to grow hemp in South Carolina in 2018. This led me to move back home and join the effort after working in the medical cannabis market in California for several years following graduate school. At the time, the state was operating a pilot program that allowed only 20 licensed farmers to cultivate up to 20 acres each. The following year, the program expanded to 40 growers, with permits allowing up to 40 acres each.
We were part of an entirely new agricultural industry. Hemp offered American farmers an opportunity to diversify their crops, build businesses, and participate in a market that had been inaccessible for decades. As more states opened their doors to cultivation, the industry expanded rapidly.
In the early years, hemp production was largely centered on agriculture. Participation was limited to permitted growers, creating an early market with relatively few producers and significant opportunity for those able to enter. There was money to be made as demand grew and supply remained limited. Farmers grew the crop, harvested flower and biomass, and sold their harvest in bulk to processors, manufacturers, and other businesses. Some focused on producing high-quality flower, while others supplied raw material for extraction and further processing.
But as cultivation expanded nationwide, the economics changed dramatically. In the early years, a liter of crude hemp extract could sell for more than $5,000. Within roughly two years, prices had fallen below $500 per liter. Today, crude can be purchased for a few hundred dollars. Supply outpaced demand, the market became saturated, and the value of bulk biomass collapsed. In some cases, farmers struggled to give their harvest away.
Farmers had to adapt. Selling raw flower or bulk extract was no longer enough to sustain many businesses, so companies began developing value-added products such as tinctures, gummies, capsules, and topicals. That transition required substantial investment. Farmers who had focused on growing plants suddenly needed expertise in formulation, manufacturing, laboratory testing, packaging, marketing, distribution, and regulatory compliance.
Many farmers and companies did not survive. The industry grew quickly, but it also suffered significant losses as supply increased, prices collapsed, and regulatory uncertainty made it harder for businesses to find their footing. The Hemp Mine grew through this period of change. We continued investing in agriculture, breeding, research, and product development because we believed hemp deserved a lasting place in American farming.
When the Law Overlooked the Science (via. The 2018 Farm Bill)
As the industry developed, a deeper understanding of cannabinoids and the chemistry thereof exposed a fundamental problem: whoever wrote the Farm Bill obviously did not understand what they created.
The 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp by defining it in part through a threshold of no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. That distinction was central to legalization, but it also raised questions about how cannabinoids should be measured and how the law should apply to finished products.
Understanding THC and THCA
To understand laws one must first be able to understand the science. THCA is the acidic precursor to delta-9 THC. This is the form in which it occurs naturally in cannabis flower and converts to delta-9 THC through decarboxylation, particularly when exposed to heat. This is why smoking or vaporizing cannabis can produce intoxicating effects but eating a raw flower will not.
Under the original federal definition, the threshold specifically referred to delta-9 THC and did not expressly include THCA in the same calculation. This distinction helped create a market for high-THCA flower. A laboratory certificate of analysis (COA) could report less than 0.3% delta-9 THC while the flower contained substantial THCA. It is literally the same high THC flower sold in state-regulated cannabis markets, even though its federal classification was different.
Let’s be honest about one thing: the human body does not care whether delta-9 THC came from a plant legally classified as hemp or one legally classified as marijuana. Delta-9 THC is the same molecule; its chemistry does not change because the plant has a different legal classification.
Scientifically, the distinction between delta-9 THC and THCA is real. The controversy arose over how the original law used that distinction and whether it adequately accounted for the intoxicating potential of products containing high concentrations of THCA.
How Edibles Exposed a Gap in the Definition
The Farm Bill defined hemp, in part, as cannabis containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. Consider a gummy weighing five grams. Five grams equals 5,000 milligrams, and 0.3% of that weight is 15 milligrams:
5,000 mg × 0.003 = 15 mg
For context, 10 mg is the maximum THC serving size in many regulated adult-use cannabis markets, although serving limits vary by state. A 15 mg amount can be intoxicating, particularly for an inexperienced consumer. This calculation illustrates how a percentage measured against the total weight of a product can translate into a meaningful amount of THC; it is not, by itself, a determination that a finished product qualifies as hemp under every applicable legal requirement.
As businesses developed concentrated extracts and formulated them into finished products, questions about serving size, potency, labeling, and intoxicating effects became increasingly important. Companies also began selling delta-8 THC and other cannabinoids, including compounds produced through chemical conversion. Their emergence intensified concerns about consumer safety, age restrictions, manufacturing practices, and how far the original law was intended to reach.
We do not believe this history can be reduced to a simple story of right versus wrong. The original statutory language left room for interpretation, scientific understanding continued to evolve, and businesses developed products based on interpretations they believed were consistent with the law.
This raises an important question: Should an industry be expected to operate according to what lawmakers may have intended, or according to what the actual statutory language, mathematics, and scientific evidence support? Hemp is an agricultural crop with complex chemistry, and its cannabinoid profile can change throughout the plant's development and through subsequent processing. As the industry evolved, new products and processing methods emerged that were not necessarily anticipated when the original law was written.
Regulators and lawmakers were then faced with determining how existing definitions should apply to an increasingly diverse industry. But rather than allowing scientific evidence and practical agricultural experience to inform that process, the resulting debate often centered on how broadly the original definition should be interpreted. The distinction matters. Laws regulating an agricultural crop should account for the biology of the plant, the science behind its chemistry, and the realities of how products are cultivated, processed, and manufactured.
Not All Hemp Products Are About Getting High
Intoxicating products have become a major part of the hemp-derived cannabinoid market. Whitney Economics estimated the total addressable U.S. hemp-derived cannabinoid market at $38.7 billion in 2026. That estimate includes both intoxicating and non-intoxicating products, so it should not be mistaken for the size of the intoxicating market alone.
But another side of this industry is often lost in the debate: not everyone buying hemp products is looking to get high, and a product containing THC is not automatically intoxicating at its intended serving size.
At The Hemp Mine, we have produced and sold thousands of full-spectrum tinctures over the past eight years. These products contain THC but are formulated with the intention of providing a non-intoxicating experience at their intended serving sizes. Customers have shared that they incorporate these products into their daily routines, including in connection with symptoms associated with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, sleep difficulties, and seizures.
We are not claiming that these products cure disease, and we recognize that customer experiences are not a substitute for clinical evidence. But these customers exist, their experiences matter, and their reasons for purchasing hemp products deserve to be understood rather than dismissed.
Part of this conversation requires understanding what makes a full-spectrum extract different from an isolated cannabinoid. Full-spectrum extracts retain a range of naturally occurring plant compounds, potentially including CBD, CBG, THC, other minor cannabinoids, and terpenes. An isolate, by contrast, contains a single purified compound. Think of an orange compared with isolated vitamin C. The vitamin is present in the fruit, but the fruit contains much more than that one compound. Similarly, a full-spectrum extract preserves a broader range of the plant's chemistry rather than reducing it to one isolated constituent.
Scientific research has demonstrated biological and pharmacological effects from cannabis extracts containing multiple plant compounds. Studies have also investigated how combinations of cannabinoids and other compounds, including terpenes, may influence those effects. Some research has reported differences in the activity of complex extracts compared with individual cannabinoids, supporting the importance of studying the plant's broader chemical composition. The concept commonly referred to as the entourage effect describes the possibility that these compounds interact in ways that influence their overall effects. Although the extent, consistency, and clinical significance of these interactions remain under investigation, full-spectrum extracts are not simply interchangeable with isolated cannabinoids. They are chemically different preparations with their own pharmacological properties and deserve to be studied as such.
It is also important to understand that ALL hemp plants naturally produce some THC. The presence of THC-related compounds in a finished product does not, by itself, mean a manufacturer added an intoxicating ingredient. The final cannabinoid profile depends on the cultivar, the maturity of the plant, and how the material is extracted, purified, concentrated, and formulated.
The distinction becomes even clearer when comparing full-spectrum products with those marketed as THC-free. CBD isolate and THC-free extracts undergo additional processing and purification to remove THC and other compounds. The absence of THC in the finished product does not mean the original plant was incapable of producing it. Compounds removed during processing may also be further purified and used as ingredients in other formulations, including products designed to be intoxicating. In other words, the plant is the starting point, but manufacturing determines much of what ultimately reaches the consumer.
These distinctions matter because broad federal restrictions reach beyond the intoxicating segment of the market. Over the past eight years, Americans have built businesses, developed products, invested in manufacturing, and incorporated hemp into their lives. Restricting access has consequences for farmers, small businesses, manufacturers, researchers, and consumers.
Those consequences are especially concerning in states without medical cannabis programs, where hemp-derived products may represent one of the few available avenues for adults seeking access to cannabinoids. Concerns about intoxicating products deserve serious attention, and consumers should have access to properly tested, accurately labeled products with appropriate safeguards. Regulation should distinguish between products with different compositions, intended uses, and potential risks. Sweeping restrictions that fail to make those distinctions risk taking products away from people who are not looking to get high, while also limiting opportunities to study the broader chemistry of the hemp plant.
How Section 781 Changed the Federal Definition of Hemp
On November 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Public Law 119-37, a federal funding package that included Section 781, a provision that changes the federal definition of hemp. Although the hemp language was included in a larger piece of legislation rather than considered as a standalone hemp bill, its repercussions could be far-reaching for the industry.
Senator Mitch McConnell was a prominent supporter of the 2018 Farm Bill provisions that legalized hemp and later became a leading advocate for narrowing the definition. That shift is consequential for an industry that developed around the original statutory language.
The stated objective of the revised law was to address intoxicating products that had emerged under the existing definition. However, the changes reach beyond a narrow category of products. Most of the changes were initially scheduled to take effect on November 12, 2026; Congress subsequently delayed implementation until December 11, 2026, providing additional time to assess the consequences.
What the New Law Means for Hemp Farmers and Businesses
Agricultural compliance is not the same as product legality
USDA hemp production rules govern how licensed growers produce and test their crops. Under the applicable USDA methodology, pre-harvest compliance testing accounts for total THC, including THCA, and sampling generally occurs within 30 days before anticipated harvest.
Section 781 revises the federal definition of hemp and adds separate exclusions and limits affecting certain hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Other federal and state requirements may also apply to processing, labeling, transportation, and retail sales.
This creates a practical uncertainty for growers: if a crop passes the required pre-harvest test but its composition changes before harvest or its flower does not qualify under the revised federal definition, what can the farmer legally do with it? Clear guidance is needed on how production compliance interacts with transportation, processing, and sale.
New THC limits affect hemp flower and finished products
The new law establishes a limit of 0.4 milligrams per container for certain final hemp-derived cannabinoid products, based on the specified combined amount of total THC and other cannabinoids with similar effects. It also revises the definition of hemp to expressly include THCA in the calculation of total THC, rather than relying solely on delta-9 THC. This is a significant departure from the original definition and changes the legal distinction that enabled the market for high-THCA flower.
Perhaps most consequentially, the law appears to virtually eliminate the ability to sell hemp flower (CBD-dominant) directly to consumers by treating flower marketed or sold in that manner as an intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid product. At the same time, the revised definition applies the 0.3% total THC threshold, including THCA, to hemp. For the past eight years, farmers have demonstrated compliance through testing conducted within 30 days before anticipated harvest. This established testing window has allowed farmers to grow and harvest crops that meet the required threshold at the designated testing point, even though cannabinoid concentrations usually continue to change as plants mature.
The new definition raises an important question: will the 0.3% total THC threshold now apply to flower throughout its life cycle, including at full maturity and after harvest, rather than being evaluated at the established pre-harvest testing point? If so, many cultivars that have been legally grown and sold under the existing production framework could no longer qualify as hemp. Combined with restrictions on direct-to-consumer flower sales, this could leave farmers with fewer viable sales channels, potentially limiting them to selling through processors, if those markets remain available. For many small farms, this could fundamentally change the economics of production and make growing hemp flower financially unsustainable.
For context, 0.3% THC is equivalent to 3 milligrams per gram. That figure should not be confused with the separate 0.4 milligram-per-container limit for certain finished products. They apply to different measures and different stages of the supply chain.
Seeds, Genetics, and the Future of Hemp Breeding
The reason viable seeds were specifically addressed in Section 781 is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of cannabis genetics and plant chemistry under the original federal definition. Cannabis seeds, whether they come from plants that produce high-THC or low-THC flower, generally test well below the 0.3% total THC threshold. Under the original 2018 Farm Bill definition, this created a pathway for viable seeds from high-THC cannabis varieties to be classified as hemp and transported across state lines, even though the mature plants they would produce could exceed the federal hemp threshold. Section 781 attempts to close this gap by tying the eligibility of viable seeds to the total THC concentration of the source plant, including THCA, rather than the cannabinoid content of the seed itself. This change, however, creates a new set of challenges for hemp breeders and seed producers, particularly when determining when and how the source plant's THC concentration must be measured.
Seeds are not just another product for The Hemp Mine and other breeding programs. They are the starting point for future cultivars, agricultural research, and the traits farmers depend on, including cannabinoid profile, flowering time, disease resistance, yield, and adaptation to local growing conditions.
Section 781 excludes viable seeds from the definition of hemp if they come from a Cannabis sativa L. plant whose total THC concentration, including THCA, exceeds 0.3% on a dry-weight basis. This does not mean every cannabis seed automatically becomes illegal in every circumstance, but it makes the THC classification of the source plant critical for seed producers, breeders, and businesses that preserve, sell, or exchange genetics.
For hemp breeders, this creates a significant practical concern. Many CBD cultivars may test below the 0.3% total THC threshold at the required pre-harvest testing stage but exceed it as the plants continue to mature. In our breeding experience, plants that test between 0.1% and 0.3% total THC during pre-harvest testing may reach 0.5% to 0.8% by full maturity. Based on our experience and conversations with breeders, we estimate that more than 90% of CBD hemp genetics may fail to meet this threshold if evaluated at full maturity. Many CBG varieties, by comparison, remain below the threshold, although consumer demand for CBG products remains more limited.
This raises a critical unanswered question: At what point in a plant's development will THC concentration be assessed to determine seed eligibility? USDA production rules generally require sampling within 30 days before anticipated harvest, but Section 781 does not specify in its seed exclusion when or how the source plant's THC concentration must be established. If a plant qualifies at pre-harvest testing but exceeds the threshold at full maturity, could seeds from that plant still be sold and used for future breeding? The answer could have major consequences for seed production, genetic preservation, and the availability of genetics for future growing seasons.
After eight years of commercial hemp production, why are policymakers not asking the people who grow and breed these plants how they actually perform? If lawmakers want to understand the practical consequences of a new definition of hemp, they should consult the industry that has spent years developing and evaluating commercial varieties. Academic research also provides a valuable resource, with studies examining cannabinoid development and changes in cannabinoid concentrations across cultivars as plants mature. Regulations that fail to account for this real-world experience and scientific evidence risk excluding the vast majority of existing CBD genetics without adequately considering how these plants behave under actual growing conditions.
For example, the data below are from The Hemp Mine’s commercial cultivar catalog from 2021. Of the CBD-dominant cultivars shown, only one remained below the 0.3% total THC threshold at full maturity (8 weeks). We named this cultivar ‘Luck’ because developing a CBD cultivar that remained compliant through full maturity was, quite literally, a matter of luck. In our experience growing thousands of cultivars over the years, this is a rare occurrence among CBD-dominant genetics. CBG-dominant varieties, by contrast, are generally much more likely to remain compliant through maturity. For reference, eight weeks is considered an average flowering period for many cannabis varieties, making compliance at full maturity particularly relevant to commercial production.
There are also unanswered questions about verification and cost. Who will be responsible for confirming the genetic identity and THC profile of seed-source plants? Who will pay for the testing and documentation? Will the new rules create additional burdens for farmers and breeders without a clear, workable verification system?
Clear guidance is needed on seed eligibility, testing timelines, documentation, interstate commerce, and the treatment of research and breeding programs. Without it, breeders may face uncertainty about which genetics they can legally preserve, exchange, and develop, potentially narrowing the genetic diversity available to the future hemp industry.
We understand the goal: to prevent high-THC cannabis varieties from being classified as hemp and shipped across the country without regulation. But in trying to solve that problem, lawmakers failed to understand the science of the plant, again. The result is legislation that threatens to undo eight years of agricultural development and breeding progress, potentially eliminating valuable hemp genetics and setting the industry back years.
Which Cannabinoids Will Still Qualify as Hemp?
Section 781 excludes certain hemp-derived cannabinoid products based on whether their cannabinoids can naturally occur in the cannabis plant and whether they were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant. These provisions could affect products containing synthetic cannabinoids, as well as cannabinoids that can occur naturally but are produced outside the plant rather than extracted from it. The law also establishes separate limits for THC and certain cannabinoids with similar effects.
Rather than naming every affected cannabinoid individually, the law directs the FDA, in consultation with other federal agencies, to publish lists identifying naturally occurring cannabinoids, naturally occurring THC-class cannabinoids, and other cannabinoids with effects similar to THC or marketed as having similar effects.
Congress required these lists within 90 days of the law's enactment in November 2025. However, as of October 28, 2026, the FDA had not published them. With the new restrictions approaching, the absence of this guidance leaves farmers, manufacturers, and retailers facing continued uncertainty about which cannabinoids and products will qualify as hemp under the revised definition.
South Carolina’s Missed an Opportunity to Regulate Hemp
For years, South Carolina's hemp industry has called for clear regulations governing hemp-derived consumer products. The past legislative session presented an important opportunity for the state to establish a framework that prioritized consumer safety while recognizing the economic role of an emerging industry. South Carolina could have established clear standards for age limits, testing, labeling, packaging, licensing, and reasonable potency and serving sizes, giving consumers better information and businesses a more predictable regulatory environment.
That opportunity came through House Bill 3924, introduced in February 2025. The bill passed the House in 2025 and the Senate in March 2026, but the chambers could not agree on a final version. A conference committee was appointed to resolve those differences. On June 25, 2026, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 27 to 11, but the House rejected it, 28 to 69. As a result, the bill failed, and South Carolina did not enact a comprehensive state regulatory program for these products.
Instead, businesses remain subject to applicable federal requirements and existing state laws, without the additional state regulatory framework lawmakers had considered. This represents a missed opportunity for consumer protection and for the state's economy. A March 2026 FOX Carolina report cited an estimated $1.5 billion in annual economic impact from South Carolina's broader hemp and THC market. This is an industry estimate, not an audited measure of hemp-only agricultural revenue.
Looking Ahead: The Future of American Hemp
December 11, 2026, is the next critical date for most of the revised federal definition of hemp. Unless Congress takes further action, the new restrictions will take effect as scheduled. The delay provides additional time for lawmakers and the industry to consider alternatives, but it does not repeal the underlying law.
We will continue evaluating our products, monitoring federal developments, and determining how to adapt while complying with applicable law. We will also continue advocating for a regulatory approach that recognizes the difference between legitimate agricultural production and the specific products lawmakers intended to address.
Our family entered this industry when hemp cultivation was just beginning in South Carolina. We have watched it expand, mature, struggle, and reinvent itself. We have also watched family farms lose their footing as oversaturation, shifting market conditions, and poorly considered licensing decisions made it increasingly difficult to remain profitable. Through those changes, we have continued investing in the plant, the science, and the people who make this industry possible.
We believe American farmers should have the opportunity to grow hemp, develop new cultivars, conduct research, and build legitimate businesses under clear and consistent rules. We believe consumers should have safe access to a range of hemp products, including full-spectrum options. We did not build The Hemp Mine because we expected the path to be easy. We built it because we believe in agriculture, innovation, and the potential of this plant.
If Section 781's revised definition of hemp remains unchanged, the industry as we know it will be fundamentally transformed. This is not simply a matter of adjusting product formulations or changing how businesses operate. It could determine which farmers can continue growing hemp, which genetics remain commercially viable, and which businesses can afford to stay in the marketplace. Independent breeders and family farms that spent years developing cultivars, building markets, and investing in this crop could find themselves pushed out, while production becomes increasingly concentrated among large agricultural operations and corporations with the resources to navigate a more restrictive regulatory landscape. Consumers could also lose access to the diversity of hemp-derived products that helped build this market, particularly full-spectrum options, as the industry shifts toward a narrower range of products centered on isolated cannabinoids. The consequences will reach far beyond the products on store shelves. They will affect farms, family businesses, jobs, agricultural research, and the future of American hemp.
For years, farmers, breeders, researchers, and small businesses have invested their time, money, and livelihoods in building this industry. They took a chance on an agricultural crop, developed new markets, created jobs, and helped establish an industry that reaches consumers across the country. Their work should not be discarded through legislation that fails to account for the realities of the plant or the people whose livelihoods depend on it.
The future of American hemp should not be decided without the people who grow it, study it, manufacture it, and depend on it. Behind every regulation are real farms, real businesses, real families, and years of investment and hard work. They deserve more than an afterthought. They deserve a voice in determining the future of an industry they helped build.
Sources and further reading
Public Law 119-37, Section 781, official text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ37/html/PLAW-119publ37.htm
Congressional Research Service, “Changes to the Statutory Definition of Hemp and Implications for Agricultural Policy,” updated September 28, 2026: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF13136.html
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Hemp Program FAQs: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/hemp/frequently-asked-questions-faq
7 CFR § 990.26, Producer responsibilities after sampling and testing: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/990.26
South Carolina Daily Gazette, “SC needs hemp regulations that protect businesses and customers,” January 15, 2026: https://scdailygazette.com/2026/01/15/sc-needs-a-hemp-regulation-law-that-protects-businesses-and-customers/
WIS News 10, “South Carolina lawmakers fail to reach deal on hemp regulation,” June 25, 2026: https://www.wistv.com/2026/06/25/south-carolina-lawmakers-fail-reach-deal-hemp-regulation/
South Carolina Legislature Online, H. 3924 (2025–2026), including legislative history and June 25, 2026 conference-report actions: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/3924.htm
Whitney Economics, 2026 U.S. Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Market Report (market estimate referenced above): https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/hemp/news/15834487/whitney-economics-releases-us-hemp-cannabinoid-report-for-2026
FOX Carolina (syndicated by WTOC), “ ‘Absolute roller coaster’: SC hemp industry braces for THC decision at Statehouse,” March 17, 2026: https://www.wtoc.com/2026/03/19/absolute-roller-coaster-sc-hemp-industry-braces-statehouse-decision-thc/
South Carolina Daily Gazette, “SC law enforcement officials ask legislators not to legalize THC hemp products,” February 10, 2026: https://scdailygazette.com/2026/02/10/sc-law-enforcement-officials-ask-legislators-not-to-legalize-thc-hemp-products/