CPEAR Joint Brief – The Food and Drug Administration’s 90‑day deadline to clarify which cannabinoids fall under the new federal intoxicating hemp ban has now elapsed

The Food and Drug Administration’s 90‑day deadline to clarify which cannabinoids fall under the new federal intoxicating hemp ban has now elapsed, and the promised definitions have yet to be released. This silence heightens uncertainty for producers, retailers, and consumers who still lack clarity on which compounds will be classified as naturally occurring cannabinoids, THC‑class substances, or those with THC‑like effects. As a result, policymakers and industry leaders alike are navigating questions that cut to the core of cannabinoid regulation and commerce.

Congress, meanwhile, is increasingly active in this space. Several Members are exploring solutions that recognize both the complexity and economic importance of the hemp market. The upcoming Farm Bill markup may become a key vehicle for advancing reforms, including Rep. Baird’s and Senator Klobuchar’s bipartisan legislation (H.R. 7024 / S. 3686), which would provide regulators much‑needed time and structure to develop a workable policy framework. In parallel, the introduction of H.R. 7212, the Hemp Enforcement, Modernization, and Protection (HEMP) Act, signals growing recognition across party lines that a cooperative federal‑state approach grounded in clear definitions, product standards, and age restrictions offers a more constructive path than outright prohibition.

These developments come amid ongoing uncertainty stemming from the FY 2026 Agricultural Appropriations Bill that redefined hemp to impose a 0.4 mg total‑THC limit per container with a November 12, 2026, effective date. Without FDA clarification on what constitutes a “container” or how intermediate extracts and processing materials will be treated, even compliant CBD manufacturers could face operational risks as enforcement nears.

At the same time, state‑level policies are diverging: some tightening access or banning products, others adopting reasonable standards around labeling, potency, and age. As some jurisdictions revisit adult‑use or medical cannabis programs, we must guard against policy whiplash that undermines legitimate operators, erodes public trust, and drives consumers back to unregulated channels.

This moment demands more than reaction; it calls for evidence‑based engagement. At CPEAR, we continue to advocate for age‑appropriate access, science‑driven product standards, and responsible enforcement that prioritizes public health while preserving innovation, patient access, and economic opportunity. Together, through research and dialogue, we can shape pragmatic cannabinoid policy that fosters clarity, safety, and sustainability.

-Shanita Penny, Executive Director, CPEAR