Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill, United States)

I am sure everyone working in the hemp industry in the US knows about the 2018 Farm Bill passage with hemp provisions included. One thing I have not seen anyone address is the closing of the loophole about THC vs. delta-9-THC.

In the 2014 Bill, no distinction to test for total THC, rather than only delta-9-THC, was included in the wording of that law. The 2018 bill specifies that compliance testing must be done "postdecarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods," indicating there is no wiggle room for only claiming delta-9-THC and ignoring THCa for compliance.

In my opinion this will radically alter the emerging trimmed flower market, as nearly all trimmed flower on the market tests above 0.3% delta-9-THC postdecarb (all tests I have seen for Oregon CBD's varieties have been above 0.3 delta-9-THC if calculated for post decarb, for instance; Charlotte's Web, AC/DC, Cherrywine, ect. are all in the same boat). Untrimmed biomass for extract probably will be fine, even with varieties that would test hot as trimmed flower.

IMO, either: (1) exceptional ratio varieties must emerge to continue the seed-grown trimmed flower market; (2) only elite ratio clones will be able to be cropped for trimmed flower (3) varieties with lower total cannabinoids, but similar ratios, will replace higher CBD flower in order to remain legally compliant for THC; (4) we successfully lobby for a higher THC limit.

Please share your thoughts. I am really trying to figure this out and am unclear why no one in the industry is talking about it.

2018 Farm Bill full text:
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181210/CRPT-115hrpt1072.pdf pg 429 is where the Hemp section (10113) starts.

most relevant excerpts:

(1) HEMP.—The term ‘hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

...(ii) a procedure for testing, using postdecarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration levels of hemp produced in the State or territory of the Indian tribe;

Whatever foot dragging techniques FDA and other agencies employ to insure that their preferred horses end up winning the lion's share of the market will likely end up being more or a factor than the language in the legislation. Thats how it works out with state governments and it seems pretty doubtful that the federal system is any less prone to tortured logic and thinly veiled ends-justifing-the-means machiavellian behavior, rent-seeking, vain haughtiness, holier-than-thou bullshit, goalpost shifting, open greed, etc.

There are some work around as some states test for thc early and then you may have some time before you actually have to harvest.

It’s not surprising as thc a is still thc after decarb so why wouldn’t be added to the equation. No more bogus coa’s sayng .2 thc, 18%

Until we have hemp cultivars with cbd/thc ratios pushing 50:1 and above, it’s going to be a game of timing harvest for compiance in leiu of max cbd. If you know your cbd :thc ratio it will be easy to where your cbd will be maxing out, prob around 10%. Raise the max thc to 1%!

PDX Dopesmoker: regardless of the politics, the Cannabis community has made the trimmed flower market work so far. Probably none of people passing the hemp provisions in congress saw the trimmed flower market coming in 2014. We will just have to adapt, and hopefully this past four years has allowed enough progress to do so.

highsteppa said:

There are some work around as some states test for thc early and then you may have some time before you actually have to harvest.

It’s not surprising as thc a is still thc after decarb so why wouldn’t be added to the equation. No more bogus coa’s sayng .2 thc, 18%

Until we have hemp cultivars with cbd/thc ratios pushing 50:1 and above, it’s going to be a game of timing harvest for compiance in leiu of max cbd. If you know your cbd :thc ratio it will be easy to where your cbd will be maxing out, prob around 10%. Raise the max thc to 1%!

Click to expand...

Hello highsteppa

Here I think you are touching on another aspect of this problem. What you describe may be fine and dandy for extract material that is shipped for processing and isn't tested between the field and extraction*. But if the final product to be sold to a retail customer is trimmed flower, that final product must remain compliant at under 0.3%. The bill states "any part of the plant... whether growing or not" may not exceed 0.3%.

This issue has been acknowledged among oil producers, who generally remix from distillates/isolates or dilute their product to remain compliant (since THC percent is concentrated in extracts). It doesn't seem like the law specifies any difference with flower that becomes more potent after the field test or post trimming.

*Unless you get pulled over in idaho with a truckload and THEY test it. This Idaho case is something I am watching pretty closely. It may be the first case to test this issue where a "legal" batch of Oregon hemp (based on field tests for delta 9 THC) is retested in Idaho post harvest and will very likely test hot. Even if the early testing is changed to look at total THC potential, not just delta 9, the discrepancy between immature and mature flower could lead to the same scenario.

A ratio makes more sense than a flower concentration because the material will be concentrated. Low cannabinoid plants make little to no sense other than for fiber or edible seed and other uses. CBD should absolutely come from the highest CBD flowers without question (within reason, for example 12-18% THC is fine it does not have to be a 22% THC strain, something similar should apply for CBD). If 0.3% means immature fan leaf that is different from sampling the most resinous bud from the crop. The gov't people are talking about money and phrasing it as laws, this much I agree with.

High art.spliff

art.spliff said:

If 0.3% means immature fan leaf that is different from sampling the most resinous bud from the crop.

Click to expand...

As written, it is any part, growing or not. If you sell the most resinous bud as trimmed flower, regulators/LEO could test that end product. If it tests over 0.3%, it would be considered hot/illegal.

Apparently, after speaking with a lawyer, they are focused on the "or similarly reliable method" phrasing. Which to me, in context of decarboxylation, "similarly reliable" was intended to mean the measure of total potential delta-9-THC in any particular sample. They are arguing other tests, like HPLC, that do not convert chemicals to new forms, are more appropriate. This is apparently where the argument will lie.

I prefer their reading, and if they think there is legal space there to continue arguing for ignoring THCa then it gives us some more time at least. I wouldn't want to be the test case though.

I'm fairly certain that large haul of 7,000+ lbs of hemp was done intentionally for the sole purpose of creating a legal precedent. I can't see any other valid reason they would attempt to make such a maneuver without the expectation of litigation arising from it.

Sometimes, if you have enough vested interests in something, you don't leave the outcome in the hands of others. Instead, you create a perfect case scenario and then allow it play out in the courts, hoping, you create the needed case law for future citation.

I know for a fact in my state, those who find their flowers over the THC threshold, are simply mixing in fan leaves with ground material to make it compliant again. I only know of one farmer who is doing a good job with hemp in our state out of several hundred that I've interacted with.

However, the FDA letters have begun rolling out in our state as well as others. I'm waiting until someone I know receive one so I can read the language of it and come up with a new risk management strategy that still complies.



dank.Frank

So I guess the next thing is arguing for CBD and THC remaining together or equal for laws regardless of anyone's pursuit for higher and nearly pure CBD varieties. Same plant both medicinal and the interests of large corporate pharma seem to be to separate or split the plant into as many different chemicals as possible.

When it is one plant. One extract, all inclusive, etc. The number 0.3% is arbitrary unless it is defined scientifically and even then it is politicians, legislators writing the law not growers or medical patients. The Hemp Bill might make sense to people writing it but it looks like nonsense to me.

Laws are subject to interpretation. For example I notice they used the language "... territory of the Indian tribe" instead of Native American.

An agreed upon list of companies including budweiser or philip morris or pepsi or pfizer or monsanto should not be allowed anywhere near food cultivation including cannabis. Leaving our food with these guys is equivalent to leaving children at an outed offending Catholic priest day care.

We talk about laws and regulations almost as if they are theoretical sometimes. In truth I have a pro-regulation stance in the form of monitoring fossil fuel use and energy consumption as a prime factor to consider.

In addition to nutrient content and toxin presence, evidence of toxin harm to human health, and sustainable production with equitable reasonable fairly compensated human labor.

The 0.3 number is only written as a minor detail, like a distraction to give people something to talk about. All it means is the feds still want a law that says they can arrest people for growing a plant, only allowing monsanto or mcdonalds to grow and make the big bucks as it were.

People can debate about taxes and alcohol prohibition and many other things but arresting or jailing people is against human rights unquestionably with regards to cultivating edible medicinal herbs. All reports are coming out in favor of this plant; there are no reports of risk or harm.

Example - cite former alcohol or opiate or prescription drug users and their experiences, accounts with rehab, etc. Now go look for that group with cannabis.

This alters the concept of good and evil in a sense some people have been taught because if you look in the mirror it is difficult if not impossible to be on both sides if that makes sense.

How many in the history of criminal justice shouldn't have been arrested in the first place? That is a quite a dark past to expect any level of respect or trust. A 180 degree stance is unexpected, unbelievable, won't happen overnight, etc.

art.spliff said:

An agreed upon list of companies including budweiser or philip morris or pepsi or pfizer or monsanto should not be allowed anywhere near food cultivation including cannabis. Leaving our food with these guys is equivalent to leaving children at an outed offending Catholic priest day care.

We talk about laws and regulations almost as if they are theoretical sometimes. In truth I have a pro-regulation stance in the form of monitoring fossil fuel use and energy consumption as a prime factor to consider.

In addition to nutrient content and toxin presence, evidence of toxin harm to human health, and sustainable production with equitable reasonable fairly compensated human labor.

The 0.3 number is only written as a minor detail, like a distraction to give people something to talk about. All it means is the feds still want a law that says they can arrest people for growing a plant, only allowing monsanto or mcdonalds to grow and make the big bucks as it were.

People can debate about taxes and alcohol prohibition and many other things but arresting or jailing people is against human rights unquestionably with regards to cultivating edible medicinal herbs. All reports are coming out in favor of this plant; there are no reports of risk or harm.

Example - cite former alcohol or opiate or prescription drug users and their experiences, accounts with rehab, etc. Now go look for that group with cannabis.

This alters the concept of good and evil in a sense some people have been taught because if you look in the mirror it is difficult if not impossible to be on both sides if that makes sense.

How many in the history of criminal justice shouldn't have been arrested in the first place? That is a quite a dark past to expect any level of respect or trust. A 180 degree stance is unexpected, unbelievable, won't happen overnight, etc.

Click to expand...

Your desire to offer fantastic new authority to elected officials with a horrible track record and expectations of getting a good result is so diametrically opposed to observed reality and recent history that I question your sanity. Do you live on Earth or do you live on Fantasy Island?

de plane ! de plane !

fantasia, boss !!!

So, this very topic came up at the warehouse after I came home and read this. So I brought it up the next morning and here is what I was told by our two managers, who talked to more than a few people, including two vendors that sell prerolls, the guy who is selling us our raw CBD bud to make our own prerolls, who is also very connected to the political/law enforcement side of hemp here in South Carolina, as well as a lawyer connected to Hemp Garden ( out of NY, sells grams and prerolls ). Hemp Garden was raided by the DEA at a Myrtle Beach store last year for hot products and had all inventory confiscated and all the nightmare.

In the end the DEA apologized, returned the products, and were given the guidance to not include the A in THCa. I don't know why. Obviously all the acid is converted upon combustion. It really opens up the door though on the available varieties. We are launching our inhouse prrolls next week. This past two days at work we played with a 120 hole cone filler and a grinder. It was fun. I bought a big can filter and made a workstation in our lab and we knocked out 120 in 30 minutes.

It is amazing how CBD flower has exploded. All our stores run out or need reorders almost immediately. These new strains blow away the stuff we already get from 3'rd part vendors. and I expect when it hits the shelves next week it's gonna be big.

ronbo51 said:

In the end the DEA apologized, returned the products, and were given the guidance to not include the A in THCa. I don't know why. Obviously all the acid is converted upon combustion. It really opens up the door though on the available varieties.

Click to expand...

I mean, really it opens the door to selling flower with enough THCa to get people high. If, say, 90-95% of THC is present as the acid, then 3-6% total THC could test legal. Thereby, (low potency) marijuana is legal? It also opens up the door for much lower ratio strains with significant THC content, but that are still CBD dominant.

Although, if the bust occurred last year, it would have been under the 2014 wording, which didn't include the word decarboxylation anywhere.

For those who may be paying attention to this:

The USDA has given some explicit answers to my questions of when the 2018 farm bill rules will take effect, and it is apparently one year after they formulate the regulations. 2019 season proceeds under the 2014 bill. So, regardless of where the delta 9/decarb question lands, states that have chosen to interpret the 2014 bill as delta-9-THC only are good to go for ignoring THCa (since no decarb wording is in the 2014 bill) for at least 2019 and maybe 2020, depending on how on top of issuing regulations the USDA actually is.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/hemp-production-program

https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/hemp-production-program-questions-and-answers

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/farmbill-hemp

Excerpt from USDA:
"It is USDA’s intention to issue regulations in the Fall of 2019 to accommodate the 2020 planting season. The rulemaking will provide for the publishing of a proposed rule, comment period, and a final rule.

For the 2019 planting season, the 2018 Farm Bill provides that States, Tribes, and institutions of higher education can continue operating under authorities of the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA provided additional guidance to these programs in the August 2016 multi-agency Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp (FR 53395). The 2018 Farm Bill extension of the 2014 authority expires 12 months after USDA has established the plan and regulations required under the 2018 Farm Bill."

Click to expand...

It should be noted that there is some discrepency as to when the USDA regulations would take effect in the above quote; it says the 2014 bill authority extends one year after they issue regulations, but then also say they plan to release regulations this fall, less than a year before the completion of 2020 growing season.


Also the "statement of principals" mentioned in the quote that they issued in 2016 tried to claim all "isomers" of "tetrahydrocannabinols" are included in the 0.3 limit (which would include THCa), however this is not the wording of the actual bill and therefore is unenforceable as far as I can tell (in the same way the DEA claim that hemp derived CBD is still schedule 1 is incorrect under the wording of the law and therefore is toothless):
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...46/statement-of-principles-on-industrial-hemp

GrowingHigher said:

For those who may be paying attention to this:

The USDA has given some explicit answers to my questions of when the 2018 farm bill rules will take effect, and it is apparently one year after they formulate the regulations. 2019 season proceeds under the 2014 bill. So, regardless of where the delta 9/decarb question lands, states that have chosen to interpret the 2014 bill as delta-9-THC only are good to go for ignoring THCa (since no decarb wording is in the 2014 bill) for at least 2019 and maybe 2020, depending on how on top of issuing regulations the USDA actually is.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/hemp-production-program

https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/hemp-production-program-questions-and-answers

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/farmbill-hemp



It should be noted that there is some discrepency as to when the USDA regulations would take effect in the above quote; it says the 2014 bill authority extends one year after they issue regulations, but then also say they plan to release regulations this fall, less than a year before the completion of 2020 growing season.


Also the "statement of principals" mentioned in the quote that they issued in 2016 tried to claim all "isomers" of "tetrahydrocannabinols" are included in the 0.3 limit (which would include THCa), however this is not the wording of the actual bill and therefore is unenforceable as far as I can tell (in the same way the DEA claim that hemp derived CBD is still schedule 1 is incorrect under the wording of the law and therefore is toothless):
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...46/statement-of-principles-on-industrial-hemp

Click to expand...

With regards to the new laws not taking effect until vague number of dozens of months into the future, thats the same shit they did in Oregon, the commercial industry wasn't allowed to start up until almost two years after the legalization law was passed. It takes that fucking long for the moneyed elites to get their shit together so they can horde even more wealth for themselves. Its gonna take them until summer of 2020 to figure out how to put a seed into the dirt and water it.
Can you imagine someone as officious and rat-faced as a federal bureaucrat claiming that it takes them over a year to make up new rules? Thats all those bossy bastards ever do is make up rules about fucking everything, but the first second it seems that there might some smidgen of value to their incredible work ethics and you might finally see some benefit from what those "public servants" do then suddenly it takes until a few months after the second coming of Jesus' less punctual younger brother to get anything done.

On mailing hemp:

According to the USPS, a mailing is compliant when it contains the following documentation:

“1. A signed self-certification statement, subject to the False Statements Act. Statements must be printed on the mailer’s own letterhead, and must include the text, “I certify that all information contained in this letter and supporting documents are accurate, truthful, and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information or omits information relating to this certification may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, including fines and imprisonment.”

2. The industrial hemp producer possesses a license issued by the Department of Agriculture, for the state where the Post office/ acceptance unit is located, which includes documentation identifying the producer by name and showing the mailer is authorized by the registered producer to market products manufactured by that producer.

3. The industrial hemp, or products produced from industrial hemp, contains a delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis.”

Click to expand...

More info:
https://cannabusiness.law/usps-issu...edium=email&utm_source=sendpress&utm_campaign