Belushi’s Farm Segues Into CBD Market

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on September 13th with a new statement from NIHC.

Assembly Bill 45, a recently amended California hemp bill backed by Governor Gavin Newsom, has passed the state legislature and is now on the governor’s desk to sign the bill.

The latest amendments to the bill were intended to remove one of its most controversial aspects: a ban on smokable hemp.

But even with its most recent amendments, the bill has been heavily criticized by several industry organizations, including the National Industrial Hemp Council (NIHC), the California-based Hemp Farmers Guild, and the California Hemp Coalition.

Critics of the bill say its language is gloomy at best. And while the recent changes eliminated the mention of the ban on “smokable” hemp, they replaced it with language that, by some interpretations, could mean almost the same thing.

“The manufacture or sale of inhalable products is prohibited. The manufacture of inhalation products for the sole purpose of sale in other countries is not prohibited, ”says the draft law, which does not contain any further definition of“ inhalation products ”.

“We cannot say whether“ inhalable ”also includes“ smokable ”because there is no definition,” says Josh Schneider, President of the Hemp Farmers’ Guild and CEO of Cultivaris Hemp.

READ MORE: Smokable Hemp Ban Removed From California Bill

It’s not the only aspect of the bill that could cause confusion in the state’s industry, say Scheider and other industry organizations. The bill contains several other issues that the NIHC has found harming the state’s farmers and costing the California economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

“The bill is so poorly worded and so imprecise and imprecise that I think it will bring lawsuits like crazy,” says Schneider.

Smoking hemp in question

Despite the bill saying that “inhalable products” are banned in the state – unless they are made for sale outside the state – regulations for inhalable products are later set. Some of these include an age limit of 21 or older for those who can buy inhalable products, as well as bans on what those products can contain (such as vitamin E acetate or flavorings).

“This article will come into force on the date of the entry into force of a legislative measure that establishes a tax on inhalable products and expresses the legislature’s intention to meet the requirements of this section,” the bill reads.

Schneider says he is interpreting the bill, with the help of lawyers, to prevent inhalable products from being sold until lawmakers set a tax rate on those products. The bill does not provide a timetable for tax implementation.

“California treats [hemp] than THC cannabis and will force it through this system, ”says Schneider.

THC limits redefined

Schneider says AB 45 not only requires additional testing for hemp, it also implements tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) limits that are stricter than those used at the federal level.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the Farm Bill 2018) defines hemp as any part of the cannabis plant “with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of no more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis”.

The US Department of Agriculture’s final rule requires that hemp be tested for “total THC” content, which is defined as delta-9-THC plus tetrahydrocannabolic acid (THCA), before harvest.

However, AB 45 says that the total THC in the end products must not exceed 0.3% THC – a stricter requirement than the 0.3% delta-9 THC limit required for end products by the farm bill.

“This sets an unsatisfactory standard for final form products that is much stricter than federal law,” says Schneider. “Even if we were allowed to sell smokable hemp, if that were the standard, no one would be able to do so. … Under AB 45 you have to ship it out of the state, period. “

In addition, the law also appears to “ban the sale of most whole-plant hemp products, despite the fact that they are not subject to abuse, controlled substances, and not banned under federal law,” according to a written analysis by NIHC.

The organization writes: “11920 (l) appears to define ‘THC or equivalent cannabinoid’ to include THCA and any other cannabinoids that the department deems necessary for inclusion, with the exception of CBD; while 11921 (a) (1) appears to prohibit the sale of end products containing hemp extract that exceeds 0.3% THC, as defined above. Since most whole plant extracts and infusions contain non-impairing cannabinoids such as THCA, CBG, CBC, etc. in concentrations greater than 0.3% (as well as extracts from smaller cannabinoids), products made from them would be banned from sale even though they comply with federal law , which stipulates that products must not contain more than 0.3% [delta-]9-THC. “

Where hemp and cannabis collide

AB 45 also states: “On or before July 1, 2022, the department will prepare a report to the Governor and Legislature describing the steps required to ensure the inclusion of hemp cannabinoids in the cannabis industry. Enable supply chain. The report covers, among other things, the inclusion of hemp cannabinoids in manufactured cannabis products and the sale of hemp products to cannabis retailers. “

“It seems to be delivering the entire system into the hands of the THC pharmacies,” says Schneider.

Bill attracts criticism

The US Hemp Roundtable industry organization was a major proponent of the bill, and the organization’s General Counsel, Jonathan Miller, recently expressed enthusiasm for the bill being passed.

“After more than three years of stops and starts and difficult negotiations, the era of the CBD ban in California will soon be over,” Miller said in a press release. “Dealers and product manufacturers no longer have to fear embargoes and product confiscations. Consumers will have access to products that promote their health and wellbeing. Most importantly, California hemp growers will see plenty of opportunity for their crops as the country’s largest wellness market is now up for sale. “

But the bill, which opponents say contains several other confusing and controversial issues, has been criticized by a number of other organizations.

READ MORE: California Hemp Association is pushing for proposed flower ban

“The California Hemp Coalition and our members have sent letters to all members of the California Legislature informing them that AB-45 is a bill that can be passed without any action or consultation with us or any California hemp farmers, businessmen, workers and consumers, that we know, ”reads a press release from the organization. “It’s largely a creation of paid lobbyists from the marijuana industry, major CBD marketing companies outside of the state, and some politicians who are either mistaken or ignorant. The AB-45 bill is so bad that it can no longer be changed or improved. “

After Newsom recently expressed support for the bill, it is expected to be passed.

AB 45 contains an emergency provision, which means that it comes into force as soon as the governor signs it.

“…[T]The bans appear to be in effect immediately, causing serious damage this season for the many California farmers who have invested their effort and money in growing a smokable hemp plant for the California market, only to find out shortly before harvest that the plants they are planted for sale in the world’s largest market for their products are now suddenly to be banned there, ”writes NIHC. “That raises serious questions of legality, not to mention fairness.”

Despite his criticism, NIHC spokesman Larry Farnsworth said in a written statement that California “should be commended for recognizing a regulatory framework for hemp and hemp products and for taking action when the FDA has not done the same with CBD”.

“Our concern was and always is to represent all facets of our industry in order to create a hemp economy that works for everyone. While this is a win for the hemp industry as a whole, farmers lose out on this legislation, “Farnsworth said in the statement. “The NIHC believes this is a relatively straightforward solution if California state lawmakers make it a priority to develop the tax structure so that smokable hemp can be sold.” We are ready to work with the State of California on a policy to protect farmers and ultimately give consumers a choice in how they consume hemp. “

Schneider says some farmers he works with no longer plan to harvest their crops because the future of the market is unclear.

“We have no idea what the legislative intent really is. The last thing farmers can handle is a lot of fines on top of their already thin margins, ”says Schneider. “I think it definitely poses a question mark about the future of growing hemp flower in California.”

source https://www.bisayanews.com/2021/09/16/belushis-farm-segues-into-cbd-market/