Appendix A. Listing of Selected Hemp Studies
Below is a listing of reports and studies, ranked by date (beginning with the most recent).
- L. Lane et al., Industrial Hemp: Legal, Political/Social and Economic Issues Raised Over Time, University of Arkansas and National Agricultural Law Center, 2016.
- University of Kentucky, Economic Considerations for Growing Industrial Hemp: Implications for Kentucky’s Farmers and Agricultural Economy, July 2013.
- C. A. Kolosov, “Regulation of Industrial Hemp Under the Controlled Substances Act” UCLA Law Review, vol. 57, no. 237 (October 2009).
- 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.
- N. Cherrett et al., “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester,” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2005.
- T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production,” Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, vol. 26, no. 1 (2004), pp. 97-117, 2004.
- E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America,” Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002.
- 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.
- J. Bowyer, “Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) as a Papermaking Raw Material in Minnesota: Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations,” Department of Wood and Paper Science Report Series, May 2001.
- K. Hill, N. Boshard-Blackey, and J. Simson, “Legislative Research Shop: Hemp,” University of Vermont, April 2000.
- USDA, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000.
- 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,” North Dakota State University, AER 402, July 1998.
- 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, Oregon State University, SB 681, May 1998.
Appendix B. Joint DEA/USDA/FDA “Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp”
As noted in the joint DEA/USDA/FDA “Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp,” published August 12, 2016, which is excerpted below:
USDA, having consulted with and received concurrence from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), therefore, is issuing this statement of principles to inform the public regarding how Federal law applies to activities involving industrial hemp so that individuals, institutions, and States that wish to participate in industrial hemp agricultural pilot programs can do so in accordance with Federal law.
The growth and cultivation of industrial hemp may only take place in accordance with an agricultural pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp established by a State department of agriculture or State agency responsible for agriculture in a State where the production of industrial hemp is otherwise legal under State law.
The State agricultural pilot program must provide for State registration and certification of sites used for growing or cultivating industrial hemp. Although registration and certification is not further defined, it is recommended that such registration should include the name of the authorized manufacturer, the period of licensure or other time period during which such person is authorized by the State to manufacture industrial hemp, and the location, including Global Positioning System coordinates, where such person is authorized to manufacture industrial hemp.
Only State departments of agriculture, and persons licensed, registered, or otherwise authorized by them to conduct research under an agricultural pilot program in accordance with section 7606, and institutions of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)), or persons employed by or under a production contract or lease with them to conduct such research, may grow or cultivate industrial hemp as part of the agricultural pilot program.
The term “industrial hemp” includes the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part or derivative of such plant, including seeds of such plant, whether growing or not, that is used exclusively for industrial purposes (fiber and seed) with a tetrahydrocannabinols concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. The term “tetrahydrocannabinols” includes all isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers of tetrahydrocannabinols.
For purposes of marketing research by institutions of higher education or State departments of agriculture (including distribution of marketing materials), but not for the purpose of general commercial activity, industrial hemp products may be sold in a State with an agricultural pilot program or among States with agricultural pilot programs but may not be sold in States where such sale is prohibited. Industrial hemp plants and seeds may not be transported across State lines.
Section 7606 specifically authorized certain entities to “grow or cultivate” industrial hemp but did not eliminate the requirement under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act that the importation of viable cannabis seeds must be carried out by persons registered with the DEA to do so. In addition, any USDA phytosanitary requirements that normally would apply to the importation of plant material will apply to the importation of industrial hemp seed.
Section 7606 did not amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. For example, section 7606 did not alter the approval process for new drug applications, the requirements for the conduct of clinical or nonclinical research, the oversight of marketing claims, or any other authorities of the FDA as they are set forth in that Act.
The Federal Government does not construe section 7606 to alter the requirements of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that apply to the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of drug products containing controlled substances. Manufacturers, distributors, dispensers of drug products derived from cannabis plants, as well as those conducting research with such drug products, must continue to adhere to the CSA requirements.
Institutions of higher education and other participants authorized to carry out agricultural pilot programs under section 7606 may be able to participate in USDA research or other programs to the extent otherwise eligible for participation in those programs.
Author Contact Information
Specialist in Agricultural Policy