1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

I write to urge you to oppose the provision included in the recently-approved federal spending bill that would ban or severely restrict hemp-derived products by limiting THC content to just 0.4 milligrams per container. Why this provision is harmful 1. Devastation of a legitimate agricultural industry Thanks to the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”), hemp was legalized as an agricultural commodity, opening opportunities for farmers, processors, retailers, and related small businesses. The new restriction threatens to wipe out up to 95 % of the hemp‐derived ingestibles market, according to industry estimates. Businesses are already expressing alarm about the potential loss of revenue and jobs. 2. Disruption of consumer access and trust Many consumers use hemp-derived products (including non-intoxicating CBD items) for wellness, pain relief, sleep, and other health-adjacent purposes. The new threshold of 0.4 mg THC per container may inadvertently sweep many of these products into illegality, even when they are non-intoxicating. Small businesses, farmers, and communities that invested in hemp cultivation and processing will face enormous uncertainty. 3. Regulation by prohibition is counter-productive While closing genuine loopholes (such as the sale of high-THC products masquerading as hemp) is a valid goal, a blanket ban or overly restrictive threshold drives the market underground, away from regulated channels and oversight. Industry voices warn the move will hand opportunities to the unregulated market. 4. State vs. federal disconnect and economic ripple effects Many states support hemp-industry growth, with jobs, tax revenue, and rural economic development built around it. A federal prohibition undermines state‐level regulation efforts and investing. For example, in Texas the hemp industry was already voicing concern earlier this year. I respectfully request that you vote to reverse or amend the provision as Congress moves forward with appropriations and oversight, and any regulation of hemp-derived products be science-based, targeted at genuinely problematic products (e.g., high-THC extracts, synthetic cannabinoids) rather than broadly banning entire categories of hemp products. I request that you support a transition period and meaningful consultation with states, farmers, processors, retailers, and public‐health agencies so that legitimate, non-intoxicating hemp products can continue to be produced and sold responsibly. I also request that Congress prioritize a regulatory framework under the Food and Drug Administration, USDA, and states to ensure safety, labeling, and age verification, rather than relying solely on prohibition. In conclusion, the elimination—or extreme restriction—of hemp-derived products via the current spending-bill language is not simply a regulatory tweak: it threatens to upend an entire supply chain of American farmers, processors, retailers, and consumers. It also risks undermining states’ efforts that have invested in legal hemp as a growth industry and rural economic engine. A better approach is to correct the real abuses in the market, while preserving legitimate businesses and consumer access. I hope you will stand in support of the hemp industry, American agriculture, and the many communities whose livelihoods depend on it. Thank you for your service and your consideration of this critical matter.