By: RootSource Media,
For decades, industrial hemp policy has revolved around a single number: 0.3% THC.
That threshold has determined whether farmers harvest their crops or destroy them, whether genetics are considered compliant or illegal, and in many cases whether an industry can develop at all. Yet despite its influence, the 0.3% standard was never intended to be a universal agricultural rule. It originated as a scientific classification more than fifty years ago and gradually became embedded in regulation throughout North America and Europe. What began as a research reference eventually became legal doctrine.
Today, that doctrine is being challenged.
A recently published technical paper from Brazil, authored by researchers from Embrapa, Instituto Ficus, Embrapa leadership, and the Brazilian National Industrial Hemp Association, argues that Brazil should not automatically adopt the 0.3% THC threshold as the defining characteristic of industrial hemp. Instead, the authors recommend building regulations around agronomy, climate, genetics, economics, and intended use.
Brazil is not alone.
Around the world, governments, researchers, and industry are recognizing that hemp does not grow under identical conditions. Latitude, photoperiod, temperature, soil, rainfall, genetics, and crop management all influence plant development and cannabinoid expression. A cultivar developed in northern Europe or Canada may perform very differently in Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Peru, or Thailand. Treating one THC percentage as a universal biological boundary ignores the realities of agriculture and the diversity of growing environments.
As commercial hemp production matures, more countries are moving beyond the traditional 0.3% threshold. Argentina, Uruguay, Peru, Switzerland, New Zealand, and the Czech Republic have adopted or recognized 1% frameworks. Mexico has also established a 1% threshold, although its broader regulatory framework continues to evolve. Paraguay utilizes 0.5%, while South Africa recently established one of the world’s most progressive industrial hemp standards by allowing up to 2% THC for hemp grown for agricultural and industrial purposes. Discussions are also underway within the European Union about whether higher THC thresholds, including 0.5% or 1%, should be considered as experience and scientific understanding continue to grow.
South Africa’s decision deserves particular attention. Rather than forcing breeders and farmers into an artificially narrow compliance window, regulators adopted a framework that provides room for genetics to evolve, varieties to adapt to diverse climates, and farmers to produce crops with greater confidence. The result is a system that encourages breeding, supports agronomic development, reduces production risk, and minimizes the chance that otherwise valuable industrial crops are destroyed because of normal environmental variation. It gives the industry room to catch up, develop locally adapted genetics, and build a stronger agricultural foundation. That is regulation supporting industry development instead of standing in its way.
The Brazilian paper reaches many of the same conclusions. It warns that a rigid 0.3% threshold could increase production costs, reduce competitiveness, discourage breeding programs, and create unnecessary uncertainty, particularly in tropical production environments.
For many countries, moving from 0.3% to 1% is a logical next step. A 1% threshold recognizes biological variation while maintaining a clear distinction between industrial hemp and intoxicating cannabis. It reduces unnecessary crop destruction, supports breeding programs, encourages investment, and gives farmers, processors, and regulators greater certainty.
But even that should not be viewed as the finish line.
The bigger question is whether field THC should be the primary basis for regulating industrial hemp at all.
Agriculture has never regulated commodities this way. Corn is not regulated according to the sugar content of plants in the field. Soybeans are not regulated by measuring oil content before harvest. Cotton is not regulated according to fiber quality before it reaches the gin.
Industrial hemp should be no different.
The focus should shift from the standing crop to the products entering commerce.
Fiber should be regulated as an industrial fiber crop. Grain should be regulated through food and feed safety standards. Biomass should be regulated according to its intended industrial applications. Non-intoxicating cannabinoid ingredients should be governed by manufacturing, quality, and labeling requirements. Medicinal cannabis should continue under pharmaceutical standards, while intoxicating cannabinoid products should exist within their own regulatory framework.
In other words, regulation should be based on intended use and actual risk, not a cannabinoid measurement taken from a living plant.
That is what a fit-for-purpose regulatory model looks like.
For too long, industrial hemp has been regulated as though it were a single commodity. It isn’t. Hemp is now a feedstock serving dozens of industries, including food, feed, textiles, construction materials, paper, biomaterials, composites, bioplastics, animal nutrition, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and countless other industrial applications. Expecting one THC threshold to appropriately regulate every one of those industries no longer makes sense. As the industry matures, regulation should mature with it.
I’ve advocated for a 1% THC standard for more than a decade, not because 1% is a magic number, but because it is a practical improvement over an outdated standard that no longer reflects how hemp is grown around the world. Through presentations and policy discussions across North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia, I’ve consistently made the case that the long-term goal should not simply be a higher THC threshold. It should be regulation based on intended end use.
Encouragingly, that conversation is gaining momentum. Countries across Latin America, Africa, and Europe are beginning to recognize that regulations should reflect their own agricultural conditions rather than simply replicate models developed elsewhere. The Brazilian technical paper is another example of this evolution and an encouraging sign that policymakers are beginning to ask better questions.
The next generation of hemp policy should not be about replacing one arbitrary number with another. A move to 1% is a practical step that gives farmers, breeders, and processors more certainty while allowing industries to develop. But the real objective should be a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework built around intended use, proportional risk, sound science, and practical agriculture.
Industrial hemp is no longer a single crop serving a single market. It has become a platform for agriculture, manufacturing, food, construction, textiles, energy, health, and the broader bioeconomy. Its regulatory framework should evolve accordingly.
A 1% standard is the next step. Intended-use regulation is the destination.
That is where the global conversation is heading, and it is where industrial hemp policy should go next.
