This guest editorial was written by Ken Anderson, CEO of Legacy Hemp in Wisconsin. He has been at this perhaps even longer than I have.
The whole roadmap comes down to this:
Corn is not regulated as whiskey in the field.
Soybeans are not regulated as biodiesel before crushing.
Cotton is not regulated as clothing before spinning.
Crude oil is not regulated as gasoline before refining.
Hemp grain and stalks should not be regulated as drugs.
Industrial hemp cannabinoids should not be regulated as gummies.
Roadmap: Industrial Hemp Intended Use Act
By Ken Anderson, CEO Legacy Hemp Holdings Inc.
The path is real because federal law already uses intended use in multiple areas. USDA already separates hemp production from downstream FDA-regulated human/animal products; FDA already defines “intended use” by the objective intent of the person labeling, marketing, or distributing a product; TTB regulates alcohol at the distillation/denatured-alcohol stage, not at the cornfield; and EPA regulates chemicals based on conditions and uses, including “significant new uses.”
1. Core argument
Hemp does not need a special regulatory universe.
The right principle is:
Regulate hemp by intended use and regulatory destination, not by assuming every cannabinoid-containing crop is headed for human consumption.
That means:
Industrial grain, stalk, fiber, hurd, oilseed, chaff, biomass, extracts, intermediates, and cannabinoid-containing industrial feedstocks should be treated like other agricultural and manufacturing inputs when they are not intended for human or animal use.
Consumer cannabinoid products should be regulated as consumer cannabinoid products.
Animal-use products should be regulated through animal-feed/veterinary pathways.
Pharmaceuticals should be regulated as pharmaceuticals.
The crop itself should not carry the burden of every possible downstream use.
2. Legal proof of concept
There are already models.
USDA hemp model: USDA says it regulates hemp production, and once compliant hemp leaves the farm and is manufactured for human or animal consumption, FDA and local governments regulate those products. That already proves the law can separate farm production from downstream consumer use.
FDA intended-use doctrine: FDA regulations define intended use by objective intent shown through labeling, design, advertising, statements, and distribution circumstances. They also recognize that intended use can change downstream when a packer, distributor, or seller redirects the article.
Alcohol model: TTB does not regulate every corn grower because corn can become whiskey. It regulates distilled spirits, denatured alcohol, and alcohol-containing articles at the processing and use stage.
Chemical-use model: EPA’s TSCA program can require notice before a chemical is used in a new way that may create risk. That is directly analogous to saying industrial hemp feedstock can remain in an industrial pathway unless someone changes its intended use.
3. Legislative structure
The bill should create four regulatory destinations:
Industrial Feedstock Hemp For grain, stalk, fiber, hurd, chaff, extracts, intermediates, and cannabinoids intended only for non-consumable industrial manufacturing.
Human-Use Cannabinoid Products For gummies, beverages, tinctures, inhalables, topicals intended for consumer body use, and similar products.
Animal-Use Hemp or Cannabinoid Products For feed, supplements, veterinary products, and animal-directed cannabinoid products.
Pharmaceutical / Research Use For drug development, clinical research, and controlled pharmaceutical pathways.
The key statutory sentence should be:
Industrial feedstock cannabinoid material shall not be deemed a hemp-derived cannabinoid product unless and until such material is intended, marketed, processed, or distributed for human or animal use.
4. Required federal amendments
The Act should amend federal hemp law to say:
Industrial hemp includes the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including grain, seed, stalk, fiber, hurd, chaff, extracts, cannabinoids, derivatives, intermediates, and manufacturing feedstocks, when intended solely for non-consumable industrial use.
Then add:
Consumer potency limits, serving limits, per-container milligram limits, packaging restrictions, and retail cannabinoid rules apply only to products intended for human or animal use.
That prevents a polymer feedstock, coating ingredient, adhesive precursor, or industrial resin intermediate from being regulated like a gummy.
5. Farmer protection
Farmers should only have to declare the crop’s intended destination:
Industrial Feedstock
That should be enough.
For true industrial hemp grain, fiber, stalk, hurd, and industrial cannabinoid feedstocks, the farmer should not face consumer cannabinoid compliance burdens.
No FDA consumer-product rules.
No edible cannabinoid limits.
No retail packaging rules.
No intoxicating-product licensing.
No assumptions that the crop is destined for consumables.
If the crop is grown for grain, fiber, stalk, chaff, industrial extraction, polymers, resins, coatings, adhesives, composites, or specialty chemicals, it should be treated like corn, soy, flax, cotton, or other industrial agricultural commodities.
6. Processor responsibility
The burden should move downstream.
A processor choosing the consumer route must comply with consumer cannabinoid rules.
A processor choosing the animal route must comply with animal-feed/veterinary rules.
A processor choosing the pharmaceutical route must comply with FDA drug rules.
A processor choosing the industrial feedstock route must maintain records showing the material stayed in non-consumable manufacturing.
This is the cleanest way to protect farmers while still giving regulators real enforcement power.
7. Chain-of-custody system
Every lot should receive a designation at first transfer:
Industrial Feedstock Human Consumption Animal Feed Pharmaceutical / Research
That designation follows the lot through:
invoices, bills of lading, purchase contracts, warehouse receipts, processing records, COAs where relevant, and final-use certifications.
This does not need to be complicated. It can use normal business records, similar to other agricultural traceability systems.
8. Anti-diversion enforcement
The law should be light on legitimate industrial production and severe on fraud.
If someone takes material designated as Industrial Feedstock and diverts it into gummies, vapes, beverages, tinctures, animal products, or other unauthorized consumable markets, penalties should include:
license revocation, seizure, civil fines, disqualification from hemp programs, false-statement penalties, and criminal penalties for knowing diversion.
That is the political sweet spot:
Don’t overregulate every farmer because someone might cheat. Punish the cheater.
9. Rulemaking path
Congress should direct agencies to issue coordinated rules:
USDA: farm registration, crop destination declaration, lot identification, first-transfer documentation.
FDA: consumer, animal, and pharmaceutical pathways; confirmation that industrial feedstock is outside FDA human/animal jurisdiction unless intended use changes.
EPA: industrial chemical/material uses under TSCA where applicable.
FTC: deceptive claims and false marketing.
States: may administer destination declarations and enforce diversion, but cannot reclassify industrial feedstock as consumer cannabinoid material solely because cannabinoids are present.
10. Advocacy sequence
Start with a white paper titled:
Industrial Hemp Intended Use Act: A Regulatory Destination Framework for Hemp Agriculture and Manufacturing
Then build four one-page attachments:
1. Farmer Protection Brief Industrial hemp farmers should not be regulated like cannabinoid retailers.
2. Manufacturing Innovation Brief Cannabinoids can be industrial feedstocks for polymers, coatings, adhesives, resins, composites, lubricants, and specialty chemicals.
3. Consumer Safety Brief Consumer products still get regulated. This framework strengthens enforcement by focusing on actual consumer risk.
4. Legislative Language Brief Provide clean statutory text lawmakers can drop into a bill.
11. Political message
The message should be:
This is not about weakening consumer safety. It is about putting regulation where the risk actually exists.
For Republicans:
less burden on farmers, more domestic manufacturing, stronger fraud enforcement.
For Democrats:
consumer protection, traceability, clean materials, bio-based manufacturing.
For regulators:
clear jurisdiction, better enforcement, fewer gray areas.
For farmers:
hemp finally treated like an agricultural commodity.
12. The closing argument
The whole roadmap comes down to this:
Corn is not regulated as whiskey in the field.
Soybeans are not regulated as biodiesel before crushing.
Cotton is not regulated as clothing before spinning.
Crude oil is not regulated as gasoline before refining.
Hemp grain and stalks should not be regulated as drugs.
Industrial hemp cannabinoids should not be regulated as gummies.
Regulate the product when someone chooses the product pathway. Do not regulate the farmer based on every possible thing the crop could become.
That is the pathway.
That is the argument.
That is the foundation for the Industrial Hemp Intended Use Act.