Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
June 25, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32725


Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Summary
Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that is cultivated for use in the production of a wide
range of products, including foods and beverages, cosmetics and personal care products, and
nutritional supplements, as well as fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, construction
and insulation materials, and other manufactured goods. Hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or
other dual-purpose crop. Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than
25,000 products. Precise data are not available on the size of the U.S. market for hemp-based
products. Current industry estimates report that annual U.S. retail sales of all hemp-based
products were $581 million in 2013.
Hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana. Although
industrial hemp is genetically different and distinguished by its use and chemical makeup, and
has long been cultivated for non-drug use in the production of industrial and other goods, in the
United States, hemp is subject to U.S. drug laws and growing industrial hemp is restricted. Under
current U.S. drug policy all cannabis varieties, including industrial hemp, are considered
Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et
seq.
; Title 21 CFR Part 1308.11). Despite these legitimate industrial uses, hemp production and
usage are controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Strictly
speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on its
production and enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must
be grown, making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. In other words, a grower needs to get
permission from the DEA to grow hemp or faces the possibility of federal charges or property
confiscation, regardless of whether the grower has a state-issued permit. Currently, cannabis
varieties may be legitimately grown for research purposes only. No known active federal licenses
allow for hemp cultivation at this time. There is no large-scale commercial hemp production in
the United States, and the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-
containing products and as ingredients for use in further processing. More than 30 nations grow
industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity, which is sold on the world market.
In the early 1990s a sustained resurgence of interest in allowing commercial cultivation of
industrial hemp began in the United States. Several states have conducted economic or market
studies, and have initiated or passed legislation to expand state-level resources and production.
The 113th Congress made changes to U.S. policies regarding industrial hemp during the omnibus
farm bill debate. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (“farm bill”, P.L. 113-79, §7606) provides that
certain research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow industrial hemp, as
part of an agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state laws where the institution or state
department of agriculture is located. The farm bill also established a statutory definition of
“industrial hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or
not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry
weight basis.” The provision was included as part of the research title of the law.
Other introduced legislation, such as the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013 (H.R. 525; S.
359), could allow for possible commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States.
Those bills would amend the CSA to specify that the term “marijuana” does not include industrial
hemp, which the bill would define based on its content of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC),
marijuana’s primary psychoactive chemical. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from
being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation.
Congressional Research Service

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Cannabis Varieties ...................................................................................................... 1
Comparison of Hemp and Marijuana ........................................................................................ 1
Production Differences .............................................................................................................. 2
Hemp ................................................................................................................................... 3
Marijuana ............................................................................................................................ 4
Hemp Production and Use ............................................................................................................... 4
Commercial Uses of Hemp ....................................................................................................... 4
Estimated Retail Market ............................................................................................................ 6
U.S. Hemp Imports .................................................................................................................... 6
U.S. Market Potential ................................................................................................................ 7
Global Production ............................................................................................................................ 9
International Production ............................................................................................................ 9
Historical U.S. Production ....................................................................................................... 11
Legal Status in the United States ................................................................................................... 13
Federal Drug Law .................................................................................................................... 13
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 ................................................................................... 13
DEA’s 2003 Rules Regarding Hemp ................................................................................. 14
Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004) ................................................................ 15
Other DEA Policy Statements ........................................................................................... 16
2013 DEA Guidance Outlined in “Cole Memo” ............................................................... 17
Farm Bill and Other Federal Laws .......................................................................................... 18
2014 Farm Bill .................................................................................................................. 18
FY2015 Commerce-Justice-Science (C-J-S) Appropriations ............................................ 19
Other Federal Actions Involving USDA ........................................................................... 19
State Laws ............................................................................................................................... 20
Ongoing Legislative Activity ......................................................................................................... 23
Industrial Hemp Farming Act .................................................................................................. 23
Groups Supporting/Opposing Further Legislation .................................................................. 24
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 25

Figures
Figure 1. Trait Variation in Cannabis Phenotype ............................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Flowchart of Potential Hemp Products............................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Hemp Fiber and Seed, Global Production (1999-2011) ................................................. 10
Figure 4. Canadian Hemp Acreage, 1998-2011 ............................................................................. 12

Congressional Research Service

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Tables
Table 1. Value and Quantity of U.S. Imports of Selected Hemp Products, Selected Years,
1996-2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendixes
Appendix. Listing of Selected Hemp Studies ................................................................................ 27

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28

Congressional Research Service

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Introduction
For centuries, industrial hemp (plant species Cannabis sativa) has been a source of fiber and
oilseed used worldwide to produce a variety of industrial and consumer products. Currently, more
than 30 nations grow industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity, which is sold on the world
market. In the United States, however, production is strictly controlled under existing drug
enforcement laws. Currently there is no large-scale commercial production in the United States
and the U.S. market depends on imports.
The 113th Congress made changes to U.S. policies regarding industrial hemp during the omnibus
farm bill debate. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79) includes a provision allowing certain
research institutions and also state departments of agriculture to grow industrial hemp, if allowed
under state laws where the institution or state department of agriculture is located. Other
introduced legislation in the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013 (H.R. 525; S. 359) could
provide for even greater opportunities for commercial cultivation of hemp in the United States.
Overview of Cannabis Varieties
Although marijuana is also a variety of cannabis, it is genetically distinct from industrial hemp
and is further distinguished by its use and chemical makeup.
In this report, “hemp” refers to industrial hemp, “marijuana” (or “marihuana” as it is spelled in
the older statutes) refers to the psychotropic drug (whether used for medicinal or recreational
purposes), and “cannabis” refers to the plant species that has industrial, medicinal, and
recreational varieties.1
Comparison of Hemp and Marijuana
There are many different varieties of cannabis plants. Marijuana and hemp come from the same
species of plant, Cannabis sativa, but from different varieties or cultivars. However, hemp is
genetically different and is distinguished by its use and chemical makeup, as well as by differing
cultivation practices in its production.2
Hemp, also called “industrial hemp,”3 refers to cannabis varieties that are primarily grown as an
agricultural crop (such as seeds and fiber, and byproducts such as oil, seed cake, hurds) and is
characterized by plants that are low in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, marijuana’s primary
psychoactive chemical). THC levels for hemp are generally less than 1%.
Marijuana refers to the flowering tops and leaves of psychoactive cannabis varieties, which are
grown for their high content of THC. Marijuana’s high THC content is primarily in the flowering

1 This report does not cover issues pertaining to medical marijuana. For information on that subject, see CRS Report
RL33211, Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies, or related CRS reports.
2 See, for example, S. L. Datwyler and G. D. Weiblen, “Genetic variation in hemp and marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.)
according to amplified fragment length polymorphisms,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2006).
3 Use of this term dates back to the 1960s; see L. Grlic, “A combined spectrophotometric differentiation of samples of
cannabis,” United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime (UNODC), January 1968, http://www.unodc.org/unodc.
Congressional Research Service
1

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

tops and to a lesser extent in the leaves. THC levels for marijuana are much higher than for hemp,
and are reported to average about 10%; some sample tests indicate THC levels reaching 20%-
30%, or greater.4
A level of about 1% THC is considered the threshold for cannabis to have a psychotropic effect or
an intoxicating potential.5 Current laws regulating hemp cultivation in the European Union (EU)
and Canada use 0.3% THC as the dividing line between industrial and potentially drug-producing
cannabis. Cultivars having less than 0.3% THC can be cultivated under license, while cultivars
having more than that amount are considered to have too high a drug potential.6
Some also claim that industrial hemp has higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD), the non-
psychoactive part of marijuana, which might mitigate some of the effects of THC.7 A high ratio of
CBD to THC might also classify hemp as a fiber-type plant rather than a drug-type plant.
Opinions remain mixed about how CBD levels might influence the psychoactive effects of THC.
Production Differences
Production differences depend on whether the cannabis plant is grown for fiber/oilseed or for
medicinal/recreational uses. These differences involve the varieties being grown, the methods
used to grow them, and the timing of their harvest (see discussion in “Hemp” and “Marijuana,”
below). Concerns about cross-pollination among the different varieties are critical. All cannabis
plants are open, wind and/or insect pollinated, and thus cross-pollination is possible.
Because of the compositional differences between the drug and fiber varieties of cannabis,
farmers growing either crop would necessarily want to separate production of the different
varieties or cultivars. This is particularly true for growers of medicinal or recreational marijuana
in an effort to avoid cross-pollination with industrial hemp, which would significantly lower the
THC content and thus degrade the value of the marijuana crop. Likewise, growers of industrial
hemp would seek to avoid cross-pollination with marijuana plants, especially given the illegal
status of marijuana. Plants grown of oilseed are also marketed according to the purity of the
product, and the mixing of off-type genotypes would degrade the value of the crop.8
The different cannabis varieties are also harvested at different times (depending on the growing
area), increasing the chance of detection of illegal marijuana, if production is commingled.

4 National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Quarterly Report, Potency Monitoring project,” Report 100, University of
Mississippi, 2008. Based on sample tests of illegal cannabis seizures (December 16, 2007, through March 15, 2008).
5 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A new crop with new uses for North America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New
Uses
, J. Janick and A. Whipkey (eds.), American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS) Press, 2002.
6 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Tetrahydrocannabinol levels in hemp (Cannabis sativa) germplasm resources,” Economic
Botany
, vol. 57, no. 4 (October 2003); and G. Leson, “Evaluating Interference of THC Levels in Hemp Food Products
with Employee Drug Testing” (prepared for the Province of Manitoba, Canada), July, 2000.
7 U. R. Avico, R. Pacifici, and P. Zuccaro, “Variations of tetrahydrocannabinol content in cannabis plants to distinguish
the fibre-type from drug-type plants,” UNODC Bulletin on Narcotics, January 1985; C. W. Waller, “Chemistry Of
Marihuana,” Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 23 (December 1971); K.W. Hillig and P. G. Mahlberg, “A
chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae),” American Journal of Botany, vol. 91,
no. 6 (June 2004); and A. W. Zuardi et al., “Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug,”
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, vol. 39 (2006).
8 CRS communication with Anndrea Hermann, Hemp Oil Canada Inc., December 2009. Pollen is present at a very
early plant development stage.
Congressional Research Service
2


Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Because of these differences, many claim that drug varieties of cannabis cannot easily be grown
with oilseed or fiber varieties without being easily detected.9 As discussed below (and illustrated
in Figure 1), among the visual plant differences are plant height (hemp is encouraged to grow
tall, whereas marijuana is selected to grow short and tightly clustered); cultivation (hemp is
grown as a single main stalk with few leaves and branches, whereas marijuana is encouraged to
become bushy with many leaves and branches to promote flowers and buds); and planting
density
(hemp is densely planted to discourage branching and flowering, whereas marijuana
plants are well-spaced).
Figure 1. Trait Variation in Cannabis Phenotype
(marijuana and industrial hemp)

Source: George Weiblen, University of Minnesota, presentation at the 2013 Annual HIA Conference,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2013.
Notes: Photographs contrasting marijuana and industrial hemp are available at Vote Hemp’s website (“Different
Varieties of Cannibis,” http://www.votehemp.com/different_varieties.html).
Hemp
To maximize production of hemp fiber and/or seed, plants are encouraged to grow taller in height.
Cultivated plants become a tall stalky crop that usually reaches between 6 and 15 feet, and
generally consist of a single main stalk with few leaves and branches. Hemp plants grown for
fiber or oilseed are planted densely (about 35-50 plants per square foot)10 to discourage branching
and flowering. The period of seeding to harvest ranges from 70 to 140 days, depending on the
purpose, cultivar or variety, and climatic conditions. The stalk and seed is the harvested product.
The stalk of the plant provides two types of fibers: the outer portion of the stem contains the bast
fibers, and the interior or core fiber (or hurds).

9 D. P. West, “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities,” February 1998, http://www.gametec.com/hemp/
hempandmj.html. Also see information posted by Vote Hemp Inc., “Different Varieties of Cannabis” (no date),
http://www.votehemp.com/different_varieties.html.
10 Innvista, “Hemp Biology” (no date), http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/hemp/hempbiol.htm.
Congressional Research Service
3

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Industrial hemp production statistics for Canada indicate that one acre of hemp yields an average
of about 700 pounds of grain, which can be pressed into about 50 gallons of oil and 530 pounds
of meal.11 That same acre will also produce an average of 5,300 pounds of straw, which can be
transformed into about 1,300 pounds of fiber.
Marijuana
When cannabis is grown to produce marijuana, it is cultivated from varieties where the female
flowers of dioecious drug strains are selected to prevent the return of separate male and female
plants.12 The female flowers are short and tightly clustered. In marijuana cultivation, growers
remove all the male plants to prevent pollination and seed set. Some growers will hand-pollinate a
female plant to get seed; this is done in isolation of the rest of the female plants. The
incorporation and stabilization of monoecism in cannabis cultivation requires the skill of a
competent plant breeder, and rarely occurs under non-cultivated conditions.
If marijuana is grown in or around industrial hemp varieties, the hemp would pollinate the female
marijuana plant. Marijuana growers would not want to plant near a hemp field, since this would
result in a harvest that is seedy and lower in THC, and degrade the value of their marijuana crop.
Marijuana is cultivated to encourage the plant to become bushy with many leaves, with wide
branching to promote flowers and buds. This requires that plants be well-spaced, by as much as
about 1-2 plants per square yard.13 The flower and leaves are the harvested products.
Hemp Production and Use
Commercial Uses of Hemp
Industrial hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or dual-purpose crop.14 The interior of the stalk has
short woody fibers called hurds; the outer portion has long bast fibers. Hemp seed/grains are
smooth and about one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch long.15
Although hemp is not grown in the United States, both finished hemp products and raw material
inputs are imported and sold for use in manufacturing for a wide range of product categories
(Figure 2). Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns
and spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto
parts, and composites. Hurds are used in various applications such as animal bedding, material
inputs, papermaking, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and

11 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Industrial Hemp” (no date), http://www4.agr.gc.ca/.
12 H. van Bakel et al., “The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa,” Genome Biology, Vol. 12, Issue 10,
2011. In botany, dioecious is a term describing plant varieties that possess male and female flowers or other
reproductive organs on separate, individual plants.
13 Innvista, “Hemp Biology” (no date), http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/hemp/hempbiol.htm.
14 Different varieties have been developed may be better suited for one use or the other. Cultivation practices also differ
depending upon the variety planted.
15 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the
United States: Status and Market Potential
, ERS Report AGES001E, January 2000.
Congressional Research Service
4


Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

beverages, and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is used
as an ingredient in a range of body-care products and nutritional supplements.16 Hemp seed is
also used for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care products, and pharmaceuticals, among
other composites.
Figure 2. Flowchart of Potential Hemp Products

Source: CRS, adapted from D. G. Kraenzel et al., “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota,”
AER-402, North Dakota State University, July 23, 1998.
Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products in nine
submarkets: agriculture; textiles; recycling; automotive; furniture; food/nutrition/beverages;
paper; construction materials; and personal care. For construction materials, such as hempcrete (a
mixture of hemp hurds and lime products), hemp is used as a lightweight insulating material.17
Hemp has also been promoted as a potential biodiesel feedstock,18 although some analysts
suggest that competing demands for other products might make it too costly to use as a
feedstock.19

16 Some have suggested similarities between hempseed oil and hash oil. However, there is evidence suggesting
differences regarding initial feedstock or input ingredients (hash oil requires high THC marijuana whereas hempseed
oil uses low THC industrial hemp); how they are produced (hash oil is extracted often using a flammable solvent
whereas hempseed oil is expeller-pressed or extracted mechanically, generally without chemicals or additives); and
how they are used (hash oil is used as a psychoactive drug whereas hempseed oil is used as an ingredient in hemp-
based foods, supplements, and body care products). For more background information, contact the author of this report.
17 “Hemp Homes are Cutting Edge of Green Building,” USA Today, September 12, 2010; and “Construction Plant,”
Financial Times, January 22, 2010.
18 Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008, p. 293; J. Lane, “Hemp Makes Comeback as
Biofuels Feedstock in 43-acre California Trial,” Biofuels Digest, August 24, 2009; and H. Jessen, “Hemp Biodiesel:
When the Smoke Clears,” Biodiesel Magazine, February 2007.
19 North Dakota State University (NSDU), “Biofuel Economics: Biocomposites—New Uses for North Dakota
Agricultural Fibers and Oils” (no date).
Congressional Research Service
5

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

These types of commercial uses are widely documented in a range of feasibility and marketing
studies conducted by researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various land
grant universities and state agencies. (A listing of these studies is in the Appendix.)
Estimated Retail Market
There is no official estimate of the value of U.S. sales of hemp-based products. The Hemp
Industries Association (HIA) estimates that the total U.S. retail value of hemp products in 2013
was $581 million, which includes food and body products, clothing, auto parts, building materials
and other products.20 Of this, HIA reports that the value of hemp-based food, supplements, and
body care sales in the United States totaled $184 million. Previous reports about the size of the
U.S. market for hemp clothing and textiles are estimated at about $100 million annually.21
The reported retail value of the U.S. hemp market is an estimate and is difficult to verify.
Underlying data for this estimate are from SPINS survey data;22 however, because the data
reportedly do not track retail sales for The Body Shop and Whole Foods Market—two major
markets for hemp-based products—as well as for restaurants, hemp industry analysts have
adjusted these upward to account for this gap in the reported survey data.23
Available industry information indicates that sales of some hemp-based products, such as foods
and body care products, is growing.24 Growth in hemp specialty food products is driven, in part,
by sales of hemp milk and related dairy alternatives, among other hemp-based foods.25
Information is not available on other potential U.S. hemp-based sectors, such as for use in
construction materials or biofuels, paper, and other manufacturing uses. Data are not available on
existing businesses or processing facilities that may presently be engaged in such activities within
the United States.
U.S. Hemp Imports
The import value of hemp-based products imported and sold in the United States is difficult to
estimate accurately. For some traded products, available statistics have only limited breakouts or
have been expanded only recently to capture hemp subcategories within the broader trade
categories for oilseeds and fibers. Reporting errors are evident in some of the trade data, since
reported export data for hemp from Canada do not consistently match reported U.S. import data
for the same products (especially for hemp seeds).

20 HIA, “2013 Annual Retail Sales for Hemp Products Exceeds $581 Million,” February 28, 2014.
21 HIA, “Hemp Fabric goes High Fashion,” February 11, 2008. Estimate reflects best available current information
based on personal communication between CRS and HIA.
22 SPINS tracks data and market trends on the Natural Product Industry sales (http://www.spins.com/).
23 CRS communication with representatives of Vote Hemp, Inc., May 2010. See also HIA’s press release, “Growing
Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers,” April 29, 2009.
24 H. Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest Foods, based on his comments and presentation, “The Future of Hemp,” HIA
Convention, Washington DC, October 2009; and HIA, “Growing Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for
Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers,” April 29, 2009.
25 HIA, “Hemp Milk Products Boosted Growth of Hemp Food Market in 2007,” March 14, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
6

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Given these data limitations, available trade statistics indicate that the value of U.S. imports under
categories actually labeled “hemp,” such as hemp seeds and fibers, which are more often used as
inputs for use in further manufacturing, was nearly $36.9 million in 2013. Compared to available
data for 2005, the value of imported hemp products for use as inputs and ingredients has
increased more than sixfold. However, import volumes for other products such as hemp oil and
fabrics are lower (Table 1). Trade data are not available for finished products, such as hemp-
based clothing or other products including construction materials, carpets, or hemp-based paper
products.
The single largest supplier of U.S. imports of raw and processed hemp fiber is China. Other
leading country suppliers include Romania, Hungary, India, and other European countries. The
single largest source of U.S. imports of hemp seed and oilcake is Canada. The total value of
Canada’s exports of hemp seed to the United States has grown significantly in recent years
following resolution of a long-standing legal dispute over U.S. imports of hemp foods in late
2004 (see “Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004)”). European countries such as the
United Kingdom and Switzerland also have supplied hemp seed and oilcake to the United States.
U.S. Market Potential
In the past two decades, several feasibility and marketing studies have been conducted by
researchers at the USDA and various land grant universities and state agencies (for example,
Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Vermont; see Appendix).
Studies by researchers in Canada and various state agencies provide a mostly positive market
outlook for growing hemp, citing rising consumer demand and the potential range of product uses
for hemp. Some state reports claim that if current restrictions on growing hemp in the United
States were removed, agricultural producers in their states could benefit. A 2008 study reported
that acreage under cultivation in Canada, “while still showing significant annual fluctuations, is
now regarded as being on a strong upward trend.” Most studies generally note that “hemp ... has
such a diversity of possible uses, [and] is being promoted by extremely enthusiastic market
developers.” Other studies highlight certain production advantages associated with hemp or
acknowledge hemp’s benefits as a rotational crop or further claim that hemp may be less
environmentally degrading than other agricultural crops. Some studies also claim certain
production advantages to hemp growers, such as relatively low input and management
requirements for the crop.
Other studies focused on the total U.S. market differ from the various state reports and provide a
less favorable aggregate view of the potential market for hemp growers in the United States. Two
studies, conducted by researchers at USDA and University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M),
highlight some of the continued challenges facing U.S. hemp producers.
Congressional Research Service
7


Table 1. Value and Quantity of U.S. Imports of Selected Hemp Products, Selected Years, 1996-2013


units 1996 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hemp Seeds (HS 1207990220)a
$1000

— 271 3,320 5,154 6,054 13,057 26,710
Hemp Oil and Fractions
$1000

— 3,027 1,042 1,833 1,146 1,098 2,264
(HS 1515908010)
Hemp Seed Oilcake and Other
$1000


— 1,811 2,369 2,947 4,388 6,279
Solids (HS 2306900130)
True Hemp, raw/processed not
$1000
100 577 228 114 94 181 157 78
spun (HS 5302)
True Hemp Yarn
(HS
5308200000)
$1000
25 640 904 568 296 580 496 478
True Hemp Woven Fabrics
$1000
1,291 2,258 1,232 894 1,180 1,363 1,363 1,057
(HS 5311004010)

Total
1,416 3,475 5,662 7,749 10,926 12,271 20,559
36,866
Hemp Seeds (HS 1207990220)a
metric ton


92
602
711
623
1,237
2,272
Hemp Oil and Fractions
metric ton
— — 287 128 215 157 208 450
(HS 1515908010)
Hemp Seed Oilcake and Other
metric ton
— — — 201 240 298 441 601
Solids (HS 2306900130)
True Hemp, raw/processed not
metric ton
53 678 181 83 42 89 66 72
spun (HS 5302)
True Hemp Yarn (HS 5308200000)
metric ton
6
89
113
76
42
86
88
70

Subtotal
59 767 673 1,090 1,250 1,253 2,040 3,465
True Hemp Woven Fabrics
m2 (1000)
435 920 478 263 284 270 319 224
(HS 5311004010)
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Data are by Harmonized System (HS) code. Data
shown as “—” indicate data are not available as breakout categories for some product subcategories were established only recently.
a. Data for 2007-2011 were supplemented by reported Canadian export data for hemp seeds (HS 12079910, Hemp seeds, whether or not broken) as reported by Global
Trade Atlas, http://www.gtis.com/gta/. Official U.S. trade data reported no imports during these years for these HS subcategories. The Canadian export data as
reported by Global Trade Atlas also differ for hemp seed oilcake (15159020, Hemp oil and its fractions, whether or not refined but not chemically modified) but were
not similarly substituted since other countries exported product to the United States.

CRS-8

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

For example, USDA’s study projected that U.S. hemp markets “are, and will likely remain, small,
thin markets” and also cited “uncertainty about long-run demand for hemp products and the
potential for oversupply” among possible downsides of potential future hemp production.
Similarly, the UW-M study concluded that hemp production “is not likely to generate sizeable
profits” and although hemp may be “slightly more profitable than traditional row crops” it is
likely “less profitable than other specialty crops” due to the “current state of harvesting and
processing technologies, which are quite labor intensive, and result in relatively high per unit
costs.”26 The study highlights that U.S. hemp growers could be affected by competition from
other world producers as well as by certain production limitations in the United States, including
yield variability and lack of harvesting innovations and processing facilities in the United States,
as well as difficulty transporting bulk hemp. The study further claims that most estimates of
profitability from hemp production are highly speculative, and often do not include additional
costs of growing hemp in a regulated market, such as the cost associated with “licensing,
monitoring, and verification of commercial hemp.”27
A 2013 study by researchers at the University of Kentucky highlights some of the issues and
challenges for that state’s growers, processors, and industry. The study predicts that in Kentucky,
despite “showing some positive returns, under current market conditions, it does not appear that
anticipated hemp returns will be large enough to entice Kentucky grain growers to shift out of
grain production,” under most circumstances; also, “short run employment opportunities evolving
from a new Kentucky hemp industry appear limited (perhaps dozens of new jobs, not 100s),”
because of continued uncertainty in the industry.28 Overall, the study concludes there are many
remaining unknowns and further analysis and production research is needed.
Given the absence since the 1950s of any commercial and unrestricted hemp production in the
United States, it is not possible to predict the potential market and employment effects of relaxing
current restrictions on U.S. hemp production. While expanded market opportunities might exist in
some states or localities if current restrictions on production are lifted, it is not possible to predict
the potential for future retail sales or employment gains in the United States, either nationally or
within certain states or regions. Limited information is available from previous market analyses
that have been conducted by researchers at USDA and land grant universities and state agencies.29
Global Production
International Production
Approximately 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit
farmers to grow hemp. Some of these countries never outlawed production, while some countries

26 T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production,” Review of Agricultural
Economics
, 26(1): 97-117, 2004.
27 Ibid.
28 University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics, Economic Considerations for Growing Industrial
Hemp: Implications for Kentucky’s Farmers and Agricultural Economy
, July 2013.
29 For more information, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, “Potential U.S. Market Effects of
Removing Restrictions on Growing Industrial Hemp,” March 4, 2013), available from Renée Johnson (7-9588).
Congressional Research Service
9


Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

banned production for certain periods in the past. China is among the largest producing and
exporting countries of hemp textiles and related products, as well as a major supplier of these
products to the United States. The European Union (EU) has an active hemp market, with
production in most member nations. Production is centered in France, the United Kingdom,
Romania, and Hungary.30
Acreage in hemp cultivation worldwide has been mostly flat to decreasing, reported at about
200,000 acres globally in 2011.31 Although variable year-to-year, global production has increased
overall from about 250 million pounds in 1999 to more than 380 million pounds in 2011, mostly
due to increasing production of hemp seed (Figure 3). Upward trends in global hemp seed
production roughly track similar upward trends in U.S. imports of hemp seed and oil, mostly for
use in hemp-based foods, supplements, and body care products (Table 1).
Figure 3. Hemp Fiber and Seed, Global Production (1999-2011)

Source: FAOSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor.
Many EU countries lifted their bans on hemp production in the 1990s and, until recently, also
subsidized the production of “flax and hemp” under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.32 EU
hemp acreage was reported at about 26,000 acres in 2010, which was below previous years, when
more than 50,000 acres of hemp were under production.33 Most EU production is of hurds, seeds,
and fibers. Other non-EU European countries with reported hemp production include Russia,
Ukraine, and Switzerland. Other countries with active hemp grower and/or consumer markets are
Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Chile, and Thailand.

30 Other EU producing countries include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Slovenia, and Spain.
31 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAOSTAT crop data, http://faostat.fao.org/.
32 For information on the EU’s prior agricultural support for industrial hemp, see the EU’s notification to the World
Trade Organization regarding its domestic support for agricultural producers (G/AG/N/EEC/68; January 24, 2011).
33 M. Carus et al., “The European Hemp Industry,” May 2013. Also see European Industrial Hemp Association,
“European Commission: Hemp and Flax, AGRI C5, 2009,” February 2009.
Congressional Research Service
10

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Canada is another major supplier of U.S. imports, particularly of hemp-based foods and related
imported products. Canada’s commercial hemp industry is fairly new: Canada began to issue
licenses for research crops in 1994, followed by commercial licenses starting in 1998.
The development of Canada’s hemp market followed a 60-year prohibition and is strictly
regulated.34 Its program is administered by the Office of Controlled Substances of Health Canada,
which issues licenses for all activities involving hemp. Under the regulation, all industrial hemp
grown, processed, and sold in Canada may contain THC levels no more than 0.3% of the weight
of leaves and flowering parts. Canada also has set a maximum level of 10 parts per million (ppm)
for THC residues in products derived from hemp grain, such as flour and oil.35 To obtain a license
to grow hemp, Canadian farmers must submit extensive documentation, including background
criminal record checks, the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their fields, and
supporting documents (from the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association or the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency) regarding their use of low-THC hemp seeds and approved cultivars; and they
must allow government testing of their crop for THC levels.36 Since hemp cultivation was
legalized in Canada, production has been variable year-to-year (Figure 4), ranging from a high of
48,000 acres planted in 2006, to about 4,000 acres in 2001-2002, to a reported nearly 39,000
acres in 2011. Canada’s hemp cultivation still accounts for less than 1% of the country’s available
farmland. The number of cultivation licenses has also varied from year to year, reaching a high of
560 licenses in 2006, followed by a low of 77 licenses in 2008 (with 340 licenses in 2011).37
Historical U.S. Production
Hemp was widely grown in the United States from the colonial period into the mid-1800s; fine
and coarse fabrics, twine, and paper from hemp were in common use. By the 1890s, labor-saving
machinery for harvesting cotton made the latter more competitive as a source of fabric for
clothing, and the demand for coarse natural fibers was met increasingly by imports. Industrial
hemp was handled in the same way as any other farm commodity, in that USDA compiled
statistics and published crop reports,38 and provided assistance to farmers promoting production
and distribution.39 In the early 1900s, hemp continued to be grown and researchers at USDA
continued to publish information related to hemp production and also reported on hemp’s
potential for use in textiles and in paper manufacturing.40 Several hemp advocacy groups,
including the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and Vote Hemp Inc., have compiled other
historical information and have copies of original source documents.41

34 Industrial Hemp Regulations (SOR/98-156), as part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
35 Agriculture Canada, “Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry,” March 2007, http://www4.agr.gc.ca.
36 See Health Canada’s FAQs on its hemp regulations and its application for obtaining permits (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/
). Other information is at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/).
37 Health Canada, Industrial Hemp Section, “Cultivation Licenses,” October 25, 2011.
38 See, for example, editions of USDA Agricultural Statistics. A compilation of U.S. government publications is
available from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) at http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html.
39 See, for example, USDA’s 1942 short film “Hemp for Victory,” and University of Wisconsin’s Extension Service
Special Circular, “What about Growing Hemp,” November 1942.
40 Regarding papermaking, see L. H. Dewey and J. L. Merrill, “Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material,” USDA
Bulletin No. 404, October 14, 1916. A copy of this document is available, as posted by Vote Hemp Inc., at
http://www.votehemp.com/17855-h/17855-h.htm. Other USDA and state documents from this period are available at
http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html.
41 See links at http://www.thehia.org/history.html and http://www.hemphistoryweek.com/timeline.html.
Congressional Research Service
11

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Figure 4. Canadian Hemp Acreage, 1998-2011
60,000
50,000
Acres
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1998
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011

Source: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Industrial Hemp Statistics,” http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/
display-afficher.do?id=1174420265572&lang=eng.
Note: The downturn in 2007 is viewed as a correction of overproduction in 2006, fol owing the “success of the
court case against the DEA in 2004, and continued improvements in breeding, production, and processing,”
which resulted in part in a “dramatic reduction in hemp acreage planted” in 2007. The 2007 downturn is also
attributed to “increasingly positive economics of growing other crops” (Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial
Hemp Strategy, March 2008, prepared for Food and Rural Initiative Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada).
Between 1914 and 1933, in an effort to stem the use of Cannabis flowers and leaves for their
psychotropic effects, 33 states passed laws restricting legal production to medicinal and industrial
purposes only.42 The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act defined hemp as a narcotic drug, requiring that
farmers growing hemp hold a federal registration and special tax stamp, effectively limiting
further production expansion.
In 1943, U.S. hemp production reached more than 150 million pounds (140.7 million pounds
hemp fiber; 10.7 million pound hemp seed) on 146,200 harvested acres. This compared to pre-
war production levels of about 1 million pounds. After reaching a peak in 1943, production
started to decline. By 1948, production had dropped back to 3 million pounds on 2,800 harvested
acres, with no recorded production after the late 1950s.43
Currently, industrial hemp is not grown commercially in the United States. No active federal
licenses allow U.S. commercial cultivation at this time.

42 R. J. Bonnie and C. H. Whitebread, The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United
States
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974), p. 51.
43 USDA Agricultural Statistics, various years through 1949. A summary of data spanning 1931-1945 is available in
the 1946 edition. See “Table 391—Hemp Fiber and hempseed: Acreage, Yield, and Production, United States.”
Congressional Research Service
12

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Legal Status in the United States
Federal Drug Law
Controlled Substances Act of 1970
In 1937, Congress passed the first federal law to discourage Cannabis production for marijuana
while still permitting industrial uses of the crop (the Marihuana Tax Act; 50 Stat. 551). Under this
statute, the government actively encouraged farmers to grow hemp for fiber and oil during World
War II. After the war, competition from synthetic fibers, the Marihuana Tax Act, and increasing
public anti-drug sentiment resulted in fewer and fewer acres of hemp being planted, and none at
all after 1958.
Strictly speaking, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §801 et. seq.) does not
make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on the production of hemp, making it
illegal to grow the crop without a DEA permit.
The CSA adopted the same definition of Cannabis sativa that appeared in the 1937 Marihuana
Tax Act. The definition of “marihuana” (21 U.S.C. §802(16) reads:
The term marihuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the
seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture,
salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not
include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from
the seeds of such plant, any other compound ... or preparation of such mature stalks (except the
resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is
incapable of germination.
The statute thus retains control over all varieties of the cannabis plant by virtue of including them
under the term “marijuana” and does not distinguish between low- and high-THC varieties. The
language exempts from control the parts of mature plants—stalks, fiber, oil, cake, etc.—intended
for industrial uses. Some have argued that the CSA definition exempts industrial hemp under its
term exclusions for stalks, fiber, oil and cake, and seeds.44 DEA refutes this interpretation.45
Since federal law prohibits cultivation without a permit, DEA determines whether any industrial
hemp production authorized under a state statute is permitted, and it enforces standards governing
the security conditions under which the crop must be grown. In other words, a grower needs to
get permission from the DEA to grow hemp or faces the possibility of federal charges or property
confiscation, regardless of whether the grower has a state-issued permit.46
DEA issued a permit for an experimental quarter-acre plot at the Hawaii Industrial Hemp
Research Program during the period from 1999 to 2003 (now expired).47 Most reports indicate

44 See, for example, Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004).
45 66 Federal Register 51530.
46 Registration requirements are at 21 CFR 823. See also DEA’s registration procedures and applications at
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/process.htm.
47 See, for example, DEA, “Statement from the Drug Enforcement Administration on the Industrial Use of Hemp,”
March 12, 1998, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr980312.htm.
Congressional Research Service
13

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

that the DEA has not granted any current licenses to grow hemp, even for research purposes.48 To
date, all commercial hemp products sold in the United States are imported or manufactured from
imported hemp materials. In May 2013, it was reported that hemp is being cultivated in Colorado,
following changes to that state’s laws in November 2012.49
Even if DEA were to approve a permit, it could be argued that production might be limited or
discouraged because of the perceived difficulties of working through DEA licensing requirements
and installing the types of structures necessary to obtain a permit. Obtaining a DEA permit to
produce hemp requires that the applicant demonstrate that an effective security protocol will be in
place at the production site, such as security fencing around the planting area, a 24-hour
monitoring system, controlled access, and possibly armed guard(s) to prevent public access.50
DEA application requirements also include a nonrefundable fee, FBI background checks, and
extensive documentation. It could also be argued that, because of the necessary time-consuming
steps involved in obtaining and operating under a DEA permit, the additional management and
production costs from installing structures, as well as other business and regulatory requirements,
could ultimately limit the operation’s profitability.
The United States is a signatory of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
1961).51 The principal objectives of the convention are to “limit the possession, use, trade in,
distribution, import, export, manufacture and production of drugs exclusively to medical and
scientific purposes and to address drug trafficking through international cooperation to deter and
discourage drug traffickers.”52 The convention requires that each party control cannabis
cultivation within its borders; however, Article 28.2 of the convention states: “This Convention
shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre
and seed) or horticultural purposes.”53 Thus the convention need not present an impediment to the
development of a regulated hemp farming sector in the United States.
DEA’s 2003 Rules Regarding Hemp
In March 2003, DEA issued two final rules addressing the legal status of hemp products derived
from the cannabis plant. The DEA found that hemp products “often contain the hallucinogenic
substance tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) ... the primary psychoactive chemical found in the
cannabis (marijuana) plant.”54 Although the DEA acknowledged that “in some cases, a Schedule I
controlled substance may have a legitimate industrial use,” such use would only be allowed under
highly controlled circumstances. These rules set forth what products may contain “hemp” and
also prohibit “cannabis products containing THC that are intended or used for human

48 S. Raabe, “First major Hemp Crop in 60 Years is Planted in Southeast Colorado,” Denverpost.com, May 13, 2013.
49 S. Raabe, “First major Hemp Crop in 60 Years is Planted in Southeast Colorado,” Denverpost.com, May 13, 2013.
50 University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, “Industrial Hemp—Legal Issues, September 2012.
51 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961), Article 28.
52 Information posted on International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) website.
53 Ibid.
54 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources.
Congressional Research Service
14

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

consumption (foods and beverages).”55 Development of the 2003 rule sparked a fierce battle over
the permissibility of imported hemp-based food products that lasted from 1999 until 2004.
Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004)
In late 1999, during the development of the 2003 rules (described in the previous section), the
DEA acted administratively to demand that the U.S. Customs Service enforce a zero-tolerance
standard for the THC content of all forms of imported hemp, and hemp foods in particular.
The DEA followed up, in October 2001, with publication of an interpretive rule in the Federal
Register
explaining the basis of its zero-tolerance standard.56 It held that when Congress wrote the
statutory definition of marijuana in 1937, it “exempted certain portions of the Cannabis plant
from the definition of marijuana based on the assumption (now refuted) that such portions of the
plant contain none of the psychoactive component now known as THC.” Both the proposed rule
(which was published concurrently with the interpretive rule) and the final 2003 rule gave
retailers of hemp foods a date after which the DEA could seize all such products remaining on
shelves. On both rules, hemp trade associations requested and received court-ordered stays
blocking enforcement of that provision. The DEA’s interpretation made hemp with any THC
content subject to enforcement as a controlled substance.
Hemp industry trade groups, retailers, and a major Canadian exporter filed suit against the DEA,
arguing that congressional intent was to exempt plant parts containing naturally occurring THC at
non-psychoactive levels, the same way it exempts poppy seeds containing trace amounts of
naturally occurring opiates.57 Industry groups maintain that (1) naturally occurring THC in the
leaves and flowers of cannabis varieties grown for fiber and food is already at below-
psychoactive levels (compared with drug varieties); (2) the parts used for food purposes (seeds
and oil) contain even less; and (3) after processing, the THC content is at or close to zero. U.S.
and Canadian hemp seed and food manufacturers have in place a voluntary program for certifying
low, industry-determined standards in hemp-containing foods. Background information on the
TestPledge Program is available at http://www.TestPledge.com. The intent of the program is to
assure that consumption of hemp foods will not interfere with workplace drug testing programs or
produce undesirable mental or physical health effects.
On February 6, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit permanently enjoined the
enforcement of the final rule.58 The court stated that “the DEA’s definition of ‘THC’ contravenes
the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA and cannot be upheld.”59 In late
September 2004 the Bush Administration let the final deadline pass without filing an appeal.

55 Ibid.
56 66 Federal Register 51530.
57 21 U.S.C. §802 (19) and (20).
58 68 Federal Register 14113.
59 Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004).
Congressional Research Service
15

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Other DEA Policy Statements
Other DEA documentation illustrates how DEA has reviewed inquiries about the legal status of
hemp-based products (such as those shown in Figure 2), including inquiries from U.S. Customs
inspectors regarding the need for guidance regarding imported hemp products:60
DEA took the position that it would follow the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA), which expressly states that anything that contains “any quantity” of marijuana or THC is a
schedule I controlled substance. However, as a reasonable accommodation, DEA exempted from
control legitimate industrial products that contained THC but were not intended for human
consumption (such as clothing, paper, and animal feed).
DEA’s position that “anything that contains ‘any quantity’ of marijuana or THC” should be
regarded as a controlled substance is further supported by reports published by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is part of the National Institutes of Health. Although
NIDA does not have a formal position about industrial hemp, NIDA’s research tends to conflate
all cannabis varieties, including marijuana and hemp. For example, NIDA reports: “All forms of
marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive)” and “they all contain THC (delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol), the main active chemical in marijuana.”61 The DEA further maintains that
the CSA does not differentiate between different varieties of cannabis based on THC content.62
Regarding DEA’s issuance of its 2003 rules and the import dispute that followed (discussed in the
previous report sections), the agency continues to maintain that the courts have expressed
conflicting opinions on these issues:63
Despite the plain language of the statute supporting DEA’s position, the ninth circuit ruled in
2004 that the DEA rules were impermissible under the statute and therefore ordered DEA to
refrain from enforcing them. Subsequently, in 2006, another federal court of appeals (the eight
circuit) took a different view, stating, as DEA had said in its rules: “The plain language of the
CSA states that schedule I(c) includes ‘any material ... which contains any quantity of THC’ and
thus such material is regulated.”…64 Thus, the federal courts have expressed conflicting views
regarding the legal status of cannabis derivatives.
Regarding interest among growers in some states to cultivate hemp for industrial use, DEA claims
that the courts have supported the agency’s current policy that all hemp growers—regardless of
whether a state permit has been issued and of the THC content—are subject to the CSA and must
obtain a federal permit:65
Under the CSA, anyone who seeks to grow marijuana for any purpose must first obtain a DEA
registration authorizing such activity. However, several persons have claimed that growing
marijuana to produce so-called “hemp” (which purportedly contains a relatively low percentage
of THC) is not subject to CSA control and requires no DEA registration. All such claims have

60 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources.
61 NIDA, “Marijuana: Facts for Teens” (no date), http://www.drugabuse.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg1-2.html.
62 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources.
63 Ibid.
64 DEA-cited court case: United States v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067, 1073 (8th Cir. 2006).
65 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources. DEA-cited court cases: New
Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall
, 203 F.3d I (1st Cir 2000); United States v. White Plume, supra; Monson v.
DEA
, 522 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. N.D. 2007), No. 07-3837 (8th Cir. 2007).
Congressional Research Service
16

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

thus far failed, as every federal court that has addressed the issue has ruled that any person who
seeks to grow any form of marijuana (no matter the THC content or the purpose for which it is
grown) must obtain a DEA registration.
Regarding states that have enacted laws legalizing cannabis grown for industrial purposes, “these
laws conflict with the CSA, which does not differentiate, for control purposes, between marijuana
of relatively low THC content and marijuana of greater THC content.”66
2013 DEA Guidance Outlined in “Cole Memo”
In August 2013, DOJ updated its federal marijuana enforcement policy following 2012 state
ballot initiatives in Washington and Colorado that “legalized, under state law, the possession of
small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing,
and sale.”67 The guidance—commonly referred to as the “Cole memo”—outlines DOJ’s policy,
clarifying that “marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act and that
federal prosecutors will continue to aggressively enforce this statute.” DOJ identified eight
enforcement areas that federal prosecutors should prioritize. These include:68
• preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises,
gangs, and cartels;
• preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law
in some form to other states;
• preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or
pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana;
• preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use;
• preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public
safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public
lands; and
• preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
Although the Cole memo does not specifically address industrial hemp, because DOJ regards all
varieties of the cannabis plant as “marijuana” and does not distinguish between low- and high-
THC varieties, the August 2013 guidance appears to cover industrial hemp production as well.
Accordingly, some are interpreting the guidance as allowing states to proceed to implement their
laws regulating and authorizing the cultivation of hemp.69

66 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, and other DEA published resources.
67 Letter providing guidance regarding marijuana enforcement from Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole to all
U.S. States Attorneys, August 29, 2013, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html.
68 Ibid.
69 Letter to interested parties from Joe Sandler, Counsel for Vote Hemp, November 13, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
17

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

In November 2013, in response to a letter to Representative Earl Blumenauer, DOJ officials in
Oregon clarified that since “‘industrial hemp’ is marijuana, under the CSA, these eight
enforcement priorities apply to hemp just as they do for all forms of cannibis” and that “federal
prosecutors will remain aggressive” when it comes to protecting these eight priorities.70
Farm Bill and Other Federal Laws
2014 Farm Bill
The 113th Congress considered various changes to U.S. policies regarding industrial hemp during
the omnibus farm bill debate.71 The Agricultural Act of 2014 (“farm bill”, P.L. 113-79, §7606)
provides that certain research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow
industrial hemp, as part of an agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state laws where the
institution or state department of agriculture is located. The farm bill also established a statutory
definition of “industrial hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant,
whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3
percent on a dry weight basis.”72 The provision was included as part of the research title of the
law. The provision did not include an effective date that would suggest any kind of program
rollout, and there appears to be nothing in the conference report or bill language to suggest that
the states might not be able to immediately initiate action on this provision.
This provision was adopted when Representatives Polis, Massie, and Blumenauer introduced an
amendment to the House version of the farm bill (H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and
Risk Management Act of 2013) during floor debate on the bill. The amendment (H.Amdt. 208)
was to allow institutions of higher education to grow or cultivate industrial hemp for the purpose
of agricultural or academic research, and applied to states that already permit industrial hemp
growth and cultivation under state law. The amendment was adopted by the House of
Representatives. Although the full House ultimately voted to reject H.R. 1947, similar language
was included as part of a subsequent revised version of the House bill (H.R. 2642), which was
passed by the full House.
In the Senate, Senators Wyden, McConnell, Paul, and Merkley introduced an amendment to the
Senate version of the farm bill (S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013). The
amendment (S.Amdt. 952) would have amended the CSA to exclude industrial hemp from the
definition of marijuana. The amendment was not adopted as part of the Senate-passed farm bill.
During conference on the House and Senate bills, the House provision was adopted with
additional changes. The enacted law expands the House bill provision to allow both certain
research institutions and also state departments of agriculture to grow industrial hemp, as part of
an agricultural pilot program, if allowed under state laws where the institution or state department
of agriculture is located.

70 Letter to Representative Earl Blumenauer, from S. Amanda Marshall, U.S. Attorney, District of Oregon, November
7, 2013.
71 For information on the farm bill, see CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-
Side
.
72 P.L. 113-79 (§7606).
Congressional Research Service
18

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

FY2015 Commerce-Justice-Science (C-J-S) Appropriations
As the farm bill did not include an effective date distinct from the date of enactment, several
states responded by making immediate plans to initiate new hemp pilot projects.
The state of Kentucky, for example, announced plans for several pilot projects through the
Kentucky Department of Agriculture.73 However, in May 2014, the Department’s shipment of 250
pounds of imported hemp seed from Italy was blocked by U.S. Customs officials at Louisville
International Airport. DEA officials contend the action was warranted since the “importation of
cannabis seeds continues to be subject to the Controlled Substances Imports and Export Act
(CSIEA)”74 and to the implementing regulations, which restrict persons from importing viable
cannabis seed unless the person is registered with DEA and has obtained the necessary Schedule I
research permit, among other requirements. To facilitate release of the hemp seeds, the Kentucky
Department of Agriculture filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the DEA, the Justice
Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Attorney General.75 In the
lawsuit, the Department contends that its efforts to grow industrial hemp are authorized under
both state and federal law, and that the DEA should not seek to impose “additional requirements,
restrictions, and prohibitions” on hemp production beyond requirements in the 2014 farm bill, or
otherwise interfere with its delivery of hemp seeds. Although Kentucky’s seeds were eventually
released and planted,76 these circumstances have resulted in uncertainty for U.S. hemp growers.
To avoid future similar obstacles to fully implementing the hemp provision of the farm bill,
Congress acted swiftly. Both the House and Senate FY2015 Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS)
appropriations bills contain provisions to block federal law enforcement authorities from
interfering with state agencies and hemp growers, as well as to counter efforts to obstruct
agricultural research. Both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills (H.R. 4660; S.
2437) contain a provision that “none of the funds made available” to the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are to “be used in contravention” of the
2014 farm bill provision regarding industrial hemp.77 The House bill further provides that no
funds may be used to prevent a state from implementing its own state laws that “authorize the
use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp” as defined in the 2014 farm bill
provision.78
Other Federal Actions Involving USDA
In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, entitled “National Defense Industrial
Resources Preparedness,” which was intended to strengthen the U.S. industrial and technology

73 See, for example, Kentucky Department of Agriculture, “Industrial Hemp Program,” http://www.kyagr.com/
marketing/hemp-pilot.html.
74 Letter from Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DEA, to Luke Morgan, Counsel for Kentucky
Department of Agriculture, May 13, 2014.
75 Kentucky Department of Agriculture v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S.
Justice Department, and Eric Holder (Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division), May 2014,
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2014/05/14/16/44/X9Fs3.So.79.pdf.
76 J. Patton, “Hemp seeds planted in Central Kentucky for first time in decades,” Lexington Herald-Ledger, May 27,
2014.
77 H.R. 4660, §560; S. 2437 §220.
78 H.R. 4660, §557.
Congressional Research Service
19

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

base for meeting national defense requirements. The order included hemp among the essential
agricultural products that should be stocked for defense preparedness purposes.79 Some hemp
supporters have argued that the executive order gives hemp a renewed value as a strategic crop
for national security purposes, in line with its role in World War II.80
USDA has supported research on alternative crops and industrial uses of common commodities
since the late 1930s. Some alternative crops have become established in certain parts of the
United States—kenaf (for fiber) in Texas, jojoba (for oil) in Arizona and California, and amaranth
(for nutritious grain) in the Great Plains states. Many have benefits similar to those ascribed to
hemp, but are not complicated by having a psychotropic variety within the same species.
The Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-284, 7 U.S.C. §178) supports the
supplemental and alternative crops provisions of the 1985 and 1990 omnibus farm acts and other
authorities, and funds research and development on alternative crops at USDA and state
laboratories. In 2010, USDA recommended $1.083 million for programs under the act.81 In
addition, Section 1473D of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy
Act of 1977 (NARETPA, 7 U.S.C. §3319d(c)) authorizes USDA to make competitive grants
toward the development of new commercial products derived from natural plant material for
industrial, medical, and agricultural applications.82 In 2010, USDA recommended $835,000 for
the program.83 To date, these authorities have not been used to develop hemp cultivation and use.
State Laws
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a resurgence of interest in the United States in producing
industrial hemp. Farmers in regions of the country that are highly dependent upon a single crop,
such as tobacco or wheat, have shown interest in hemp’s potential as a high-value alternative
crop, although the economic studies conducted so far paint a mixed profitability picture.
Following passage of the 2014 farm bill provision allowing for growing hemp under certain
circumstances (see “2014 Farm Bill”), several states have quickly been adopting new state laws
to allow for cultivation. The status of state actions regarding hemp is changing rapidly; resources
for updated information include the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the
advocacy group Vote Hemp.84
Beginning around 1995, an increasing number of state legislatures began to consider a variety of
initiatives related to industrial hemp. Most of these have been resolutions calling for scientific,
economic, or environmental studies, and some are laws authorizing planting experimental plots
under state statutes. Nonetheless, the actual planting of hemp, even for state-authorized
experimental purposes, remains regulated by the DEA under the Controlled Substances Act.

79 Hemp is included under the category of “food resources,” which it defined to mean, in part, “all starches, sugars,
vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool, mohair, hemp, flax, fiber and other materials, but
not any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or product.”
80 J. B. Kahn, “Hemp ... Why Not?” Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) Legal Series, Paper 1930, 2007.
81 USDA’s 2011 Explanatory Notes, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/17nifa2011notes.pdf.
82 For information, see USDA, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/10_alt_crops.pdf.
83 See USDA’s 2011 Explanatory Notes, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/17nifa2011notes.pdf.
84 NCSL, State Industrial Hemp Statutes (http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/state-
industrial-hemp-statutes.aspx); Vote Hemp (http://www.votehemp.com/state.html#2014).
Congressional Research Service
20

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

As of June 2014, nearly 30 states or territories have reportedly introduced legislation favorable to
hemp cultivation, and 20 states have already passed such legislation.85 A rough summary of
current state legislative actions regarding industrial hemp is as follows.
• Several states (between 15 to 18 states, depending on the source) have laws to
provide for industrial hemp production as described by the 2014 farm bill
provision: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
• Several states (28) and Puerto Rico have introduced or carried over industrial
hemp legislation: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois (carried over from 2013), Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire (carried over from 2013), New Jersey (carried over
from 2013 and new bill introduction as well), New York, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington (two bills were carried
over from 2013), West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
• Several states have passed hemp resolutions (California, Colorado, Illinois,
Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
Vermont, and Virginia).
• Several states have passed bills creating commissions or authorizing research
(Hawaii, Kentucky, and Maryland).
• Several states have passed hemp study bills (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine,
Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont). Other
states have done studies without a legislative directive.
Among the types of current state policies are the following:86 defining industrial hemp based on
the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol it contains; authorizing the growing and possessing of
industrial hemp; requiring state licensing of industrial hemp growers; promoting research and
development of markets for industrial hemp; excluding industrial hemp from the definition of
controlled substances under state law; and establishing a defense to criminal prosecution under
drug possession or cultivation
Although many states have established programs under which a farmer may be able to grow
industrial hemp under certain circumstances, a grower would still need to obtain a DEA permit
and abide by the DEA’s strict production controls. This relationship has resulted in some high-
profile cases, wherein growers have applied for a permit but DEA has not approved (or denied) a
permit to grow hemp, even in states that authorize cultivation under state laws. Ongoing cases
involve attempts to grow hemp under state law in North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and other
states. DEA permits to grow hemp have been issued to some university researchers and to the
Hawaii Industrial Hemp Research Program.87

85 CRS using information from NCSL and Vote Hemp. Information for some states on these two websites oftentimes
does not agree.
86 NCSL, State Industrial Hemp Statutes (http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/state-
industrial-hemp-statutes.aspx).
87 CRS communication with Vote Hemp representatives, July 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
21

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

For example, changes to Colorado’s state laws in November 2012 now allow for industrial hemp
cultivation. Industrial hemp was reported as being grown in Colorado in 2013.88 However,
growers and state authorities continue to face a number of challenges implementing Colorado’s
law, including sampling, registration and inspection, seed availability and sourcing, disposition of
non-complying plants, and law enforcement concerns, as well as production issues such as hemp
agronomics, costly equipment, and limited manufacturing capacity, among other grower and
processor concerns.89 It also remains unclear how federal authorities will respond to production in
states where state laws permit growing and cultivating hemp.
In November 2012, state authorities in Colorado wrote a letter to DOJ requesting clarification
about how federal enforcement authorities might respond to its newly enacted laws and
forthcoming regulations.90 Since federal law regards all varieties of the cannabis plant as
“marijuana,” many regard DOJ’s August 2013 guidance as also likely applicable to the regulation
of industrial hemp (see also “2013 DEA Guidance Outlined in “Cole Memo”).91 In November
2013, Colorado’s State Department of Agriculture officials wrote to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture requesting clarification regarding the cultivation of industrial hemp specifically.92
In September 2013, Representative Blumenauer sent a letter to Oregon state officials urging them
to implement that state’s hemp laws.93 In response, DOJ officials in Oregon indicated that they do
not intend to interfere with their state’s hemp production as long as it is well-regulated and
subject to enforcement.94 Some now regard that correspondence as further indicative of how
federal authorities might respond to production in states where state laws permit growing and
cultivating hemp.95
Despite these developments, in the past there has been ongoing tension between federal and state
authorities over state hemp policies. After passing its own state law authorizing industrial hemp
production in 1999,96 researchers in North Dakota repeatedly applied for, but did not receive, a
DEA permit to cultivate hemp for research purposes in the state.97 Also in 2007, two North
Dakota farmers were granted state hemp farming licenses and, in June 2007, filed a lawsuit in

88 S. Raabe, “First major Hemp Crop in 60 Years is Planted in Southeast Colorado,” Denverpost.com, May 13, 2013;
also see E. Hunter, “Industrial Hemp in Colorado,” November 17 (presentation at the 2013 HIA conference).
89 R. Carleton, “Regulating Industrial Hemp: The Colorado Experience,” February 3, 2013 (presentation at the 2014
National Association of State Department of Agriculture (NASDA) winter meeting); and E. Hunter, “Industrial Hemp
in Colorado,” November 17, 2013 (presentation at the 2013 HIA conference).
90 Letter to Eric Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, from the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
November 13, 2012.
91 See discussion in “2013 DEA Guidance Outlined in “Cole Memo”.” Letter to interested parties from Joe Sandler,
Counsel for Vote Hemp, November 13, 2013.
92 Letter to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, from the Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture,
November 13, 2013.
93 Letter from Representative Earl Blumenauer to Oregon Department of Agriculture and State Board of Agriculture
officials, September 17, 2013.
94 Letter to Representative Earl Blumenauer, from S. Amanda Marshall, U.S. Attorney, District of Oregon, November
7, 2013. See also N. Crombie, “U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer urges Oregon to implement industrial hemp law,” The
Oregonian
, September 18, 2013.
95 CRS communication with representatives of Vote Hemp, Inc., January 2014.
96 The North Dakota Department of Agriculture issued final regulations in 2007 on licensing hemp production. For
information on the state’s requirements, see http://www.agdepartment.com/Programs/Plant/HempFarming.htm.
97 See, for example, letter from North Dakota State University to the DEA, July 27, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
22

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

U.S. District Court (North Dakota) seeking “a declaratory judgment” that the CSA “does not
prohibit their cultivation of industrial hemp pursuant to their state licenses.”98 The case was
dismissed in November 2007.99 The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (Eighth
Circuit), but was again dismissed in December 2009.100 They filed an appeal in May 2010.101
Similarly, Montana passed its state law authorizing hemp production in 2001. In October 2009,
Montana’s Agriculture Department issued its first state license for an industrial hemp-growing
operation in the state. Media reports indicate that the grower does not intend to request a federal
permit. Some argue that this case could pose a potential challenge to DEA of whether it is willing
to override the state’s authority to allow for hemp production in the state, as well as a test of
state’s rights.102
Ongoing Legislative Activity
Industrial Hemp Farming Act
Other introduced legislation would provide for even greater opportunities for commercial
cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States.
The Industrial Hemp Farming Act was first introduced in the 109th Congress by former
Representative Ron Paul, and was reintroduced in subsequent legislative sessions (H.R. 1831,
112th Congress; H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th
Congress). In the 112th Congress, Senator Ron Wyden introduced S. 3501 in the Senate.103
In the 113th Congress, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013 (Massie/H.R. 525; Wyden/S.
359) is intended to facilitate the possible commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United
States. The bill would amend Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16))
to specify that the term “marijuana” does not include industrial hemp, which the bill would define
based on its content of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s primary psychoactive
chemical. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the CSA as a
controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation, thus allowing for industrial hemp to be
grown and processed under some state laws. If enacted, these bills could remove low-THC hemp
from being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation. The bill
could grant authority to any state permitting industrial hemp production and processing to

98 David Monson and Wayne Hauge v. Drug Enforcement Administration and United States Department of Justice,
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, June 18, 2007. For an
overview, see Vote Hemp Inc. website: http://www.votehemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html#overview.
99 Monson v. DEA, 522 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D.N.D. 2007).
100 Monson v. DEA, 589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009).
101 S. Roesler, “ND farmers file another industrial hemp appeal in district court,” Farm & Ranch Guide, June 4, 2010.
102 M. Brown, “First license issued to Montana hemp grower,” Missoulian, October 27, 2009.
103 Previous versions of the bill differ. Section 3 of the 2009 bill would apply when a state has an industrial hemp
regulatory scheme, whereas the 2011 bills would apply whenever state law permits “making industrial hemp,” which a
state might do by exempting hemp making from its controlled substance regulatory scheme. Section 3 of the 2009 bill
would have afforded state officials “exclusive authority” to construe the proposed hemp exclusion from the definition
of marijuana (amending 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(B)), whereas the 2011 bills would include within the proposed industrial
hemp exclusion (amending 21 U.S.C. §802(57)) any industrial hemp grown or possessed in accordance with state law
relating to making industrial hemp. For more information, contact Charles Doyle, CRS attorney, 7-6968.
Congressional Research Service
23

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

determine whether any such cannabis plants met the limit on THC concentration as set forth in
the CSA. In any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding, the state’s determination
may be conclusive and binding. Some in Congress believe that industrial hemp production could
result in economic and employment gains in some states and regions.104
Groups Supporting/Opposing Further Legislation
In addition to groups such as HIA and Vote Hemp Inc. that are actively promoting reintroducing
hemp as a commodity crop in the United States, some key agricultural groups also support U.S.
policy changes regarding industrial hemp. For example:
• The National Farmers Union (NFU) updated its 2013 farm policy regarding
hemp to urge the President, Attorney General, and Congress to “direct the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify industrial hemp as a non-
controlled substance and adopt policy to allow American farmers to grow
industrial hemp under state law without affecting eligibility for USDA
benefits.”105 Previously NFU’s policy advocated that the DEA “differentiate
between industrial hemp and marijuana and adopt policy to allow American
farmers to grow industrial hemp under state law without requiring DEA
licenses.”106
• The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA)
“supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial
production of industrial hemp,” and has urged USDA, DEA, and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy to “collaboratively develop and adopt an official
definition of industrial hemp that comports with definitions currently used by
countries producing hemp.” NASDA also “urges Congress to statutorily
distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana and to direct the DEA to
revise its policies to allow USDA to establish a regulatory program that allows
the development of domestic industrial hemp production by American farmers
and manufacturers.”107
• The National Grange voted in 2009 to support “research, production, processing
and marketing of industrial hemp as a viable agricultural activity.”108
• Regional farmers’ organizations also have policies regarding hemp. For example,
the North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU), as part of its federal agricultural
policy recommendations, has urged “Congress to legalize the production of
industrial hemp.”109 The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU) has urged

104 See, for example, B. Schreiner, “Senate Committee Approves Hemp Legislation,” Associated Press, February 11,
2013; also press release of Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, “Industrialized Hemp Will Help Spur Economic
Growth and Create Jobs in Kentucky,” January 31, 2013.
105 NFU, “Policy of the National Farmers Union,” March 2-5, 2013.
106 NFU, “National Farmers Union Adopts New Policy on Industrial Hemp,” March 22, 2010. Also see NFU, “Policy
of the National Farmers Union,” enacted by delegates to the 108th annual convention, Rapid City, SD, March 14-16,
2010.
107 NASDA, “New Uses of Agricultural Products,” 2010, http://www.nasda.org/cms/7196/9017/9350/7945.aspx.
108 The National Grange, “Legislative Policies,” http://www.nationalgrange.org/legislation/policy/policy_ag.htm; also
see The National Grange, “Hemp Policy,” http://www.grangehemppolicy.info/.
109 NDFU, “2010 Program of Policy & Action,” p. 8; also see http://www.ndfu.org.
Congressional Research Service
24

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

“Congress and the USDA to re-commit and fully fund research into alternative
crops and uses for crops” including industrial hemp; also, they “support the
decoupling of industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana” under the CSA
and “demand the President and the Attorney General direct the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) to differentiate between industrial hemp and
marijuana and adopt a policy to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp
under state law without requiring DEA licenses,” to “legalize the production of
industrial hemp as an alternative crop for agricultural producers.”110
• In California, ongoing efforts to revise the definition of marijuana to exclude
“industrial hemp” (SB 566) are supported by the State’s Sheriffs’ Association.111
Previous efforts in 2011 to establish a pilot program to grow industrial hemp in
selected counties were supported by the county farm bureau and two sheriff’s
offices (although the bill, SB 676, was later vetoed by the state’s governor).112
Despite support by some, other groups continue to oppose policy changes regarding cannabis. For
example, the National Alliance for Health and Safety, as part of Drug Watch International, claims
that proposals to reintroduce hemp as an agricultural crop are merely a strategy by “the
international pro-drug lobby to legalize cannabis and other illicit substances.”113 The California
Narcotic Officer’s Association claims that allowing for industrial hemp production would
undermine state and federal enforcement efforts to regulate marijuana production, since they
claim the two crops are not distinguishable through ground or aerial surveillance, but would
require costly and time-consuming lab work to be conducted.114 This group also claims that these
similarities would create an incentive to use hemp crops to mask illicit marijuana production,
since marijuana is such a lucrative cash crop.115 Concerns about the potential linkages to the
growing and use of illegal drugs are also expressed by some parent and community organizations,
such as Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. and PRIDE Inc.116
Given the DEA’s current policy positions and perceived DEA opposition to changing its current
policies because of concerns over how to allow for hemp production without undermining the
agency’s drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana,
hemp proponents say that further policy changes regarding industrial hemp are likely not
forthcoming absent congressional legislative action.
Concluding Remarks
Hemp production in the United States faces a number of obstacles in the foreseeable future. The
main obstacles facing this potential market are U.S. government drug policies and DEA concerns

110 RMFU, “Policy 2010,” http://www.rmfu.org/pdfs/RMFUPolicy10.pdf, p. 6, pp. 15-16, and p. 24.
111 Letter from the California State Sheriff’s Association to Chairwoman Cathleen Galgiani of the State Senate
Agriculture Committee, March 21, 2013.
112 Letters of support for SB 678 to California State Senator, Mark Leno, from the Imperial County Farm Bureau (June
16, 2011), Office of Sheriff, Kings County (July 19, 2011), and Office of Sheriff, Kern County (July 21, 2011).
113 See, for example, Drug Watch International, “Position Statement on Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.),” November 2002.
114 Letter from the California Narcotic Officers’ Association to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, September 18, 2007.
115 CRS conversation with John Coleman, August 22, 2011.
116 Information provided to CRS by Jeanette McDougal, National Alliance for Health and Safety, August 22, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
25

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

about the ramifications of U.S. commercial hemp production. These concerns are that commercial
cultivation could increase the likelihood of covert production of high-THC marijuana,
significantly complicating DEA’s surveillance and enforcement activities and sending the wrong
message to the American public concerning the government’s position on drugs. DEA officials
and a variety of other observers also express the concern that efforts to legalize hemp—as well as
those to legalize medical marijuana—are a front for individuals and organizations whose real aim
is to see marijuana decriminalized.117
Hemp production in the United States also faces competition from other global suppliers. The
world market for hemp products remains relatively small, and China, as the world’s largest hemp
fiber and seed producer, has had and likely will continue to have major influence on market prices
and thus on the year-to-year profits of producers and processors in other countries.118 Canada’s
head start in the North American market for hemp seed and oil also would likely affect the
profitability of a start-up industry in the United States.
Nevertheless, the U.S. market for hemp-based products has a highly dedicated and growing
demand base, as indicated by recent U.S. market and import data for hemp products and
ingredients, as well as market trends for some natural foods and body care products. Given the
existence of these small-scale, but profitable, niche markets for a wide array of industrial and
consumer products, commercial hemp industry in the United States could provide opportunities
as an economically viable alternative crop for some U.S. growers.

117 For more information on legislative and executive branch actions concerning illegal drugs, see CRS Report
RL32352, War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. For
information on issues pertaining to medical marijuana, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33211, Medical Marijuana:
Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies
.
118 T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production,” Review of Agricultural
Economics
, vol. 26, no. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 97-117. The time period covered in this study ends with the year 2000.
Congressional Research Service
26

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Appendix. Listing of Selected Hemp Studies
Below is a listing of reports and studies, ranked by date (beginning with the most recent).
• University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics, Economic
Considerations for Growing Industrial Hemp: Implications for Kentucky’s
Farmers and Agricultural Economy
, July 2013, http://www2.ca.uky.edu/
cmspubsclass/files/EconomicConsiderationsforGrowingIndustrialHemp.pdf.
• C. A. Kolosov, “Regulation of Industrial Hemp under the Controlled Substances
Act” UCLA Law Review, vol. 57, no. 237, October 2009,
http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/57-1-5.pdf.
• Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008 (prepared
for Food and Rural Initiative Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada).
• Reason Foundation, “Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp
Prohibition,” Policy Study 367, March 2008, http://www.reason.org/ps367.pdf.
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry, March
2007, http://www.agr.gc.ca/misb/spcrops/sc-cs_e.php?page+hemp-chanvre.
• Maine Agricultural Center, An Assessment of Industrial Hemp Production in
Maine, January 2007, http://www.mac.umaine.edu/.
• N. Cherrett et al., “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and
Polyester,” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2005, http://www.sei-
international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/
cotton%20hemp%20polyester%20study%20sei%20and%20bioregional%20and
%20wwf%20wales.pdf.
• T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp
Production,” Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 26(1): 97-117, 2004.
• E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North
America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002,
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html.
• T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Is Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the
U.S.? A Survey of the Literature,” Staff Paper No. 443, July 2001,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12680/1/stpap443.pdf.
• J. Bowyer, “Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) as a Papermaking Raw
Material in Minnesota: Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations,”
Department of Wood & Paper Science Report Series, May 2001.
• K. Hill, N. Boshard-Blackey, and J. Simson, “Legislative Research Shop:
Hemp,” University of Vermont, April 2000, http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/
hemp.htm
• USDA, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status
and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000, http://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/ages001e/ages001em.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

• M. J. Cochran, T. E. Windham, and B. Moore, “Feasibility of Industrial Hemp
Production in Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, SP102000, May 2000.
• D. G. Kraenzel et al. “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota,”
AER 402, North Dakota State University, Fargo, July 1998,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/23264.
• E. C. Thompson et al., Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky,
University of Kentucky, July 1998.
• D. T. Ehrensing, Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States
Pacific Northwest, SB 681, Oregon State University, May 1998,
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/.

Author Contact Information

Renée Johnson

Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588


Congressional Research Service
28