Mary Miller
In May, Representative Mary Miller of Illinois introduced an amendment to the 2024 Farm Bill (co-sponsored by California’s Representative Doug LaMalfa). In one fell swoop, the nascent hemp industry was thrown on the chopping block: hung, drawn, and quartered.
The move constitutes a blatant attempt to obliterate competition and benefit the somewhat squeezed cannabis markets, to which hemp’s success constitutes a clear threat.
There can be no pontification or reasonable qualification of the extent of the Miller amendment’s impact. As this article outlines in some detail, the legislation will destroy the livelihoods of those who have invested time and money in growing the hemp industry, many of whom are women and BIPOC. Spurred on by powerful lobbyists, regulators are slamming doors on those who have overcome innumerable obstacles to operate successfully. Here’s what you need to know.
Redefining hemp
The 2018 Farm Bill reintroduced hemp as a legal agricultural commodity in the US. It legalized industrial hemp with a THC concentration of no more than 0.3%, removing it from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, the bill defined hemp as any cannabis plant, or derivative thereof, that contains no more than 0.3% THC.
Despite widescale consumer adoption nationally and regulatory progress hard won at the state level, the Miller amendment would ban all ingestible hemp products that contain any detectable level of THC. It also sets out a total ban on all products with cannabinoids “synthesized or manufactured outside of the plant.”
So what exactly does this mean, and how does this differ from the wording of the 2018 Farm Bill? Let’s take a look at the specific language.
Currently, hemp is legally considered to be:
(…) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
The Miller Amendment alters this definition. The new language would define hemp as
follows:
(…) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of the plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
The notable difference here is the removal of “delta-9,” which Miller & co. recast as a “loophole” within the current legislation. By removing the reference to delta-9, the new definition would include nonintoxicating THCA (which turns into intoxicating THC through the decarboxylation process, i.e., when smoked).
The new definition would also set out several specific exclusions, including hemp-derived products containing any cannabinoids “synthesized or manufactured outside of the plant,” as well as products containing any quantifiable amounts of THC or THCA or of “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed as such) on humans or animals,” as THC.
All hemp, whether it’s pre-harvest, a finished good, or somewhere in between, would have to adhere to the total THC definition. Currently, it applies only to pre-harvest material. This presents a practical impossibility and represents a blatant misunderstanding of the plant on the part of lawmakers. There’s little other way to interpret this reality —the amendment has been specifically worded to wipe out hemp markets in their entirety.
The issues with redefinition
The haziness of the newly proposed definition is the first of many red flags. A number of critical, market-limiting terms are not adequately defined in the draft amendment. These are not limited to but include “synthesized,” “quantifiable amounts,” “naturally produced,” and “similar effects… as tetrahydrocannabinol”.
The vagueness of the language will produce a single certainty: industry paralysis and further market instability.
Another issue is the nature and scope of the redefinition. Aside from inevitable regulatory uncertainty, the attempt to redefine hemp amounts to regulating Finished Goods — a topic well beyond the dominion of the USDA Hemp Program and, indeed, the Farm Bill. End uses are not the regulatory business of the USDA, just as regulating barley production in an attempt to enforce restrictions on alcohol units in beer is outside the USDA’s purview.
So, what would these changes mean in practice?
On the surface, the Miller Amendment sells itself as a consumer-protecting measure. Yet the reality couldn’t be further removed.
The new language effectively prohibits approximately 95% of all currently legal ingestible hemp products, including most CBD wellness products, representing an expanding multi billion dollar market. The seeds and genetics developed to comply with the now-established definition of hemp will become non-compliant overnight. Years of research efforts and investments will be effectively worthless and unusable. Ultimately, the amendment removes consumer choice. Crucially, it does nothing to tackle unregulated operators or to interrupt the supply of untested products.
Jonathan Miller, General Counsel of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, echoed these sentiments in a damning statement:
“Contrary to advocate pronouncements that their goal is ‘to close the Delta-8 THC loophole,’ the Mary Miller Amendment would ban 90 to 95 percent of all ingestible hemp products in the marketplace — including the vast majority of non-intoxicating, wellness-improving CBD supplements — while wreaking havoc for U.S. hemp farmers, including fiber and grain, by redefining hemp in a matter that would make most crops non-compliant with a new THC standard.”
A matter of monopoly
In the US, most consumer-focused industries are well established. The number of firms traded publicly has been shrinking since the mid-1990s — in 2024, we are a country of well-ingrained monopolies. From pharmaceuticals to construction, telecoms to agriculture, most of the American economy is controlled by a handful of companies.
Our loudly capitalist society offers little more than an illusion of competition, where growth is capped by the domination of big players. Yet, for the past six years, the hemp industry has offered somewhat of a departure from this well-established norm.
When the 2018 Farm Bill finally gave the green light to hemp and its derivatives — following decades of senseless prohibition — there was an opportunity. Consumers were finally able to legally and easily access hemp products. Meanwhile, farmers could pivot to hemp or include the plant in their crop rotations, adding to their agricultural commercial arsenals while remediating and nurturing American land.
Six years on, and until now, the market has yet to be strangled by the iron fist of conglomerates. Is threatening to dismantle one of the US’s few growth industries — built by farmers and small businesses — really where we have landed following decades of futile prohibition? The “War on Drugs”— won, on all markers, by drugs — should provide sufficient evidence for the redundancy of these proposed measures.
Opening up a market only to slam the gates shut less than a decade later does little to improve consumer safety. It moves us backward, not forward. Farmers, manufacturers, and business owners have built a $28 billion industry from a domestic crop, employing more than 300,000 taxpayers. Rather than being applauded for entrepreneurialism in the face of adversity, these groups have been left at the mercy of clumsily restrictive language that misunderstands both the industry and its operators.
Mary Miller’s Amendment aims not to protect but to eliminate. It must be dropped with immediate effect. Those in support of the amendment, citing concerns for consumer safety, must now recognize this legislation for the attack that it is — and the danger it poses.
References
BILLS-118-HR8467-M001211-Amdt-35
Press Release
Rep. Mary Miller Votes Yes On Farm Bill
Miller Section On Solar Panels And Amendment Restricting Hemp THC Included In Final Bill
