Senate committee reviews draft moving hemp oversight to Cannabis Control Board, flags penalties and farm protections

Legislative counsel on Thursday reviewed a draft bill that would move oversight of hemp processors from the Agency of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board and make a series of changes to definitions, testing, registration and enforcement.

Brandon Shawman, Office of Legislative Counsel, told the Senate Agriculture committee the draft largely relocates existing statutory language into Title 7 and adapts definitions to match recent federal changes. He said the bill replaces references to delta‑9 THC at the 0.3 percent threshold with a broader federal THC definition and adds language that would exclude products that are "not lawful in interstate commerce" from the state hemp protections.

Why it matters: Committee members said the changes could narrow protections currently afforded to farmers and shift discretion to the Cannabis Control Board on major compliance and enforcement matters. "If it is our intention to make sure that they are an ag product and that we want that product grown in the state, I think it gives the farmer more protection if they are under an RAP," the committee chair said, urging the group to preserve required agricultural practices in statute.

Key changes and concerns:

- Oversight transfer: The draft moves processor oversight from Title 6 (Agency of Agriculture) into Title 7 under the Cannabis Control Board and rephrases multiple statutory sections as cross‑references.

- Definitions and registration: The bill separates participants into growers/producers, processors and product registrants; all products must be registered with the board before sale in Vermont and registrants must provide testing information that conforms with federal law.

- Testing and labeling: Counsel said the draft contemplates on‑site or in‑state testing to establish THC concentrations and authorizes rules on labeling to align with federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requirements.

- Penalties and procedural protections: Members flagged that the draft removes statutory limits on administrative penalties and narrows or omits certain Administrative Procedure Act protections (written notice, opportunity for hearing, appeal timing). Counsel advised the committee to consider whether penalty limits or notice and appeal guardrails should be restored in statute or left to board rulemaking; one member warned a delegated approach could mean very large fines without legislative limits.

- Agricultural practice (RAP) omission: Counsel noted language requiring hemp cultivation to comply with required agricultural practices (RAPs) does not appear in the draft. Committee members said keeping RAP language could help protect growers from municipal restrictions and provide stronger defenses for farm operations.

What the committee will do next: Members asked staff to reconvene stakeholders — including the Cannabis Control Board, its attorney (James Pepper, referenced) and legislative counsel — to reconcile the flagged issues, particularly RAP compliance, clarity on insurance and the scope of penalty authority, before finalizing the bill. The chair emphasized the committee's preference to set policy direction but to let the cannabis board lead on specific regulatory drafts.

The committee did not vote on the draft; members planned follow‑up meetings to resolve the open items before returning a final copy for consideration.