1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

I write to express serious concern regarding the hemp ban language included in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026, currently under consideration as part of the continuing resolution to fund the federal government. I urge you to support amendments that would strike these provisions from the appropriations bill. While I understand the intent to address regulatory gaps created by the 2018 Farm Bill, the proposed language represents regulatory overreach that would have far-reaching consequences across multiple sectors of our economy and society. My opposition is grounded in concerns about consumer rights, economic impact, agricultural policy, and the legislative process itself. The proposed reduction from 0.3% THC by dry weight to 0.4 mg total THC per container effectively eliminates consumer access to hemp-derived products that millions of Americans currently use legally. This represents a dramatic restriction of consumer choice without adequate public debate or consideration of alternatives. Many consumers rely on these products for wellness purposes, and the near-total elimination of the market denies them access to products they have come to depend upon. Additionally, the temporary ban on CBD products pending FDA dietary guidelines creates unnecessary disruption to an established market serving consumers who have integrated these products into their health routines. The hemp industry represents approximately $28 billion in economic activity and supports an estimated 300,000 jobs across the United States. The proposed language would devastate this sector, rendering previously compliant hemp genetics illegal and eliminating years of agricultural investment and progress. Farmers who made substantial financial commitments based on the legal framework established in 2018 would face catastrophic losses. Small businesses throughout the supply chain—from cultivation to retail, would be forced to close, with ripple effects throughout rural and urban economies alike. The inclusion of such sweeping industry changes within an appropriations bill, particularly one tied to government funding deadlines, circumvents the normal legislative process that would allow for thorough committee review, expert testimony, and public input. This approach denies stakeholders—including farmers, researchers, business owners, and consumers—the opportunity to participate meaningfully in policy decisions that will profoundly affect them. Major regulatory changes of this magnitude deserve standalone legislation with adequate time for debate and amendment. I respectfully urge you to support any measure that would strike the hemp ban language from the appropriations bill. At minimum, Congress should separate these hemp provisions from the funding bill and address them through proper legislative channels that allow for comprehensive consideration of the economic, scientific, agricultural, and civil liberties implications.