New

Gurpreet Kaur
Assistant Research Professor, School of Natural Resources

Kelly A. Nelson
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences and Technology

Gurbir Singh
Assistant Professor, Division of Plant Sciences and Technology

Anjeeta Nain
Graduate Research Assistant

Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) has seen a resurgence in agricultural, industrial, and economic significance across the United States (Mark, 2019). Historically, industrial hemp played a vital role in American agriculture. The crop was widely cultivated from the colonial period through the 19th century. Hemp was an essential crop for producing textiles, rope, and other industrial materials (Small, 2002). George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp for use in naval equipment, clothing, and paper (Fike, 2016).

The cultivation of industrial hemp in Missouri dates back to 1835 (USDA, 1914) when farmers began growing the crop primarily for fiber production. By the mid-to-late 1800s, Missouri ranked second to Kentucky in national hemp output, driven by demand for cordage, canvas, and textiles (Horner et al., 2019).

A Popular Mechanics magazine spread from 1938 calling industrial hemp the next billion dollar crop.
Figure 1. Popular Mechanics Magazine, February, 1938

Despite its early importance, the legal and economic status of hemp declined sharply (Roulac, 1998) due to several factors:

  • Confusion with marijuana, fueled by political and economic dynamics in the early 20th century.
  • Increased competition from more profitable crops such as cotton.
  • Limited access to Eastern markets stemmed from an inadequate transportation infrastructure.
  • Labor-intensive fiber processing relied heavily on manual methods with limited mechanization.

Marihuana tax act of 1937

The first federal legislation to regulate cannabis in all its forms, including non-psychoactive hemp.

  • The law required anyone handling cannabis (including industrial hemp) to register with the federal government and pay a prohibitive tax.
  • The Act did not differentiate between hemp (low in THC) and marijuana (high in THC).
  • The cultivation of hemp became economically and legally impractical for legitimate industrial purposes.
  • Though not an outright ban, the Act functionally criminalized hemp cultivation by making compliance extremely burdensome.

Controlled substances act of 1970

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) enacted in 1970, further cemented the ban on industrial hemp by categorizing it as a federal Schedule I drug.

  • Schedule I drugs have:
    • high potential for abuse,
    • no currently accepted medical use, and
    • lack accepted safety even under medical supervision.
  • Hemp, grouped with marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, was federally banned from cultivation unless authorized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
  • This categorization eliminated nearly all legal production and research opportunities, stifling development for over four decades.
  • This classification remained in place until the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legally separated industrial hemp (≤0.3% THC) from marijuana and restored its status as an agricultural commodity.

Legal reintroduction through federal farm bills

The United States and Missouri’s renewed journey with industrial hemp began with the following policy highlights:

2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, Sec. 7606)

  • Allowed state departments of agriculture and universities to grow hemp under pilot programs for research purposes.
  • Required hemp grown under this provision to contain ≤0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis.
  • Marked the first legal reintroduction of hemp since the 1970s and allowed for academic and agronomic research.

2018 Farm Bill (Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018) 

  • Removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act and legally distinguished it from marijuana.
  • Established hemp as a regulated agricultural commodity.
  • Directed the USDA to create a national regulatory framework for hemp production.
  • Allowed commercial production, interstate commerce, and crop insurance eligibility.
  • Empowered states and tribal nations to submit their own regulatory plans for approval by USDA.

2019 Missouri’s Senate Bill 133 

  • Allowed higher education institutions to research and grow hemp without a state-issued permit.
  • Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) launched an industrial hemp program.
  • On December 31, 2022, Missouri’s state-run program was discontinued. All licensing and regulation in Missouri were transferred to the USDA under the Domestic Hemp Production Program as of January 1, 2023.

USDA hemp licensing and regulatory requirements

  • Producers must apply through the USDA Hemp eManagement Platform (HeMP) if their state or tribe does not have an approved hemp permitting plan.
  • Applicants must provide:
    • Geospatial coordinates or legal land descriptions of cultivation sites
    • FBI Identity History Summary Check (must be within 60 days, and the individual should have no felony drug convictions in the past 10 years)
    • Provide the intended use of hemp (fiber, grain, CBD, etc.)
    • USDA hemp production licenses are valid for up to three years and are subject to continued compliance
  • Land and acreage reporting
    • Licensed growers must report their crop details to the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA).
    • Reported details must include:
      • License number
      • Geospatial location of production
      • Planted acreage or square footage
      • Planting dates
      • Intended use of the hemp crop
      • FSA assigns each reported plot a farm-tract-field-subfield ID, which is referred to as a “lot.”
  • Sampling & THC compliance testing
    • A compliance sample must be taken from each lot within 30 days of anticipated harvest.
    • Samples must be collected by a certified sampling agent—not by the licensee.
    • THC compliance tests must be conducted by DEA-registered laboratories.
    • Testing must determine total THC content and account for THCA conversion (post-decarboxylation method).
    • Labs must report a Measurement of Uncertainty (MU) with test results.
    • A lot is considered compliant if the THC concentration + MU ≤ 0.3% on a dry weight basis.
  • Non-compliance and crop disposal
    • If a hemp lot exceeds the acceptable THC threshold, it must be destroyed in accordance with USDA/state/tribal guidelines, or Remediated if allowed by the licensing authority
    • Licensees must document and report all destruction or remediation activities.
  • Recordkeeping and inspections
    • Producers are required to maintain detailed records on:
      • Field preparation
      • Planting and harvesting
      • Testing and remediation or disposal
      • FSA acreage reporting
    • USDA or authorized agents may conduct random inspections to ensure regulatory compliance.
  • Hemp for research institutions
    • Institutions of higher education may cultivate hemp for research without USDA licensing, provided:
      • Research complies with federal guidelines
      • Non-compliant hemp is destroyed
      • Reporting obligations are met

References

For detailed information, visit:

file_copy Reprint guidelines
insert_comment Share Feedback
Publication No. MX77
Related programs