The reintroduction of hemp in the USA: a content analysis of state and tribal hemp production plans.

Amanda Falkner, Jane Kolodinsky, Tyler Mark, William Snell, Rebecca Hill, Amelia Luke, Jonathan Shepherd, Hannah Lacasse
{"title":"The reintroduction of hemp in the USA: a content analysis of state and tribal hemp production plans.","authors":"Amanda Falkner,&nbsp;Jane Kolodinsky,&nbsp;Tyler Mark,&nbsp;William Snell,&nbsp;Rebecca Hill,&nbsp;Amelia Luke,&nbsp;Jonathan Shepherd,&nbsp;Hannah Lacasse","doi":"10.1186/s42238-023-00181-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp (< 0.3% THC by dry weight) into the US agricultural sector has been complex and remains confounded by its association with cannabis (> 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill's reintroduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15172,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cannabis Research","volume":"5 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245984/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cannabis Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-023-00181-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp (< 0.3% THC by dry weight) into the US agricultural sector has been complex and remains confounded by its association with cannabis (> 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill's reintroduction.

Methods: A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed.

Results: Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe.

Conclusions: Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国大麻的重新引进:州和部落大麻生产计划的内容分析。
背景:以大麻(干重0.3%四氢大麻酚)的形式重新引入大麻。自2014年农业法案重新引入以来,美国不一致的大麻法规进一步加剧了这种情况。方法:对各州和部落大麻生产计划、美国农业部大麻生产者许可证和2014年州试点计划中提出的术语和定义进行内容分析。对69个大麻生产计划进行了分析。结果:结果表明,大麻生产计划之间存在显著差异,将2014年农业法案的语言扩展到2018年农业法案的时间框架,加剧了这种差异。结论:本研究的发现指出了监管框架修改时需要统一和一致的领域,并为联邦政策制定者提供了变革的起点。研究结果可能对试图跨州推销产品的公司也很有用。根据内容分析结果,提供了如何减轻这些不一致的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cannabis and cancer: unveiling the potential of a green ally in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer Envisaging challenges for the emerging medicinal Cannabis sector in Lesotho Driving-related behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions among Australian medical cannabis users: results from the CAMS 20 survey. High levels of pesticides found in illicit cannabis inflorescence compared to licensed samples in Canadian study using expanded 327 pesticides multiresidue method. Cannabis use for exercise recovery in trained individuals: a survey study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1