While most of the debate around hemp policy in the slow-moving U.S. Farm Bill has centered on cannabinoids and efforts to control intoxicating hemp products, proposed updates to the omnibus agricultural legislation also contain several provisions that could affect traditional hemp grown for fiber and grain.
The House Committee on Agriculture voted earlier this month to approve House Resolution 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (the 2026 Farm Bill).
Those provisions are relatively modest compared with the sweeping policy fight over intoxicating hemp. But together they signal an effort by U.S. lawmakers to separate industrial hemp agriculture from the cannabinoid sector while tightening a few technical rules that farmers must follow in the field.
THC definition
A key technical change under discussion would reinforce the use of “total THC” in determining whether a hemp crop complies with the legal limit. USDA already moved toward total THC testing in its final hemp rules, which account for both delta-9 THC and THCA — the precursor compound that converts to THC when heated. Proposed Farm Bill updates could further entrench that approach in statute.
For fiber and grain growers, the shift is subtle but important. Most industrial hemp varieties are bred to stay well below the legal limit, yet the change slightly increases the risk that a crop could test “hot,” particularly under environmental stress that can push cannabinoid levels higher.
The irony is that the push toward total THC testing stems largely from the intoxicating hemp market rather than traditional hemp agriculture. Fiber and grain producers have long argued that the cannabinoid sector’s rapid expansion has complicated regulatory oversight for farmers growing non-intoxicating crops.
Industrial hemp
Another proposal circulating in Farm Bill discussions would establish a distinct regulatory category for “true hemp” — crops grown specifically for fiber or grain rather than cannabinoids.
Supporters say such a distinction would recognize the practical differences between hemp grown for agricultural raw materials and hemp cultivated for flowers used in cannabinoid extraction.
That distinction reflects a practical reality within the industry. Fiber hemp grown densely for stalk production bears little resemblance to cannabinoid crops cultivated for flowers.
Separating those categories could allow federal and state regulators to tailor oversight more appropriately to agricultural hemp production. For a fiber sector that has struggled to build supply chains in the United States, the move could help normalize hemp as a conventional field crop.
Testing burden
The industrial hemp designation could also open the door to reduced testing requirements for fiber and grain growers.
Since nationwide hemp legalization in 2018, farmers have often complained that THC testing rules were designed primarily for cannabinoid crops. Fiber and grain hemp is typically planted densely and harvested mechanically over large acreage, making flower-based sampling difficult and costly.
Under the proposed framework, states and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could adopt simplified testing systems for industrial hemp, including performance-based sampling or certified seed programs. Such changes could lower compliance costs and bring hemp regulation closer to the norms applied to other agricultural commodities.
Clearer uses
The proposed updates also reaffirm federal protection for hemp grown for fiber, grain, seed oil and food ingredients. Certain hempseed-derived ingredients are approved for limited use in animal feed under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, though broader use of hemp biomass in livestock feed remains restricted.
Those uses have always been permitted under the 2018 Farm Bill, but the rapid growth of cannabinoid markets has often blurred public understanding of hemp’s role as an agricultural crop.
Clarifying the legal status of industrial uses could help investors, processors and policymakers distinguish between stable agricultural supply chains and the more volatile cannabinoid market.
Delay sought
Some lawmakers are hoping to repeal or delay the ban on intoxicating products, but House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the Farm Bill should deal with hemp plants, not hemp products.
“The ag appropriations bill that passed last fall brought clarity to the industry on what is or is not allowable under the definitions of hemp,” Thompson said before this month’s House passage of the Farm Bill. “That language addressed the issue of final form products that have been the source of many public health concerns since the 2018 Farm Bill, because they lacked a federal regulatory structure.”
Instead, Thompson said hemp-derived products in their final form fall within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
For the industrial hemp sector, the challenge will be ensuring that policy aimed at controlling intoxicating products does not unintentionally further complicate farming of hemp grown for fiber, grain and other traditional agricultural uses.