By: RootSource Media Staff,
In 2018, Congress removed hemp from the federal Controlled Substances Act by setting a limit of 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill defined hemp and its derivatives under that threshold. This change created an entirely new agricultural and commercial sector encompassing fiber, grain, cannabinoids, and biobased innovation.
Today, that progress faces a turning point. Competing proposals in Congress would either redefine hemp narrowly as a low-THC industrial crop or regulate the full range of hemp-derived products for safety and transparency. The choice between restriction and regulation will shape the direction of the U.S. hemp industry for years to come.
The “Harris Language” and the Push to Redefine Hemp
Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) has introduced amendment language in the FY 2026 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would redefine hemp to exclude any product containing a “quantifiable” amount of THC or related cannabinoids such as THCA. The proposal also prohibits cannabinoids produced through conversion or synthesis.
Supporters claim the measure would close loopholes that allow intoxicating hemp products, such as delta-8 and high-THCA flower, to remain in the market without oversight. Opponents argue that the amendment is overly broad and would effectively eliminate lawful full-spectrum hemp products, undermining farmers, processors, and retailers who have operated in good faith since the 2018 Farm Bill.
If enacted, the Harris language would restrict the definition of hemp almost entirely to industrial fiber and grain, returning policy to a near prohibition model that predates 2018.
The Griffith and Wyden Bills: Regulating Instead of Banning
In contrast, Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) have proposed legislation that focuses on regulating hemp-derived cannabinoids rather than criminalizing them.
The Griffith bill establishes potency limits, packaging and labeling standards, testing requirements, and age restrictions. It explicitly prohibits additives such as caffeine, melatonin, or nicotine in hemp-derived consumables. The goal is to build an enforceable framework for adult-use hemp products while protecting consumers and maintaining industry viability.
The Wyden bill, known as the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act (CSRA), proposes a national regulatory structure that requires safety testing, traceability, and accurate labeling. It directs the FDA to oversee manufacturing standards and gives states the right to adopt stricter rules if desired. The CSRA also sets a federal minimum purchase age of 21 for hemp-derived cannabinoid products.
Both proposals recognize that the market for hemp cannabinoids exists and that banning it would not eliminate demand. Instead, they emphasize the need for transparent oversight and accountability.
Regulatory Collaboration and NIHC Recommendations
The National Industrial Hemp Council of America (NIHC) has advanced a regulatory framework known as Fit for Purpose, designed to assist the USDA in establishing differentiated rules for hemp grown for fiber, grain, and floral applications. This approach recognizes the distinct agronomic and processing needs of each sector and seeks to align regulations accordingly.
Under the NIHC’s Fit for Purpose model, hemp used for fiber and grain would be governed by USDA agricultural and trade standards, while floral and cannabinoid-producing hemp would follow science-based guidelines under FDA and USDA collaboration. This tiered regulatory structure would ensure that industrial hemp producers are not constrained by cannabinoid testing thresholds that are irrelevant to non-intoxicating markets.
In practice, Fit for Purpose offers a roadmap for practical oversight that strengthens U.S. competitiveness in international trade while maintaining consumer safety and transparency. It complements the Griffith and Wyden proposals by grounding policy in measurable outcomes rather than one-size-fits-all restrictions.
Key Considerations for Policymakers
Market stability and innovation: The Harris proposal could destabilize existing hemp markets, jeopardizing investments in farming, processing, and research. A regulatory model would preserve innovation and economic opportunity while addressing legitimate safety issues.
Consumer protection: Regulated frameworks like those in the Griffith, Wyden, and NIHC proposals establish testing, labeling, and product safety requirements that ensure consumer confidence and help prevent contaminated or mislabeled products from reaching the market.
Administrative clarity: The phrase “quantifiable amount of THC” in the Harris language leaves interpretation open to agencies, creating confusion and potential litigation. Regulatory bills provide measurable thresholds and standardized testing procedures.
State flexibility: The Wyden and NIHC frameworks allow states to maintain or strengthen their own rules. A prohibition-style amendment would preempt those state programs and create friction between state and federal policy.
Public health: Regulation can effectively restrict youth access and ensure product integrity without dismantling an entire agricultural sector. Prohibition cannot achieve that balance without causing broad economic harm.
A Balanced Path Forward
The United States has an opportunity to modernize hemp policy in a way that safeguards both consumers and commerce. A balanced regulatory approach with clear standards, verified testing, and responsible oversight can close genuine loopholes while preserving the progress achieved since 2018.
Sweeping redefinitions that erase entire categories of hemp products risk setting back the industry by a decade. The future of hemp should be governed by science, transparency, and smart regulation, not fear and overcorrection.
The next generation of hemp policy should empower farmers, protect consumers, and strengthen U.S. leadership in sustainable materials and agriculture. Regulation, not prohibition, is the path that can achieve all three.
