Ford Farm Concerned Over New Hemp Restrictions
Greg Wilson/Anderson Observer
Farmers in South Carolina and across the country are bracing for financial upheaval as new federal legislation promises to dramatically curtail the production and sale of hemp—a crop many were encouraged to grow under earlier government initiatives. The sudden move, approved by the Senate and now awaiting further debate, has left local growers scrambling to assess the fallout as lawmakers aim to close loopholes that previously enabled a robust hemp market.
Growers recount how state agencies and federal regulators promoted the expansion of industrial hemp, not just as an agricultural experiment but as a pathway to invest in new revenue streams. Many farmers responded by shifting resources and labor towards hemp cultivation, incentivized by access to financial assistance and scientific support from government programs designed to monitor compliance and ensure crops remained within federally mandated THC thresholds.
Lee Ford, who works with his father Danny Ford growing hemp for oil on the family farm in the Bishop’s Branch Community near Central in 2018, as their farm was among 20 in 15 counties selected for the 2018 SC Industrial Hemp Pilot Program, said the restrictions would essentially put him out of business.
At that time, South Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture Hugh Weathers said the move was good for the state and its farmers.
“The Industrial Hemp Pilot Program creates a new opportunity for South Carolina farmers to increase crop diversity,' said Weathers. Interest in the program was strong, and the Department of Agriculture worked diligently to select a broad representation of growers. Governor Henry McMaster signed H.3559 into law. The 2018 law allowed 20 South Carolina farmers to grow up to 20 acres of industrial hemp for research purposes, in accordance with the 2014 Farm Bill.
“It's been really hard to get any regulator to go to bat for you,” said Lee Ford. “It's basically yours to mess up. So, you go out there and you do the best you can to vet somebody, to get the seeds, to get the genetics, and then say they sell me something bad that's over 0.3, then I'm just hung out to dry. There's no regulatory group that I can go say, "Hey man, this guy sold me hot hemp seeds.”
The Fords have had other issues with the crop, suing a provider along with other farmers claiming Charleston Hemp Co. and Carolina Botanical Genetics, convinced Ford in 2018 to sign contracts to extract oil from the hemp plants they harvested. The two farmers allege that Bulick mishandled the crops and rendered them "useless and unmarketable."
Previous regulations limited allowable THC concentrations to 0.3 percent, a standard that farmers say already required careful breeding and routine testing. Now, under the new legislation, that limit has been dropped to four milligrams—a drastic reduction that, according to growers, will make most existing hemp varieties unviable for legal cultivation. Farmers who spent years adapting crops to comply with law now find themselves faced with a near-total loss of investment, as the varieties needed to meet the new requirements simply do not exist in current agricultural inventories.
The abrupt change troubles farmers who argue that policy shifts disregard both the science and economics of hemp farming. Years of research, development, and selective breeding conducted since the 2018 Farm Bill may be rendered worthless, as many fear the market will evaporate overnight. Producers question how regulators can expect rapid adaptation, especially after public funds and industry time were allocated to meeting standards that have now been summarily changed.
For small and mid-sized operators, the financial risks are particularly acute. Many invested in specialized equipment, new seeds, and infrastructure in expectation of a stable market. With the rug pulled from beneath their feet, farmers say livelihoods—not just individual crops—hang in the balance, and that supportive rhetoric from policy makers now feels hollow as the industry faces existential threat from federal overreach. The uncertainty surrounding the legislation, and the speed at which it was adopted, leaves many seeking answers and representation that, so far, have not materialized—further deepening the sense of betrayal among those who were once asked to help build the country’s hemp industry.
As states steadily broaden legal marijuana access, a separate and largely unregulated market for hemp-derived intoxicants has flourished, with products ranging from drinks to gummies stocked in gas stations and smoke shops across the country. Critics contend that some manufacturers have taken advantage of loosely worded federal law to produce items that induce highs rivaling marijuana—yet without the comprehensive safety regulations and taxes that govern state-sanctioned cannabis sales.
This legal gray area has spurred states to push back, passing bans and restrictions on intoxicating hemp. Many state officials now call for more robust federal oversight, while some farm-state legislators argue the pending congressional measure may overreach. A bipartisan group of 39 state attorneys general recently petitioned Congress to clarify hemp’s federal definition, arguing that the underregulated sector poses risks to public health and undermines law enforcement.
Ford, who waited outside U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham’s Pendleton office on Wednesday, finally had a chance to express his concerns to the Senator.
“He said that he supports the medical movement and that we do need regulation,” said Ford. “I just tried to affirm that the first regulatory thing that they did was not a good thing. It opened it up too much. And now they're shutting it all down. You know, it's going from them understanding that they're not taking the time. You've got a bunch of people up there in Washington that don't understand hemp. And they aren't coming to their constituents to learn about it. We've invested money. We've put in the work, we've learned about it, we know the ins and outs of it. We know how the bill needs to be worded, and no one's coming to us to get that offered to them to where we can be in a good situation and continue to produce the plant.”
Texas lawmakers passed a strict ban on intoxicating hemp products earlier this year, a move blocked by a veto from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who cited constitutional concerns tied to existing federal law. However, Abbott subsequently issued an executive order ramping up state regulations, including new age restrictions. Florida officials acted over the summer, seizing tens of thousands of hemp packages that failed to meet new child safety packaging and labeling rules. The state Senate also approved a ban on hemp-derived THC products, but the measure stalled in the House. Last year, a similar effort was nixed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who declared such a ban would damage small business.
Other states are following suit. California recently intensified enforcement of its intoxicating hemp product ban, while in Ohio, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine announced a temporary emergency prohibition as lawmakers debate new legislation.
The chief psychoactive element in cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is at the center of the debate. State attorneys general warn that manufacturers are engineering hemp to create synthetic THC that can be even more potent than conventional marijuana. They have called for Congress to cut off what they call a “Frankenstein” market for high-inducing hemp products, citing cases in which nonintoxicating hemp is manipulated into substances capable of causing severe harm, especially to children.
The proliferation of products resembling candy, sold without consistent age or labeling restrictions, has drawn particular concern.
Despite tightening state regulation, industry advocates warn that the federal proposal could cripple the $28.4 billion hemp sector, threatening farmers, business owners and patients who have come to rely on hemp products. The U.S. Hemp Roundtable argues the bill could wipe out 95 percent of the industry and force legitimate users into legal jeopardy. The group’s counsel emphasizes that targeted safety regulation—not blanket prohibition—is needed, pointing to states such as Kentucky and Minnesota as models for effective oversight.
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, included the restriction in the spending bill, explaining that it aims to close an unintended legal loophole while leaving room for hemp cultivation for fiber, oil, and pharmaceutical research. Not all lawmakers agree: Fellow Kentuckian Rand Paul has argued the measure would devastate the industry and preempt state law, offering an amendment to strip out the provision that ultimately failed.
Hemp, while rooted in the same cannabis species as marijuana, is distinguished legally by its lower THC content. Congress permitted commercial hemp in the 2018 farm bill—with a cap of 0.3 percent THC by dry weight—envisioning a market for textiles, animal feed, and CBD-centric wellness products. But manufacturers have sidestepped those limits, converting legal hemp into synthetic THC products with much higher potency through chemical manipulation, which experts say raises significant safety questions.
States have responded, but with varying degrees of success. Six states and Washington, D.C., now prohibit all consumable hemp products with any THC, while nearly half of states allow at least some intoxicating hemp goods. Enforcement is complicated by online sales and divergent federal and state laws, leaving states seeking federal leadership and industry standards.
Should Congress approve and the president sign off as anticipated, the new federal rules are expected to hit some states harder than others. States like Alaska, which already ban such products, are unlikely to see major change. Others, like Nebraska, may experience dramatic shifts in the availability of hemp items, depending on local enforcement.
The hemp and marijuana industries remain sharply divided. The former claims that opponents are motivated by a desire to protect marijuana market share, while cannabis advocates argue that hemp purveyors seek profit while avoiding safety standards and taxes. They point to findings that many “hemp” products tested were actually more akin to unregulated marijuana, with dangerous contaminants such as pesticides and heavy metals detected.
Missouri offers a vivid case study. The state’s Cannabis Trade Association sampled hemp products from gas stations and smoke shops across Missouri and found 53 out of 55 exceeded the legal THC limit for marijuana—results that, the association argues, reinforce the need for rigorous regulation, especially as these products increasingly resemble regulated cannabis.
Policymakers and law enforcement continue to wrestle with the complexities of the market. Missouri’s new attorney general has made regulating untested and unregulated THC products a priority, with the administration emphasizing the public health risks posed, particularly to children, by a sector that is largely operating without oversight.
Ford said the new restrictions on growing hemp will put him out of business.
“If it is implemented a year from now as expected, it all but puts us out of business,: said Ford. “You won't have another hemp farmer buy a license. because you can't essentially turn out any products. Once it goes to the product, they have it so regulated that anything that is out there now will be gone. There’s some stuff that we want regulated. We don't want THC in everything out there. At the same time, we don't want them to take medical use of CBD from children that have made a large step in having a better life because they had the opportunity to use it.”
