[This story is an update to our coverage Thursday, June 5]
A Republican-controlled House panel has advanced a spending bill that CBD stakeholders warn could cripple the sector by banning most consumable cannabinoid products legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies approved the fiscal year 2026 proposal in a 9-7 vote, just one day after releasing the bill’s text. The measure now heads to the full committee for further debate.
Language in the House appropriations bill could effectively erase legal CBD from the U.S. marketplace, and highlights how intoxicating hemp derivatives have backfired on the wider hemp industry.
Language in the draft law, inserted by Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, proposes redefining hemp to prohibit products containing “any quantifiable amount” of THC or cannabinoids “that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects),” thereby threatening even trace-THC CBD oils and full-spectrum extracts widely used in wellness, cosmetics, and food supplements.
The provisions, first unveiled Wednesday as part of the annual agriculture appropriations bill, target the unregulated spread of delta-8 THC and other synthetic cannabinoids made in the lab from hemp-derived CBD. But in doing so, it threatens to drag down the legal CBD sector—the single largest economic engine in hemp—raising alarms about the industry’s future.
The CBD market’s jeopardy is self-inflicted. Years of exploitative practices by operators selling intoxicating hemp products in gas stations and online have triggered a crackdown, with legitimate CBD manufacturers now caught in the legislative net. Worse, some “legacy” CBD brands—ravaged by a 90% collapse in the market—have clung to synthetic intoxicants in a last-ditch effort to survive.
Proposed definitions
The draft legislation overhauls the federal definition of hemp. The new language specifies that hemp excludes:
“any cannabinoid that is intoxicating or marketed as intoxicating; or… any article that contains any quantifiable amount of tetrahydrocannabinol or any cannabinoid described in clause (i) based on substance, form, manufacture, or article (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture)” .
By this wording, “quantifiable” becomes a flexible, discretionary term in the hands of two federal agencies, opening the door to bans on products with even trace THC content.
Notably, the bill narrows legal hemp production to “fiber, grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, microgreens or other edible hemp leaf products intended for human consumption”—stripping out all references to cannabinoids or flower products .
An additional clause explicitly removes from the hemp definition:
“a drug that is the subject of an application approved under subsection (c) or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355)” .
This exception is likely meant to preserve market access for Epidiolex, the FDA-approved epilepsy drug made from CBD isolate, but reinforces the de facto prohibition of non-prescription CBD products.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel to the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment the bill “would ban the vast majority of hemp products in the marketplace.” Though skeptical of the bill’s overall chances amid broader legislative controversy, Miller said the threat is real and urgent.
Laws affecting hemp
The annual agriculture appropriations bill is distinct but often interrelated with the U.S. Farm Bill and attendant legislation that shape U.S. agricultural and rural policy. The Farm Bill is a sweeping, multi-year law that sets long-term federal policy on a wide range of issues. Typically reauthorized every five years, the Farm Bill is drafted by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and provides the framework for how billions of dollars in agriculture-related spending is allocated over time.
In contrast, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill—such as the one for Fiscal Year 2026—is an annual spending bill passed by Congress to fund the day-to-day operations of federal agencies like USDA and FDA. While it primarily serves as a budget mechanism, lawmakers often insert policy provisions, or “riders,” that reflect broader legislative goals or respond to current political debates.
When the Farm Bill is delayed or deadlocked, as it is now, the appropriations process can become a battleground for major policy fights—such as the current controversy over intoxicating hemp derivatives. In such cases, appropriations language may echo or preview proposals intended for the Farm Bill, effectively allowing lawmakers to advance key reforms or restrictions through the budget process even before the Farm Bill itself is finalized.
The cost of dysfunction
The CBD crisis comes amid continued paralysis on the delayed 2023 Farm Bill, now extended until Sept. 30, 2025. That postponement leaves intoxicating hemp products in legal limbo and perpetuates confusion for consumers and businesses alike. With no federal clarity, states have diverged wildly—California and Texas moving to ban detectable THC even in non-intoxicating forms, while others allow a free-for-all.
Rep. Harris, chairing the subcommittee that introduced the appropriations bill, framed the measure as necessary to “close the hemp loophole that has resulted in the proliferation of unregulated intoxicating hemp products.” His committee statement underscores the political momentum behind the crackdown, citing public health and safety.
But that justification, while valid, risks conflating all cannabinoids with bad actors. Harris’s broad-brush approach could annihilate what remains of the legitimate CBD industry—an industry that, despite setbacks, still underpins the economic case for hemp in food, cosmetics, and wellness sectors.
Largest hemp sector
While fiber and grain hemp hold long-term promise, the CBD subsector remains the most commercially valuable in the U.S. industrial hemp portfolio. It was the first to find market traction after the 2018 Farm Bill and continues to generate the bulk of sector revenues, despite the regulatory vacuum.
By failing to distinguish non-intoxicating CBD from synthetic intoxicants, the House bill proposes a cure that kills the patient. What the CBD industry needs instead is meaningful regulation, particularly from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has dodged responsibility for CBD oversight for five years. A rational path forward would empower the FDA to set limits on cannabinoid content, require GMP standards, and enforce labeling and age restrictions.
Hemp and food policy
In a press release, Harris said his broader agricultural priorities include “producing food, feeding the nation, and fostering innovation.” In that context, hemp’s role in food systems—via grain, oil, and protein—should be reinforced, not penalized. As the bill acknowledges, hemp can still be cultivated for “whole grain, oil, cake, nut, [and] hull,” but these sectors could be collateral damage in a war being waged over cannabinoids.
Hemp foods are rich in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, protein, and essential minerals. Yet they are now caught in a political backlash rooted in synthetic THC products that were never viable long-term and never should have been allowed into unregulated markets. Fiber innovators, regenerative agriculture projects, and biocomposite manufacturers now find themselves sidelined in a debate that has nothing to do with their work.
Narrowing window
The Farm Bill remains a potential vehicle for smarter cannabinoid regulation. The so-called Miller Amendment, introduced last year, attempts to separate intoxicating hemp from industrial applications. But with no Senate language yet released, and deep divides in both chambers, hemp stakeholders are preparing for more delays—and more state-level chaos.
Meanwhile, intoxicating cannabinoids continue to dominate headlines, reinforcing the public’s misperceptions of hemp and undermining investment in sustainable alternatives.
The path forward is clear: federal lawmakers must draw a line between synthetic, psychoactive hemp products and safe, plant-derived CBD. They must resist the urge to use a sledgehammer where surgical clarity is needed. Otherwise, they will not only destroy what’s left of the CBD market—they will derail hemp’s potential for good.