More\nAdditional Comments on the Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AGENCY:\nAgricultural 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

               Because of\nvariances in the results using different testing Methods we recommend that we\nonly have one approved method that all labs utilize like either HPLC or GCFID.\nThis will produce more consistent results and less variability.  At\nthe IFR level, this one method should be adopted as a standard in all states to\npromote and standardize testing for interstate commerce and the COAs for that\ntransport.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               There are\nother ways in the 21st Century to deal with non-compliant hemp including the\nextraction of the THC by approved extraction facilities or funneling the\nnon-compliant material into an approved facility that will produce a\nnon-ingestible products from the material such as hempcrete, paper or  fiber.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than an unrealistic time frame of testing of 15 days before\nharvest, it will be logistically much more efficient to perform the testing\nbased on the planting date.  For example, 40-50 days post planting.  That\nway State Agriculture Departments can schedule personnel to do the testing as\nthey have the planting date and the projected testing window from the very\nbeginning.  Harvest\ntiming has too many extraneous variables to predict the optimum time for\nharvest in order to comply with the 15 days prior to harvest window.  Utilizing\na post planting timeline, the testing will be more spread out and will produce\nmore accurate numbers regarding the total Cannabinoid ratios. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In regard to the FSA reporting requirement burden on Producers,\nthe State Agriculture Departments already have that info, so in states with\nstate plans, why can’t they just forward the information to the FSA removing\nthe burden on Producers who do not need any more burdensome requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               In regard to\nViolations of plans, if only controlled substance felons are included, then it\nis discriminatory against them.  Either all felons of all types should\nbe excluded from participating in the program, or all felons of all types should\nbe allowed to participate in the program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We appreciate the Colorado CHAMP initiative to sample the top 12\ninches of the plant but we also need to be assured that all of this sample will\nbe homogenized so that more of the whole plant is being tested, not just the\nflower.  The\nDEA does not have any jurisdiction over the stalks and seeds of the hemp plant\nand so to require that the whole plant be destroyed because the flower material\nis non-compliant is absurd and is outside the statutory range of the DEA’s\njurisdiction. As we’ve pointed out above there are 21st Century ways to still\nutilize non-compliant hemp that involves extraction or non-ingestible products\nthat allows Producers to still have a return on their considerable investment.  At\nthe very least this non-compliant material can be turned into biochar for soil\nremediation, water filtration, and the production of electricity and not be\ntotally wasted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

More Additional Comments on the Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service USDA  ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. Please Note: Page Numbers reference the Federal Register                Because of variances in the results using different testing Methods we recommend that we only have one approved method that all labs utilize like either HPLC or GCFID. This will produce more consistent results and less variability.  At the IFR level, this one method should be adopted as a standard in all states to promote and standardize testing for interstate commerce and the COAs for that transport.                There are other ways in the 21st Century to deal with non-compliant hemp including the extraction of the THC by approved extraction facilities or funneling the non-compliant material into an approved facility that will produce a non-ingestible products from the material such as hempcrete, paper or  fiber. Rather than an […]<\/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":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8255"}],"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=8255"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8255\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8256,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8255\/revisions\/8256"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}