Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Hemp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge feasibility study, support for industrial hemp production and manufacturing
Summary
Farmers, entrepreneurs and advocacy groups testified in favor of HB 67 82 to study and stimulate industrial hemp production and manufacturing in Connecticut, pointing to crop uses from coastal protection to graphene batteries and to precedents in other states.
Multiple witnesses from the agricultural and small‑business communities urged the Commerce Committee to support House Bill 67 82, a proposal to study the economic potential of industrial hemp in Connecticut and to consider federal and state mechanisms to subsidize certain production costs. Witnesses described uses ranging from shoreline erosion control and biodegradable building materials to advanced applications such as hemp‑derived graphene for batteries.
Duncan Markovich, owner of Better Ways LLC (and a Connecticut hemp and cannabis advocate), said that updated federal subsidy rules and a targeted state study could restore a domestic hemp production and manufacturing supply chain. “Federally subsidizing industrial hemp similar to other crops … would empower this committee and our state to create a profound fiscal mechanism to re‑enable the industrial hemp industry to take off once again here in Connecticut,” Markovich said. He and other witnesses cited prior state studies (a Department of Consumer Protection report from 2014) as a baseline for updating data and recommendations.
Witnesses told the panel that recent CBD‑focused restrictions hurt Connecticut growers and emphasized that industrial hemp—distinct from THC cannabis—contains no more than 0.3% THC and is used for fiber, building materials and other industrial applications. Christina Capitan of CT Kennel Warriors and other advocates argued policymakers should distinguish hemp from marijuana in statutes and support growers who had lost market opportunities.
Committee members queried industry participants about supply chains, private capital, and whether the state would be asked to provide seed capital for processing plants or to underwrite farmer incentives. Witnesses suggested multiple paths including an updated feasibility study led by a state or third‑party research consortium, low‑interest loans, leasing programs, and workforce and university research partnerships. No committee votes were taken; proponents offered to provide comparative models (Colorado, Wyoming and Canada) and a draft scope for a study.
