AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service USDA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for\ncomments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Please Note:\nPage Numbers reference the Federal Register<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thank\nyou again USDA for your efforts in formulating the IFR and allowing us to make\ncomments. We have previously made\ncomments on this issue with Comment Tracking Number: 1k3-9dbc-34z8. Please consider the comments below as\nadditional comments on the IFR.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/strong> We the People <\/strong>would again\nlike to remind all those involved and working in government at all levels,\nincluding Government Employees, Elected Officials and Government Contractors, that\nyou are not paid by special interests, lobbyists, campaign contributors, and\nspecific political parties, but by the taxes of all hard working US Citizens\nand you need to be attentively responsive to all of our concerns.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For\nreference and clarification our first comments require “A Legal Status of US Cannabis\/Hemp History Review”<\/strong>.\nWe have posted this review at the end of these comments. We have\ncited the review below as a courtesy to\nremind you that hemp stalks and sterile seeds are exempt from Schedule I\nrestrictions, just as they have been since 1937. Thus, the DEA has absolutely no statutory jurisdiction\nregarding the handling of stalk and sterile seeds. It is a blatant violation of Producer’s\nRights by the DEA to mandate that Producers have to destroy their entire crop\nbecause the flower material tested over .3% THC. We are hereby putting you on notice that we\nwill defend these Statutory Rights with every legal mechanism available if these\nexemptions are not included in the IFR. \nIn addition, the language for the destruction of entire crops must be\neliminated from the IFR to be compliant with current US statutes and Internal DEA\nDirectives. The Legal recourses\navailable to us if this is not changed in the IFR include redress of grievances\nand financial compensation for all Producers who were illegally mandated by the\nDEA to destroy their entire crops since the 2014 Farm Bill. We demand that these regulations be based\non facts and common sense in order to promote the cultivation of Hemp in such a\nway as to not be in contradiction with Executive Order #13563 to “select\nregulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, which include potential\neconomic, environmental, public health and safety, effect distributive impacts,\nand equity” (Page 58539). <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is\npretty ridiculous that we are even having to have this discussion as Medical\nand Recreational cannabis Producers right down the country road can legally\ngrow high THC cannabis (often over 20% THC) while we are discussing tenths of\npercentages of THC for hemp. Even at a level of 5 times the .3% directive, hemp at 1.5% THC would get no one high\nunless they decided to make a rope out of it and climb a tree. Even at the highest levels of THC, cannabis\nhas never killed anyone so what exactly are these onerous DEA regulations\nprotecting us from? Hemp is one of the\nfew plants on our planet that can provide food, shelter, clothing, natural\nmedicine and fuel. Why are there such\ndraconian regulations regarding this versatile plant unless its production is an\neconomic threat to big corporations’ hidden agendas, just like when it was effectively\nmade illegal in 1937. Yes, every\nsubstance can be abused. You can commit suicide with water, but we are\ncertainly not going to make water illegal because of its potential for\nabuse. We need to focus on the positive and practical uses of the hemp plant and not\nits artificially manufactured, hypothetical, governmental, and “Reefer Madness”\ndetriments. With this in mind we respectfully\nrequest that testing procedures must be amended in the IFR as we proposed in\nour prior comments. To iterate a summary of our previous comments, “since\nHemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, is no longer a controlled substance,\nthe utilization of homogenized sample testing is virtually mandated to be the\nprevailing and preferred testing protocol”. As outlined in our review below, because the\nstalks and sterile seeds are exempt from Schedule I prohibitions, they can\nnever be legally mandated to be destroyed. And, as we have stated in our\nprevious comments, there are 21st century options to assure that the THC in any\n“hot” hemp can be extracted and isolated, or, alternatively, material tracking of the\nharvested crop can be instituted so the plants can only be utilized for non-ingestible\nuses at approved whole plant processing facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This\ncorrelates with our next comments regarding hemp use as animal feed. We have scoured the available literature and\nfind that there are no significant detrimental effects from feeding hemp to\nanimals. Animals, like humans, have an\nendocannabinoid system (ECS). The ECS is the\nnatural, balanced condition that optimally supports life. When CBD interacts\nwith the ECS, it further reinforces the proper balancing functions within the\nbody and its major systems. (Source: https:\/\/www.holistapet.com\/potential-side-effects-of-cbd-for-dogs-and-cats\/)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nprocess for adding substances to the approved substances list of the\nAssociation of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) is very onerous and\nburdensome and to get hemp on this list will take years as well as substantial\nfunding for all the necessary approved trials for all species of animals. Our question is, because of the centuries of history\nof the hemp plant being safely used as animal feed and the positive benefits\nseen from the use of hemp as animal food by people currently doing it around\nthe world, why is hemp even on this list? \nFrom all available sources we have looked into, prior to the 1937\nMarihuana Tax Act hemp was an unregulated animal food. Because\nof expediency due to the current high suicide and bankruptcy crisis of American\nProducers, we are compelled to affirm that we will advise our producers that it\nis, in our opinion, permissible to feed hemp to animals as there is absolutely no\nscientific data to prove that it causes significant harm. The government has not shown any valid reasons\nwhy it is prohibited, and in fact, the government cannot show this because\nthere are no compelling or scientifically proven justifications to show that it\nis detrimental throughout recorded animal consumption history. We have no good\nreason to go through the expensive process of proving that hemp is safe as\nanimal fodder if this exemption is not included in the Final Rules. It is\nincumbent on the USDA, the FDA, and the DEA, not citizens, to prove it is\nharmful to animals. There are no reasonable scientific justifications for\nkeeping hemp off the list and it should be added to the approved Animal Food Lists\nimmediately. Hemp seed is already approved for humans, and its\nconsumption has never caused any harm and in fact shows many benefits. So, why\nis it not okay for animals? We would easily win this case in an impartial and\nrational court of law because the government has absolutely no compelling\nevidence to prove otherwise. The fact that hemp is not on the approved animal food\nlist is an illegal, blatant, unjustified restraint of trade and is in\ncontradiction with Executive Order #13563 to “select regulatory\napproaches that maximize net benefits, which include potential economic,\nenvironmental, public health and safety, effect distributive impacts, and\nequity” (Page 58539). <\/p>\n\n\n\n As per the history research below, sterile\nhemp seeds, like stalks, have never been on CSAs Schedule I list. However, the\nseeds cannot be sterilized until they are harvested so they must be allowed to\nreach full fruition and proper moisture content for harvesting to minimize the\nnegative effects of mold and other pathogens, and also to attain maximum\nnutritional and industrial value. The\ntiming of when harvest needs to occur is highly variable and dependent on a\nnumber of extraneous variables like temperature, precipitation, growth period,\namount of sunlight, humidity, etc. To\nenact the IFRs with proper changes, we must have the assurance that the harvest\nof mature seeds is preformed at the most optimum time and is not highly\ncompromised by erroneous, egregious, burdensome and unnecessary pre-testing regulations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hemp, like all American Citizens,\nmust be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is the burden of government to prove this\nguilt, not the unjustified governmentally manufactured onerous encumbrance of\nUS Citizens to prove its innocence. We\nwould like to believe that the USDA, the FDA, the DEA, and all other government\nagencies want every US Hemp Producer to \nbe successful. Our hope is that your actions in modifying and approving the IFRs don’t impel\nus to resort to any drastic Legal and Jurisdictional actions as we’ve outlined\nabove. That path does not quickly move the Hemp Industry forward. Our overriding mantra is collaboration in\nmaking the US Hemp Industry the best it can be, and by incorporating these necessary\nand vital changes to the IFR before they become the Final Rules, the\ngovernmental agencies involved will demonstrate the good faith and pragmatism of\nall government agencies in aligning with We the People’s <\/strong> collective\nand collaborative goals in promoting the success of Industrial Hemp. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Thank you again\nfor allowing us to comment and we pray that you take these comments to Heart\nfor the Greatest and Highest Good!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Duane Stjernholm<\/p>\n\n\n\n Co-Founder and Operator<\/p>\n\n\n\n Colorado Hemp Processing Cooperative<\/p>\n\n\n\n 713 Cimarron Ave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n La Junta, CO 81050 \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n 303-525-2611<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Legal Status of US Cannabis\/Hemp History Review:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When “Marihuana”\nwas first “taxed” by the\n“Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 ” the definition of “marihuana”\nwas listed in Chapter II, Section 1 (b) and read: “The term\n“marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether\ngrowing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such\nplant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivatives, mixture, or\npreparation of such plant, its seeds or resins; but shall not include the\nmature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made\nfrom the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,\nderivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin\nextracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant\nwhich is incapable of germination.” (Source: http:\/\/www.druglibrary.org\/schaffer\/hemp\/taxact\/mjtaxact.htm)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\n1969, Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, a court case was filed against\nTimothy Leary, a professor and activist for the possession of marijuana in\nviolation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary\nchallenged the act on the ground that the act require self-incrimination with\nviolated the Fifth Amendment. The\nunanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II\nand declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Congress responded shortly\nthereafter by replacing the Marihuana Tax Act with the newly written Controlled\nSubstances Act (CSA) while continuing the prohibition of certain drugs,\nincluding marijuana, in the United States. (Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Leary_v._United_States)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nControlled Substances Act placed all substances which were in some manner\nregulated under existing Federal Law into one of five schedules. This placement is based upon the substance’s\nmedical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability. In determining into which schedule a drug or\nother substance should be placed, or whether a substance should be decontrolled\nor rescheduled, certain factors are required to be considered. These factors are listed in Section 201 (c),\n[21 U.S.C. \u00a7\n811 (c) of the CSA as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1)\nIts actual or relative potential for abuse. Federal policies, tightened by\nthe Controlled Substances Act<\/a> of 1970,\nvirtually banned the production of industrial hemp during the war on drugs<\/a>.\nAccording to an industry group, “the 1970 Act abolished the taxation\napproach [of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act<\/a>] and effectively\nmade all cannabis<\/em> cultivation illegal”. The Drug Enforcement Administration<\/a> (DEA)\nrefused to issue permits for legal hemp cultivation and held that, since\nindustrial hemp is from the same species plant as prohibited cannabis (despite\nits being of lower THC yield), both were prohibited under the Controlled\nSubstances Act. In the words of a 2015 PBS NewsHour<\/a><\/em> segment\non hemp, “[t]o the federal government, hemp is just as illegal as\nmarijuana”, and according to Newsweek<\/a><\/em>,\n“all cannabis sativa<\/em>\u2014whether grown to ease chronic pain, get\nstoned or make rope\u2014is a schedule I controlled substance<\/a>“.\nAgricultural hemp was allowed on an experimental\nbasis by federal law under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (farm bill). Under the 2018 United States farm\nbill, commodity hemp production was federally\nlegalized. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hemp_in_the_United_States)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2004, the U.S. Court of\nAppeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoined DEA from enforcing certain regulations\nwith respect to tetrahydrocannabinols (THC). See Hemp Industries Ass’n v. DEA<\/em>,\n357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). The government did not seek Supreme Court review\nof that decision. In response to various inquiries, DEA thereby issued to DEA\npersonnel the following internal directive on how to carry out their duties in\nlight of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. “The\nNinth Circuit enjoined enforcement of what is now 21 C.F.R. \u00a7 1308.11(d)(31) (drug code 7370)\nwith respect to products that are excluded from the definition of marijuana in\nthe Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA thus does not enforce that provision\nas to such products. Consistent with the\nNinth Circuit’s decision, DEA does not enforce 21\nC.F.R. \u00a7 1308.35. Products and\nmaterials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA\ndefinition of marijuana (such as sterilized seeds, oil or cake made from the\nseeds, and mature stalks) are not controlled under the CSA. Such products may\naccordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States\nwithout restriction under the CSA or its implementing regulations. The mere\npresence of cannabinoids is not itself dispositive as to whether a substance is\nwithin the scope of the CSA; the dispositive question is whether the substance\nfalls within the CSA definition of marijuana.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Source: https:\/\/www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov\/schedules\/marijuana\/dea_internal_directive_cannabinoids_05222018.html)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Title\n21 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 – Schedules of Controlled Substances\nthere is a list of exempt cannabis plant material, and products made therefrom\nthat contain tetrahydrocannabinols. It\nreads as follows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n (a) Any processed plant material\nor animal feed mixture containing any amount of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC)\nthat is both:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Made from any portion of a\nplant of the genus Cannabis excluded from the definition of marijuana under the\nAct [i.e., the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks,\noil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture,\nsalt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the\nresin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such\nplant which is incapable of germination] and (2) Not used, or intended for use,\nfor human consumption, has been exempted by the Administrator from the\napplication of the Act and this chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (b) As used in this section, the\nfollowing terms shall have the meanings specified:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) The term processed plant\nmaterial means cannabis plant material that has been subject to industrial\nprocesses, or mixed with other ingredients, such that it cannot readily be\nconverted into any form that can be used for human consumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) The term animal feed mixture\nmeans sterilized cannabis seeds mixed with other ingredients (not derived from\nthe cannabis plant) in a formulation that is designed, marketed, and\ndistributed for animal consumption (and not for human consumption).<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) The term used for human\nconsumption means either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (i) Ingested orally or (ii)\nApplied by any means such that THC enters the human body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) The term intended for use for\nhuman consumption means any of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (i) Designed by the manufacturer\nfor human consumption; (ii) Marketed for human consumption; or (iii)\nDistributed, exported, or imported, with the intent that it be used for human\nconsumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Source: https:\/\/www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov\/21cfr\/cfr\/1308\/1308_35.htm)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service USDA ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. Please Note: Page Numbers reference the Federal Register Thank you again USDA for your efforts in formulating the IFR and allowing us to make comments. We have previously made comments on this issue with Comment Tracking Number: 1k3-9dbc-34z8. Please consider the comments below as additional comments on the IFR. We the People would again like to remind all those involved and working in government at all levels, including Government Employees, Elected Officials and Government Contractors, that you are not paid by special interests, lobbyists, campaign contributors, and specific political parties, but by the taxes of all hard working US Citizens and you need to be attentively responsive to all of our concerns. For reference and clarification our first comments require “A Legal Status of US Cannabis\/Hemp History Review”. We have posted this review at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[363,376,377,372,370,379,378],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8247"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8247"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8247\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8248,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8247\/revisions\/8248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
\n(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other\nsubstance.
\n(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
\n(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
\n(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
\n(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
\n(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already\ncontrolled under this subchapter. (Source:\nhttps:\/\/www.dea.gov\/controlled-substances-act)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u00a71308.35 Exemption\nof certain cannabis plant material, and products made therefrom, that contain\ntetrahydrocannabinols.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n