BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE on AGRICULTURE Senator Cathleen Galgiani, Chair BILL NO: SB 566 HEARING: 04/02/13 AUTHOR: Leno FISCAL: Yes VERSION: 04/01/13 CONSULTANT: Anne Megaro Industrial hemp SUMMARY : This bill would allow hemp to be grown in California, upon federal approval, by defining "industrial hemp" to be excluded from the definition of "marijuana," a schedule I controlled substance. This bill provides for hemp cultivation practices, laboratory testing, reporting requirements, and regulatory authority. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW : Industrial hemp is a variety of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and has been grown as a fiber and seed crop for centuries. It is currently grown in 30 countries including Canada, China, Great Britain, and several other countries throughout Europe. Hemp products are available in the U.S. marketplace as components of goods such as textiles, paper, and body care products. However, it is illegal to grow hemp in the United States due to its similar characteristics to marijuana (also a variety of Cannabis sativa L.) and presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a schedule I controlled substance. Therefore, all hemp materials are grown outside the United States and imported for domestic use. Existing state and federal law defines marijuana as all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination [21 U.S.C. Section 802(16); Health and Safety Code § 11018]. Existing state and federal law lists both marijuana and the hallucinogenic substance found in this plant, SB 566 - Page 2 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as schedule I controlled substances (21 U.S.C. Section 812; Health and Safety Code § 11054). Existing federal Drug Enforcement Administration regulations: In 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an interim rule (and final rule in 2003) in regards to hemp products and stated that any product containing THC is a schedule I controlled substance, unless the product is formulated such that THC cannot be used for human consumption. In addition, no person may cultivate hemp for any purpose (66 FR 51539, Oct. 9, 2001; 68 FR 14119, Mar. 21, 2003; 21 CFA Part 1308). However, in 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DEA "cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana - i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products - because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I" (Hemp Industries Association v. DEA (2004) 357 F.3d 1012). Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report: In 2012, CRS issued a report titled "Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity." This report describes the current state of hemp in the United States, including production and use, legal status, and legislative activity. CRS reports that "although marijuana is also a variety of cannabis, it is genetically distinct from industrial hemp and is further distinguished by its use and chemical makeup." The report continues that "nine states have legalized the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. However, because federal law still prohibits cultivation, a grower still must get permission from the DEA in order to grow hemp or face the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, despite having a state-issued permit." Several federal legislative bills have also been introduced, although none have been signed into law. (CRS Report RL32725). PROPOSED LAW : This bill: 1. Redefines "marijuana" to exclude industrial hemp when cultivated or processed for defined purposes. 2. Defines "industrial hemp" to mean a nonpsychoactive type of the plant Cannabis sativa L. that contains no more than SB 566 - Page 3 0.3% THC contained in the flowering tops, and cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, or for other defined purposes. 3. States findings, declarations, and intent of the Legislature in regards to industrial hemp and this act. 4. Creates a new division under the Food and Agriculture Code to specifically address industrial hemp. a. Provides for cultivation requirements, minimum acreage, signage, and various plant cultivation prohibitions to allow visual differentiation between hemp and marijuana fields, with exceptions for established agricultural research institutions or seed breeders. b. Includes industrial hemp, hemp seed, oil, yarn, and woven fabrics as products imported under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States of the United States International Trade Commission. c. Provides that a person who grows industrial hemp and is not an established agricultural research institution or seed breeder shall abide by specified sampling and laboratory testing procedures. d. Requires that laboratory test reports be issued by a laboratory registered with the federal DEA and such reports shall state the percentage content of THC, the date and location of samples taken, the Global Positioning System coordinates, and total crop acreage. e. Requires that laboratory test reports be marked with the appropriate test result of "PASSED AS CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL HEMP" or "FAILED AS CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL HEMP" at or near the top of the report. A "passed" result is a THC level at or below 0.3% content in a random sample of dried flowering tops of the industrial hemp grown. f. Requires the laboratory to provide not less than 10 original signed copies of the report for the farmer to 1) retain at least one copy of this report SB 566 - Page 4 for a minimum of two years, and 2) make available these copies to law enforcement officials and to each person purchasing, transporting, or otherwise obtaining from the grower hemp plant materials. g. Provides that industrial hemp be destroyed if laboratory testing indicates THC content greater than 0.3%. h. Provides that a person who grows hemp with THC content greater than 0.3% not be prosecuted for cultivation or possession of marijuana. i. Authorizes the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to regulate the development, growth, harvesting, and sale of industrial hemp seeds. j. Authorizes CDFA to promulgate additional regulations to ensure compliance with this division or federal law. aa. Defines "established agricultural research institution" and "seed breeder." bb. Prohibits the possession of hemp resin, flowering tops, or leaves, except as it is necessary to conduct laboratory testing. cc. Requires that within a specified timeframe the Attorney General report to the legislature any reported incident where marijuana is falsely claimed to be hemp, or where hemp cultivation is used to disguise marijuana cultivation. Hemp Industries Association shall also provide a report on the economic impacts of industrial hemp cultivation. dd. Provides that this act not be operative unless authorized under federal law. COMMENTS : Need for this bill: According to the author, this bill "is necessary to prepare California farmers to grow industrial hemp immediately following federal approval. The bill will allow California farmers to take advantage of this economic opportunity and more quickly meet the demands of California SB 566 - Page 5 businesses and manufacturers for a local source for raw hemp material." Market demands: According to the author and sponsors, "the annual United States retail market for hemp products has grown steadily since 1990 to approximately $500 million in 2012, increasing at a rate of about $26 million annually." However, according to those opposed, "Dr. Vantreese-Askren, who is recognized as the nation's leading authority on the economics of hemp cultivation, is dubious about the viability of a hemp cultivation industry in the United States because American hemp farmers would be unable to compete with the heavily subsidized Chinese and European cultivation industries." Agricultural Benefits : The author states that hemp has strong agricultural benefits in that "hemp requires little or no pesticides and herbicides and improves soil conditions making it an excellent rotational crop which is of particular interest to organic farmers. Hemp also reduces nematode populations in rotation with soy crops and is an excellent smother crop leaving the field virtually free of weeds for the next crop. The positive role hemp plays in sustainable crop rotations reduces chemical use and saves farmers money." Industrial use: According to the author, "the fast maturation and projection of hemp may help meet the growing demand for wood products. An acre of hemp produces two to four times more fiber than an acre of timber and it grows from seeding to maturity in just 90 days? Additionally, hemp is an alternative to petroleum to manufacturer platics and may be used as a raw material for ethanol fuel." Enforcement concerns: According to those in opposition, "this bill will undermine law enforcement efforts to curtail marijuana cultivation and will result in significantly increased costs in connection with the prosecution of marijuana trafficking cases." Additionally, "The impact of legalizing hemp will be that marijuana cultivators will be able to camouflage their illegal grows with a perimeter of same sex hemp plants. Effectively, this will require law enforcement to test plants for THC content before taking any action." Laboratory costs: According to those in opposition, "Since the state crime labs currently are not equipped to test for THC content, they will either have to incur the costs of gearing up for this function, or local agencies will have to incur the additional costs of finding a private lab to conduct testing? SB 566 - Page 6 The increased costs for marijuana trafficking prosecutions are incalculable." Breeder exceptions : The committee may wish to consider that given the exceptions provided to "established agricultural research institutions" and "seed breeders" in this bill, there may be value in specifically stating that any seed purchased or acquired from such persons be accompanied by a "PASSED" THC laboratory analysis. Double referral: The Senate Rules Committee has doubled referred this bill to the Senate Committee on Public Safety. Therefore, if this measure is approved by this committee, the motion should include an action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Committee on Public Safety. AUTHOR AMENDMENTS: The following amendments were inadvertently left out of the author's 4/1/13 bill amendment. Therefore, the author will offer the following amendments in committee: Amendment 1: On Page 7, in line 32, after "institutions" insert: or seed breeders Amendment 2: On page 8, in line 22, after "institution" insert: or seed breeder RELATED LEGISLATION : AB 388 (Strom-Martin) of 2002, Vetoed. Would have requested the University of California to assess the economic opportunities of specialty or alternative fiber crops, including industrial hemp, and report to the legislature by January 1, 2004. AB 448 (Strom-Martin) of 2001, failed passage in committee. Would have authorized the secretary of CDFA to issue licenses to cultivate hemp for commercial purposes. AB 1147 (Leno) of 2006, Vetoed. Would have permitted the cultivation of industrial hemp in California. In his veto message, the governor stated that hemp is still considered a cannabis plant regardless of its THC content and, therefore, illegal under federal law. AB 684 (Leno) of 2007, Vetoed. Would have permitted the SB 566 - Page 7 cultivation of industrial hemp in California under a pilot program in four counties. In his veto message, the governor stated that hemp is still considered a cannabis plant regardless of its THC content and, therefore, illegal under federal law. In addition, "law enforcement has expressed concerns that implementation of this measure could place a drain on their resources and cause significant problems with drug enforcement activities." SB 676 (Leno) of 2011, Vetoed. Would have permitted the cultivation of industrial hemp in California under a pilot program in four counties. In his veto message, the governor stated that hemp is still a federally regulated controlled substance, although "it is absurd that hemp is being imported into the state, but our farmers cannot grow it." SUPPORT : Hemp Industries Association (Sponsor) Vote Hemp (Sponsor) American Civil Liberties Union of California Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp California Certified Organic Farmers California State Grange California State Sheriffs' Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Colorganics Inc. Dash Hemp Datsusara Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps Drug Policy Alliance Ecological Farming Association Hempsteads Hempy's Inc. Humboldt Traders Instituto Laboral de la Raza Jungmaven Ltd. Kings County Sheriff David S. Robinson Knoll Farms Lafe's Natural BodyCare The Living Temple Nutiva, Inc. Planning and Conservation League Santa Barbara Hemp Company United Food & Commercial Workers 8 - Golden State United Food & Commercial Workers, Western States Council SB 566 - Page 8 US Hemp Oil Inc. OPPOSITION : California Narcotic Officers' Association California Police Chiefs Association