Why is the 0.3% THC limit a problem for hemp farmers?

The 0.3% in-field THC limit established by the 2018 Farm Bill creates an existential risk for hemp farmers because all hemp plants naturally contain some THC and environmental factors — particularly heat and sunlight — can drive THC levels above the threshold during the growing season. If a crop tests above 0.3% THC in the field, farmers are required to destroy the entire harvest, regardless of whether the finished product could be processed down to compliant levels. U.S. Hemp Roundtable President Jena Murray characterized the origin of this threshold as lacking scientific basis: the number appears to have been chosen without strong research to support it as an agriculturally meaningful distinction. The 2019 Kentucky hemp crisis illustrated the problem concretely — an unusually hot growing season drove THC levels above the limit across the state, putting entire harvests at risk of mandatory destruction.

What is post-harvest THC remediation and why does it matter for hemp policy?

Post-harvest THC remediation is the process of extracting or reducing THC content from harvested hemp biomass through processing techniques, bringing the final material within the 0.3% THC threshold required for finished consumer products. Murray highlighted this as a critical missing piece in hemp policy: 'You can remediate THC and bring the levels down once it comes off the farm.' The existence of effective remediation technology means that hemp biomass with slightly elevated in-field THC levels is not dangerous or unusable — it is commercially viable material that can be processed into fully compliant products. Mandatory crop destruction policies that ignore this reality impose enormous financial penalties on farmers for a problem that can be resolved through normal processing. Explicit remediation allowances — clear regulatory language permitting post-harvest THC reduction — are one of the four key policy changes the U.S. Hemp Roundtable advocates for.

Why is the U.S. Hemp Roundtable advocating to raise the in-field THC limit to 1%?

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable, led by President Jena Murray, has advocated raising the in-field THC limit for farmers from 0.3% to 1% to provide a reasonable agricultural buffer against natural variation — while keeping the 0.3% threshold for finished consumer products. At 1%, hemp is still far below the THC concentrations found in marijuana grown for intoxicating purposes, meaning this change would have no meaningful impact on intoxication risk while giving farmers the flexibility to manage crops through normal environmental variation. Murray explained the advocacy position directly: 'We're not talking about finished products; we're talking about for the farmers.' This distinction is critical — the 1% proposal applies only to living plants in the field, not to the products that reach consumers.

What are hemp's major uses beyond CBD products?

Hemp has four major commercial categories that all depend on viable hemp farming: grain production (hemp seeds for food products including hemp seed oil, hemp protein powder, and whole seed foods); fiber for textiles and industrial materials (including rope, insulation, automotive composites, and paper); hempcrete for sustainable building construction (a carbon-negative building material made from hemp hurd and lime); and CBD and other cannabinoids for wellness products. Murray emphasized during the Qredible Live broadcast: 'There's a lot of good going on in hemp that is not just our [CBD] products.' All four sectors depend on farmers being able to grow hemp without the constant threat of crop destruction — meaning the in-field THC limit problem is not just a CBD industry concern but an existential issue for the entire hemp economy, from food to textiles to sustainable construction.

What was the farm bill 'whiplash' that Murray described in hemp THC policy?

Murray described a disorienting policy reversal during farm bill negotiations: the U.S. Hemp Roundtable and industry advocates had successfully pushed to include language raising the in-field THC limit from 0.3% to 1%. But instead of that language advancing, new counterproposal language emerged requiring 'non-detectable amounts of THC' in hemp — a standard that would make growing any variety of hemp commercially impossible since all hemp plants naturally contain trace THC. Murray described the resulting strategic pivot: 'That language got inserted into the farm bill, and we had to completely pivot from even wanting to raise it to wait, can we at least just keep it the same?' This whiplash from advocating for improvement to defending the status quo illustrates how regulatory decisions made without understanding of agricultural realities can force the industry into defensive positions rather than progress — and reinforces Murray's emphasis on sustained lawmaker education as the only path to sensible policy.

Farmer-Friendly Hemp Policies: Shaping the Future Beyond CBD

Beyond CBD: How Hemp's Future Depends on Farmer-Friendly Policies

Author: Joy

Date: February 28, 2025

While CBD products continue to gain popularity, the foundation of the entire hemp industry rests on the shoulders of American farmers and the need for farmer-friendly hemp policies. During a recent Qredible live broadcast, U.S. Hemp Roundtable President Jena Murray highlighted a critical issue that threatens the very foundation of hemp agriculture in America – unrealistic THC limits that put farmers at risk.

The Arbitrary 0.3% THC Threshold

The 2018 Farm Bill defined legal hemp as cannabis plants containing no more than 0.3% THC. This single number has created significant headaches for farmers across the country. According to Murray, this threshold appears to have been established with little scientific basis.

"I'm pretty sure they just picked that number kind of out of a hat," Murray explained. "I don't think there was a ton of science because we don't have a ton of science on drilling down on things like that, especially back in 2018."

What makes this limit particularly problematic is that all hemp naturally contains some level of THC, and environmental factors can cause those levels to fluctuate.

The Kentucky Hemp Crisis

Murray's concerns were validated by a real-world example shared during the broadcast. In 2019, Kentucky hemp farmers faced a crisis when unusually hot weather caused THC levels in their crops to rise above the legal threshold.

"If anybody remembers that year, it was a really hot year in Kentucky, and guess what? There's something called the Sun that drives THC values up," Murray explained.

The farmers were caught in an impossible situation – they were required to contact the Department of Agriculture for testing, and if their crops tested "hot" (above 0.3% THC), they would be forced to destroy their entire harvest. The financial implications of such a requirement are devastating for agricultural operations.

Common Sense vs. Regulation

The absurdity of this situation becomes clear when considering that hemp with slightly elevated THC can be easily remediated after harvest. The THC can be extracted or reduced to bring it within legal limits before it reaches consumers.

"You can remediate THC and bring the levels down once it comes off the farm," Murray pointed out. "Putting those restrictions on a farmer – somebody's not thinking."

In practice, state agricultural officials in Kentucky recognized the irrationality of the situation and offered flexibility, giving farmers passes to harvest despite technically being over the limit. However, this kind of ad hoc approach creates uncertainty and inconsistency across different states and growing seasons.

Advocating for 1% THC for Farmers

Murray and other industry advocates have been pushing to raise the in-field THC limit for farmers to 1% – still well below the levels found in marijuana grown for intoxicating purposes, but providing enough flexibility to make hemp farming viable.

"We were in DC advocating to raise the percentage from 0.3% to 1% out of the field for farmers," Murray explained. "We're not talking about finished products; we're talking about for the farmers."

This change would provide agricultural producers with a reasonable buffer against natural variations in THC content due to weather, soil conditions, and other environmental factors. Importantly, the finished product regulations could still maintain the 0.3% threshold after post-harvest processing.

The Bigger Hemp Picture

This issue highlights an important reality: the hemp industry extends far beyond CBD products. Murray emphasized that hemp has numerous valuable applications:

Grain production for food products
Fiber for textiles and industrial materials
Hempcrete for sustainable building materials
CBD and other cannabinoids for wellness products

"There's a lot of good going on in hemp that is not just our [CBD] products," Murray noted.

All of these sectors depend on farmers being able to grow hemp without the constant threat of crop destruction hanging over their heads. Overly restrictive regulations that fail to account for agricultural realities threaten not just CBD businesses but the entire hemp ecosystem.

Legislative Progress and Setbacks

Efforts to create more farmer-friendly hemp policies have faced obstacles. Murray described how language aimed at raising the field THC limit to 1% was initially included in farm bill discussions, only to face a sudden reversal.

"That language got inserted into the farm bill, and we had to completely pivot from even wanting to raise it to 'wait, can we at least just keep it the same?'" Murray explained. New language had been introduced that would have required "non-detectable amounts of THC," which would make growing any variety of hemp virtually impossible.

This whiplash in policy proposals reflects the ongoing knowledge gap among some lawmakers about agricultural realities and the difference between hemp and marijuana – a gap that can only be addressed through continued education and advocacy.

The Path Forward for Hemp Agriculture

For the hemp industry to reach its full potential, several policy changes are needed:

Science-based THC limits: Field limits should reflect agricultural realities and be based on research rather than arbitrary thresholds.
Focus on finished products: Regulatory emphasis should be placed on ensuring consumer products meet standards, not on punishing farmers for minor natural variations.
Consistent testing protocols: Standardized testing methods across states would prevent situations where crops might pass in one state but fail in another.
Remediation allowances: Clear policies allowing for post-harvest remediation provide farmers with options beyond crop destruction.

An Industry-Wide Issue

The challenge of unrealistic THC limits illustrates how regulatory decisions made without proper understanding can threaten entire industries. For CBD businesses, supporting farmer-friendly hemp policies is not just a matter of solidarity – it's an existential necessity.

Without a stable and prosperous agricultural base, the entire supply chain for hemp products becomes vulnerable. The future of CBD, hemp-based foods, sustainable building materials, and eco-friendly textiles all depend on farmers being able to grow hemp as a viable crop.

As Murray emphasized throughout the discussion, education and advocacy remain the keys to creating sensible policies that allow the entire hemp industry to flourish. By focusing on these efforts, the industry can work toward regulations that protect consumers while allowing farmers to grow this versatile crop without unnecessary risk.