June 03, 2026 By Stephen L. Bartlett
After months of anticipation, on May 28, 2026, Representative Andy Barr (R-KY) introduced a bill to legalize and tightly regulate consumable hemp products. The bill – entitled the Lawful Hemp Protection Act (“LPHA”) – was introduced as an amendment to the House version of the 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 8646) and proposes meaningful modifications to the federal definition of “hemp” and a framework for regulating the ever-expanding national marketplace for hemp-derived consumer products (“HDCPs”), now estimated to be in excess of $30B. Among the constellation of pending legislation addressing HDCPs or, alternatively, seeking to delay the so-called “hemp-ban” scheduled to take effect in November, the LPHA provides perhaps the most promising pathway to ensure the continued viability of the HDCP marketplace for years to come.
Below we highlight the most crucial aspects of this legislation and also the broader legislative and policy context in which this bill exists. As with all pending legislation directly or indirectly affecting the hemp marketplace, we are following this bill closely and will report on any critical developments.
How would the LPHA change the federal definitions of “hemp” and related hemp materials?
Critically, the LPHA proposes to redefine hemp in reference to the dry weight percentage of delta-9 THC, rather than adopting the total THC standard that is scheduled to become operative in November and that has been adopted by numerous states seeking to pare back the proliferation of intoxicating HDCPs within their individual markets.
Specifically, the LPHA would define hemp, in part, as:
For reference, below is a comparison of the definition of hemp proposed by the LPHA against the definition of hemp scheduled to take effect on November 13, 2026:
With respect to measurement, the LPHA would require the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of hemp to be measured on the finished consumer product and not on raw, floral material or any work-in-process material, including an unfinished hemp ingredient.
Finally, the LPHA establishes a new definition of “Unfinished Hemp Ingredient” as follows:
This definition essentially creates a manufacturing safe harbor for in-process materials (such as WIP hemp oils and extracts), which may not strictly meet the 1% delta-9 THC standard (and, for that reason, might otherwise be classified as “marijuana”), but are destined for further processing or formulation into finished products rather than consumer use. This provision, if ultimately enacted, would solve a persistent manufacturing quandary for HDCP manufacturers across the country, who often use hemp oils and extracts with higher concentrations of THC, which will ultimately be incorporated into finished goods in compliance with the THC threshold under the federal definition of hemp.
How would the LPHA restrict the types of cannabinoids in consumable hemp products?
Consistent with the vast majority of proposals to redefine hemp under federal and state law, the LPHA proposes to expressly ban all forms of “synthetic” cannabinoids. Specifically, the LPHA excludes from the definition of “hemp” any intermediate or final form hemp products containing: 1) Cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant; or 2) Cannabinoids that are capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant and were synthesized or manufactured from any starting material other than hemp, as so defined.
The LPHA also instructs the FDA to, within 90 days of enactment of the law, publish:
- A list of all cannabinoids known to the FDA to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer-reviewed literature; and
- A list of all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant.
To be sure, the LPHA, like many bills pending in Congress and state legislatures across the country, directly addresses the scourge of unnatural “Frankenstein” cannabinoids, which have, in at least some cases, caused serious adverse health consequences for unknowing consumers.
How does the LPHA address potency limits and serving sizes?
Indirectly. Rather than affirmatively establishing potency and serving size limits for consumable hemp products, the LPHA vests the FDA with authority to set those limits through notice and comment rulemaking within 18 months of the date of enactment of the LPHA and then revisit those limits at 5-year intervals. Specifically, the LPHA states that:
The FDA’s rulemaking for maximum allowable amounts would be informed by peer-reviewed research, consumer usage and adverse event reports, input from qualified medical and scientific experts, consultation with state hemp and cannabis regulators and consideration of product form, intended use, and target consumer population.
This particular provision of the LPHA could have significant implications for the HDCP industry as it fails to provide certainty to HDCP manufacturers and retailers and leaves open the question of what types of product formulations may be legal in the future. Indeed, it is possible that FDA could, in exercising its expert discretion, establish potency limits below what have proven to be the most popular forms of HDCPs in the national marketplace (namely, 5mg and 10mg formulations).
Does the LPHA impose labeling requirements?
Yes. Section 425 of the LPHA includes the following label requirements for HDCPs:
- The following potency statement, in no less than 8-point font:
“Contains_______mg THC per serving and___mg THC per package. For users 21+ only.”
- The following warning, in no less than 6-point font:
“GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not consume hemp products during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of hemp products impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems.”
Any HDCP that does not include these specific label requirements would be considered misbranded under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Are there any specific provisions addressing hemp beverages?
Yes. Not later than 180 days after enactment of the LPHA, the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) would establish and implement a mandatory registration and licensing system for entities engaged in the sale of hemp-derived beverages in interstate commerce. Such entities would be required to register with the TTB within 30 days of the establishment of the registration system and any entity that fail to register with the TTB would be prohibited from selling HDCPs in interstate commerce. In addition, within one year following enactment of the LPHA, the TTB would establish a 3-tier distribution system for hemp-derived beverages (consisting of manufacturers, distributors/wholesalers and retailers), which mirrors the 3-tier system for alcohol.
Finally, the LPHA would also establish a tax on hemp-derived beverages at a rate of 5 cents per mg of hemp-derived THC, which tax would be collected in the same manner as the taxes on distilled spirits, wine, and beer.
What about the other bills proposing to address the consumable hemp product market?
As noted above, the LPHA certainly is not the first bill introduced this session proposing to address the HDCP market and looming hemp product ban currently scheduled to take effect in November. Indeed, several bills – some of which propose to simply delay the ban and some of which propose to expressly legalize and comprehensively regulate consumable hemp products – have been introduced this session. These include:
- S. 3474: On December 10, 2025, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) reintroduced the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act (“CSRA”). Senator Wyden first introduced the CSRA in September of 2024 (read more about it here). The reintroduced bill would, among other things: 1) Mandate a minimum age of 21 to buy and set a serving size limit for intoxicating content in hemp-derived products where states do not have limits in place; 2) Require that all hemp-derived products be tested for safety and manufactured using clean and safe processes; 3) Require truth in labeling; and 4) Require the FDA to recall or ban any hemp-derived products that contain too much THC, dangerous chemicals, byproducts or additives.
- H.R.7024: On January 13, 2026 Representative Jim Baird introduced the Hemp Planning Predictability Act, which proposes to delay the forthcoming federal prohibition by two years from its current effective date of Nov. 13, 2026 in order to give farmers more time to adapt to the change in the law and create a more stable environment for farmers to modify their future planting decisions.
- S. 3686: Just two days later, on January 15, 2026, Senators Amy Klobuchar, Rand Paul, and Jeff Merkley, introduced nearly identical legislation in the Senate to delay the forthcoming federal prohibition by two years.
- H.R. 7212: On January 22, 2026, Representative Morgan Griffith introduced the Hemp Enforcement, Modernization, and Protection (“HEMP”) Act which, similar to the CSRA, also proposes a comprehensive framework for the legalization and regulation of intoxicating hemp cannabinoid products in the US.
While this growing slate of bills may generally reflect broad support for the HDCP marketplace among both Democrats and Republicans in both houses, it is a crowded field and it is not yet clear which legislative solution may garner the requisite support before the clock strikes midnight in November. For that reason, it would be reasonable to speculate that one of the “delay” bills may become more attractive as a short-term stopgap if hemp stakeholders and legislative sponsors are unable to make meaningful progress on the LPHA or one of the other pending bills proposing to comprehensively regulate the industry.
How would the LPHA interact with existing state laws and regulations governing HDCPs?
The LPHA includes an express non-preemption provision which declares that nothing in the law shall be construed to preempt any State, territory, or Indian Tribe from passing laws governing HDCPs that are “more stringent, or at least as protective as would be permitted under an alcoholic beverage regulatory scheme comparable to, the standards in this title and the amendments made by [the LPHA]” provided, however, that no State, territory, or Indian Tribe may enact or enforce “any law that prevents the passage and delivery of a hemp-derived consumable product through the borders of such State, territory, or Indian Tribe if such product complies with [the LPHA].”
What is the likelihood that Congress actually passes a new Farm Bill this year?
Unclear. It is important to recognize that the wagon to which the LPHA has been hitched – the House version of the 2026 Farm Bill – may itself become stuck in the mud. It is no secret that Congress has, for several years now, punted on passing a new five-year Farm Bill and has instead elected to pass serial extensions of the 2018 Farm Bill that was first scheduled to expire in 2023. It remains an open question whether this latest iteration of a new 5-year Farm Bill will gain traction, especially considering that the Senate’s version of the 2026 Farm Bill has not yet been introduced.
https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/blogs/cannabis-and-the-law/2026/june/barr-proposal-legalize-and-regulate-hemp-derived-consumer-products-enters-crowded-field-of-hemp-legi/
