Vermont CBD makers urge lawmakers not to adopt strict federal THC‑per‑container limits, warn small businesses would close
Loading...
Summary
Small Vermont CBD manufacturers told a legislative committee that a newly proposed federal container‑based THC limit — and language in S.3.23 tying 'hemp' to interstate legality — would effectively ban full‑spectrum CBD products, raise costs and force local producers to close unless the state preserves a separate, lighter state regulatory track.
At a state legislative committee hearing, two Vermont CBD manufacturers urged lawmakers to avoid adopting federal container‑based THC limits and to allow the state Cannabis Control Board to set standards for non‑intoxicating hemp products.
Annika McCann, a registered nurse and herbalist from St. Johnsbury who has run a CBD business since 2019, testified that recent federal language would redefine hemp and criminalize most common CBD products by imposing a cap of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. "If that language stays in this bill, then we'll all go out of business," McCann said, describing how the limit would make typical full‑spectrum formulations unworkable.
Why it matters: Witnesses told the committee the change would hit tiny, local manufacturers hardest. McCann said about a quarter of her roughly $80,000 annual sales come from Vermont (about $20,000), and she estimates fees in the proposed state framework — a $500 license and $75 per product registration — would cost her about $3,000 a year, roughly 15% of gross sales. She warned the combined effect of licensing, per‑product fees and new testing requirements could render small operations nonviable.
McCann gave concrete examples. She said standard 1‑bottle CBD preparations often contain hundreds to thousands of milligrams of CBD and that meeting a 0.4 mg‑per‑container THC cap would require impractically tiny bottles. "That'd be like a 2 milliliter bottle," she said, adding that required labeling and manufacturing steps would be "pretty impossible from a business perspective."
Amy Lembs, owner of Vermont Organic Solutions and a board member of the Vermont Growers Association, testified remotely and read a letter on behalf of another producer, Lily Hill Farms. Lembs said she has made dozens of topical CBD products and that treating topicals the same as ingestible intoxicating products would be a mismatch. "A 4‑ounce jar with 3,000 mg of CBD equates to 9 grams of THC under the 0.3% math — it's incomprehensible that anyone would ingest an entire jar to try to 'get high,'" she said, urging the state to separate intoxicating hemp from non‑intoxicating topicals.
Both witnesses told the committee that removing trace THC into isolates is technically possible but often impractical for tiny makers. McCann said equipment to strip THC from concentrates can cost tens of thousands of dollars and that isolates may not provide the same effects customers report from full‑spectrum products. "We would have to buy very expensive equipment or buy broad‑spectrum extract," she said, adding that the latter produces products she believes are less effective.
On testing and production costs, McCann said she makes about 4 gallons of oil per batch roughly five times a year, runs potency tests at multiple stages, and pays about $40–$50 per lab test. Lembs said her batches generally do not exceed about three dozen units; she said the add‑on costs of per‑product registration, testing and licensing would be disproportionately burdensome for operations of that scale.
Several committee members asked operational questions about sourcing and past licensing. McCann said she sources hemp from Vermont farmers and had been licensed previously when the state hemp program operated within the Department of Agriculture; she said fees are not currently being charged because the hemp program is not active. Lembs said some of her supply comes from certified West Coast processors and that if federal restrictions make interstate transfers illegal, sourcing could become more difficult.
Both witnesses expressed support for regulating intoxicating hemp products but urged the committee not to fold non‑intoxicating topicals into the same adult‑use regulatory framework. Lembs proposed a two‑track approach — an adult‑use regulatory pathway for intoxicating products and a lighter state track for non‑intoxicating hemp topicals and similar products — so small Vermont manufacturers could continue to serve local markets without the full cost and licensing burden of adult‑use cannabis producers.
The committee did not vote on any bills during the session. The chair said the committee would take a break and planned to have staff review the draft bill language with a staff member named Bradley when it resumes.
Quotes used in this article are attributable to witnesses who spoke during the hearing: Annika McCann and Amy Lembs. Other committee members asked clarifying questions but did not identify themselves by name in the transcript.
