Montana, USA, June 11, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — I’ve had more than one person ask me a fair question recently:
Why is the CEO of a grain and fiber industrial hemp company spending so much time working on a policy proposal that appears to benefit the cannabinoid sector?
Trust me, I’ve asked myself the same thing.
As the co-founder and CEO of IND HEMP, one of America’s first industrial hemp grain and fiber processors, I’ve spent most of the last decade focused on agriculture, manufacturing, food ingredients, and fiber markets—not cannabinoids.
The baggage that comes with being a hemp operator is real. Increased paperwork. Additional testing. Higher insurance premiums. Costly delays at customs. Lengthy explanations to customers and regulators. Over time, we started referring to it internally as the “hemp tax” – the extra cost of doing business simply because the word hemp appears in your company name.
For years, we accepted it as the cost of doing business. Then things got more complicated.
Just as industrial hemp was beginning to establish credibility with consumers, regulators, and lawmakers, the emergence of Delta-8, intoxicating hemp products, hemp-derived THC beverages, and other cannabinoid products pulled the entire industry back into a familiar cycle of confusion and controversy.
Like many on the industrial side of hemp, I spent years believing the best path forward was separation.
Yet every policy debate, regulatory challenge, and public perception issue seemed to lead right back to cannabinoids.
Like a magnet, the conversation kept pulling us back together.
The turning point for me came during a visit to Washington, D.C. last September. In a meeting with White House senior leadership, I spent time explaining the opportunities for grain and fiber hemp and the challenges we faced.
Their response was blunt.
“No one here has a problem with industrial hemp. What we need is your help to solve the cannabinoid problem.”
I walked out of that meeting in full-blown, problem-solving mode. If policy makers viewed the cannabinoid issue as the obstacle preventing hemp from moving forward, then perhaps the answer wasn’t trying to run from it – it was helping shape it.
What followed was a series of conversations with stakeholders from every corner of the hemp industry. Farmers. Processors. Beverage companies. Wellness brands. Regulators and researchers. Those discussions laid the foundation for a policy framework we called Pushing Progress, which sought to clearly define the roles of USDA, FDA, TTB, and other regulators in overseeing hemp.
The goal wasn’t to defend one sector over another. The goal was to tackle what many viewed as an impossible challenge: how do we regulate a crop as diverse and complicated as hemp using existing regulatory frameworks? How do we prioritize consumer safety, create clarity for regulators, respect the realities of the regulated cannabis and alcohol markets, and still preserve the enormous economic potential of the hemp plant?
Those conversations eventually evolved into what is now known as the Goodness of Hemp Act.
Unlike most proposals currently circulating in Washington, the Goodness of Hemp Act wasn’t designed to protect one category, one product, or one business model.
It was designed to create a path forward for hemp. That’s what makes it fundamentally different.
I understand why many companies are focused on securing another extension before the November deadline. A lot of businesses are simply trying to survive. But survival is not the same thing as success. An extension without a framework is a longer runway to the same cliff.
The Goodness of Hemp Act takes a different approach.
For industrial hemp operators, three provisions stand out.
First, it creates a clearer distinction between industrial hemp and cannabinoid production, directing USDA to regulate industrial hemp differently and reducing unnecessary burdens like background checks and excessive testing.
Second, it directs FDA to establish pathways for hemp grain ingredients in companion animal and equine feed, unlocking significant new markets for American farmers and processors.
Third, it establishes an excise tax structure for intoxicating hemp products and reinvests a portion of that revenue into hemp research, enforcement, supply chain development, market development, education, and industry-building initiatives.
That last point deserves a closer look.
For all the discussion surrounding hemp’s potential, industrial hemp has spent the last decade trying to build an industry with limited capital, underfunded research, and fragmented market development efforts.
Meanwhile, another emerging hemp category, low-dose THC beverages, generated roughly $1 billion in revenue last year alone.
If just 5% of that revenue had been directed into industry development, it would have generated approximately $50 million annually for research, infrastructure, market development, and consumer education. And that number is not just hypothetical, the Goodness of Hemp Act currently directs 5% of excise tax revenues to a “Hemp Farmer Assistance and Market Development Account” designed to invest directly in the future of the industry.
One year of strategic reinvestment could accomplish more than a decade of passing the hat.
That’s why I believe industrial hemp should view this legislation as more than a cannabinoid policy proposal. This isn’t just about what’s at stake but what’s to gain.
It is one of the first serious attempts to reduce barriers for grain and fiber producers, open meaningful new markets, and create a sustainable source of investment for the future of our industry.
We’ve spent years building our business around hemp and working to create opportunities from this crop. But this isn’t just about our business. It’s about the farmers, workers, entrepreneurs, and rural communities that have taken a chance on hemp alongside us.
The hemp tax isn’t going away because we ignore the cannabinoid conversation. It goes away when policymakers finally have a framework they can trust.
Industrial hemp can continue trying to distance itself from this debate. Or we can help shape the outcome. With Congress facing critical decisions in the months ahead, now is the time for grain and fiber stakeholders to engage. July 31 is when bill language and co-sponsors must be locked before Congress breaks for recess. That is the real deadline, not November. If grain and fiber voices are not in the room before then, they will not be in the bill.
Learn more about the Goodness of Hemp Act at TheGoodnessofHemp.org.
If you believe in the future of hemp, we need your help. Follow the campaign, engage with the content, and help us educate elected officials on both what’s at stake and what we have to gain. Every share, conversation, and connection helps elevate the story of hemp and build support for a long-term solution.
July 31 is the deadline that matters. The decisions made this summer will shape the future of our industry.
Now is the time to engage.
- Morgan Tweet Calls for Industrial Hemp Industry Engagement on Federal Hemp Policy
- IND HEMP Facility Demonstrates the Economic Potential of American-Grown Hemp