Senate ag committee hears industry push to put hemp processing under Cannabis Control Board and clarify supply chain
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Farmers, processors and regulators told the Senate Agriculture Committee a statutory shift of hemp provisions into Title 7 and clear rulemaking are needed to restore Vermont’s hemp supply chain, with witnesses citing an acreage drop from 886 acres to nine after regulatory changes.
A proposal to move Vermont’s hemp regulatory framework from Title 6 into Title 7 under the Cannabis Control Board drew broad support and detailed policy debate at a Senate Agriculture Committee meeting on Friday.
James Pepper introduced the concept as a way to give the Cannabis Control Board explicit statutory authority over hemp processors and to preserve existing industry processes while allowing rulemaking to update language for an evolved market. "We have a model in Vermont — just shift that model from one agency to the other," Pepper said, urging legislators to consider a statutory transfer and subsequent rulemaking.
Several farmers and processors explained why they consider the change urgent. Sam Olavance, a South Hero farmer and founder of SunSelling CBD, said Vermont’s hemp industry boomed under the Agency of Agriculture’s pilot program but collapsed after the state shifted cultivation regulation and left processing and intermediate products without a clear regulatory home. "We went from 886 acres of hemp in 2021 to 9 acres in 2023," Olavance said, arguing that ambiguity in who regulates intermediate products destroyed the supply chain for local producers.
Olavance and other industry witnesses urged the committee to reconcile federal compliance (including USDA rules) with state oversight so Vermont growers could regain access to national markets. They also described a Cannabis Control Board emergency rule already in place that defines a CBD:THC threshold and a 1.5‑mg per package limit; some producers urged codifying that standard in statute while others said numeric limits should remain in administrative rule to allow flexibility.
Representatives of the Institute of Agriculture and the Cannabis Control Board voiced support for consolidation, saying a single regulatory authority would make enforcement and market access clearer. Steve Collier of the Institute of Agriculture said consolidating hemp regulation under the board would “finish the job” and help restore a consistent supply chain that can reach national markets.
Industry groups and the Vermont Growers Association emphasized practical concerns: processing equipment is expensive and shared between hemp and cannabis manufacturers, so duplicative infrastructure is impractical. Speakers recommended that statute plus administrative rules include standard operating procedures to prevent diversion of hemp distillate into the intoxicating cannabis market while allowing legitimate processors to operate and banks and insurers to serve the businesses.
Committee members acknowledged the complexity — federal statutes and evolving federal rules complicate the distinction between hemp and cannabis — and asked legislative counsel (LEHI) to draft a more complete bill for review. The committee did not vote on statutory language; senators said they would continue workshops and convene LEHI staff to develop a bill and rulemaking path.
Next steps include drafting statutory language, coordinating with the Cannabis Control Board and Agency of Agriculture on implementation details, and further hearings to resolve technical questions such as THC thresholds, product‑handling rules and protections to ensure compliance with federal law.