Industrial hemp was once a dominant crop on the American landscape. This hardy and renewable resource was refined for various industrial applications, including paper, textiles, and cordage. Unfortunately hemp was conflated with marijuana but hemp can’t be used as a drug.
Over time, the use of industrial hemp has evolved into an even greater variety of products, including health foods, body care, clothing, auto parts, construction materials, biofuels, plastic composites and more.
Farmers in Europe, Canada and China all grow hemp and over $600 million in imported hemp products were sold in the USA in 2016. Congress has 2 bipartisan bills which would bring back hemp farming and create rural jobs. We request that President Trump work with Congress to pass hemp legislation in his next term
define unregulated, theres a difference between pushing for legalization which all states allow currently and having a completely unregulated industry.
While industrial hemp has many uses and potential, its ability to “rebuild the rural economy” is limited for several reasons:
1. Oversupply Risks and Market Saturation
Historical Precedents: Following the legalization of hemp in 2018, many farmers rushed to grow it, leading to an oversupply. For example, in 2019, the U.S. had 511,000 acres licensed for hemp, but a large portion of the harvest went unsold due to limited processing capacity and market demand.
Global Competition: Countries like Canada, China, and the European Union already dominate hemp production, and their lower labor and production costs make it difficult for U.S. farmers to compete.
2. Lack of Established Infrastructure
Hemp requires specialized equipment for harvesting and processing, such as decorticators for fiber or facilities to extract CBD oil.
Without significant investments in local processing plants and logistics, farmers face high costs to transport raw hemp to distant facilities, cutting into profitability.
3. Economic Contribution Compared to Major Crops
Major crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat generate tens of billions in revenue annually. By comparison, the total value of U.S. hemp production in 2022 was just $238 million, a fraction of the rural economy.
Source: USDA Hemp Annual Report
4. High Costs and Regulatory Burdens
Production Costs: Hemp farming is expensive, requiring specialized seeds, crop monitoring to meet low THC requirements, and careful compliance with state and federal regulations.
Regulations: Farmers must regularly test THC levels to ensure compliance with the legal limit of 0.3%. If crops exceed this threshold, they must be destroyed, resulting in financial loss.
5. Market Volatility
The market for hemp-derived products, especially CBD, has been volatile. The surge in CBD production after the 2018 Farm Bill led to a market crash, leaving many farmers with unsold inventory.
Hemp’s other applications, such as biofuels and construction materials, have niche markets and limited scalability compared to mainstream crops.
6. Employment Reality
While hemp farming can create jobs, the scale is limited. A robust rural economy requires diverse industries, including technology, manufacturing, and large-scale agriculture, which hemp alone cannot provide.
Conclusion
While hemp farming has potential to diversify income for some farmers, it is not a silver bullet for rebuilding the rural economy. Its challenges, including competition, infrastructure gaps, and market volatility, limit its ability to replace or rival traditional crops or industries. Policymakers should view hemp as part of a broader strategy to revitalize rural areas, not as a standalone solution.
Yes. Part of a broad solution. This needs to go in hand with the deregulation of all farming products.
You could make the same arguement for locally grown products.
@ScarlettHogg Your viewpoint is centered on the pharmaceutical aspect of the hemp industry, which is actually cannabis.
The Hemp market is focused on the industrial uses of hemp fibers to make plastics, and building materials. You mentioned limited scalability, but that is only a result of the licensing regulations. One should look to what the Netherlands is doing with the hemp market-not to mention the new hemp-specific machnery being produced, creating jobs in a completely different sector; and the possibility of use of hemp seed as a protein based cattle feed?
This is just one part to a multi-faceted deregulation process of a system that supports the few industries, instead of equal opportunity for all budding business.
Yes oil based plastics work, but are they good for the longevity of the species/environment? The techniques that aren’t refined as of now, will never be unless we open the market, not just for hemp, but for most raw resources/products.
Unlicensed industrial scale production. In some states only license approved grows can function. This limits the population in their ability to produce, encourage industry growth, and equal business opportunity.
This of course is not just a hemp issue. The same arguement could be made with any agriculturally based product that can be produced locally.
I recall being told a long time ago that cotton was an established crop in America, then hemp came along and could essentially do most if not all that cotton could do, but better. Hemp, instead of stripping the soil, actually enriches it. It was cheaper to grow, better for the soil, easier to harvest, and didn’t need all the chemicals cotton does. So big cotton got in there and greased palms, and as a result hemp got mixed in with marijuana which they put a lot of scare propaganda out over and got made illegal. There went hemp.
Hemp is related to marijuana, but as I understand it, it doesn’t get people high. In fact, I recall local drug enforcement would plant hemp in the forests near where I grew up because they knew people were growing pot in there but couldn’t find the plantations. Apparently, hemp is closely enough related to pot to cross pollinate with it, but as hemp doesn’t have the intoxicants in it, the hemp will ruin the marijuana crop. (So, obviously authorities know all this.)
Hemp grows … well, like a weed. My understanding is that it is much gentler on the environment than cotton and grows much faster than lumber but can be substituted for many applications of both. There may not currently be people using it for all it’s possible uses, but that’s the reason to deregulate it, so farmers can grow it without all this hassle that was based on a con in the first place. The more supply is there, the more people will begin to use it. If there’s no supply, no one will ever change over to using hemp, chicken and egg, so let’s get out of the way and let farmers grow as much or as little as they want and let supply and demand find its natural balance.
While I don’t personally agree with them, and I find them to be too controlling, IF we’re giving one group “favoritism” with that plan to basically choose “winners and losers” then every commodity should be treated equally. Thank you for pointing out the lax nature of my post–seriously, I should have caught that. :).
No problem. You tard, me tard, WE tard sometimes. The answer is remove all subsidy. No reason to create dependency, or grow government. Hemp is very hearty, resiliant… it only needs to be deregulated and the farmers can take it from there.
When I was young I bought a piece of farm land and built my first home. I received subsidies for NOT planting corn or soybeans. Which seemed ridiculous since the land had corn growing on it when I purchased it.
They claim there are food shortages around the world, and people are starving. Are we not allowed to sell it to those countries?
Are we being forced out of natural abundance of resources?
In that situation people would plant other crops to fill voids in other products, such as other crops, fruits, hemp, and livestock. Maybe, more Free Range organic chickens and livestock, so we can have reasonably priced eggs, and meats again.
Actually natural products such as leather and wool, without all of the synthetic chemicals and plastics they are destroying the environment and our ecosystems.
I agree with you here. We should be able to use our land to our advantage. A longitudinal plan BY STATE would be the idea (not by the feds since our geography and local needs are different state by state). But unfortunately, this policy began with FDR in the New Deal and mostly gain money for the SPECULATORS as far as I can see. If that’s the case, it won’t likely change since most of Congress is involved in “insider trading” whether they call it that or not. YMMV.
We need to Stop using so many Synthetic Fibers in Products. The micro plastics leaching off them is destroying the water supply.
They claim there are food shortages around the world, and people are starving. Are we not allowed to sell it to those countries?
Actually natural products such as leather and wool, without all of the synthetic chemicals and plastics they are destroying the environment and our ecosystems.