During the most recent legislative session, both the House and the Senate advanced proposals aimed at closing the so-called “hemp loophole.” This loophole stems from the 2018 Farm Bill, which defined hemp only by reference to one cannabinoid—delta-9 THC. By omitting other isomers and derivatives, the law inadvertently created a booming market for hemp-derived products containing delta-8, delta-10, THCA, and other psychoactive cannabinoids that can be synthesized cost-effectively from hemp.
Although the House and Senate differ in their approaches, their shared objective is clear: to sharply restrict access to consumable and smokable hemp products with intoxicating effects.
The Senate’s proposal offers a particularly sweeping redefinition of hemp. Under its language, “hemp” would include only parts of the Cannabis sativa L. plant containing no quantifiable amounts of THC (including delta-8, delta-9, and delta-10), THCA, or any other cannabinoid with effects similar to THC, or even marketed as having such effects.
This definition would exclude from the federal hemp framework and effectively reclassify as Schedule I controlled substances products that:
- Contain cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by the plant;
- Contain cannabinoids that can be naturally produced but are instead synthesized or manufactured outside the plant; or Contain any quantifiable amount of THC, THCA, or other THC-like cannabinoids.
- In practice, this would mean that only naturally occurring, naturally derived cannabinoids in non-intoxicating trace levels would be permissible in federally compliant hemp products.
The proposal also delegates important rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), who, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, would define “quantifiable amounts” of THC and set enforceable limits. Equally significant will be the clarification of what constitutes “trace” or “insignificant” amounts—terms that will determine whether many hemp-derived products survive in the marketplace.
For any hemp measure to become law, both the House and Senate must approve the same version of the bill before it reaches the president’s desk. As the fiscal year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Bill moves through negotiations, its language will continue to be refined.
While support in Congress is uneven, momentum is building, bolstered by state-level initiatives, FDA scrutiny of cannabinoid products, and pressure from the competing marijuana industry, suggesting that tighter federal oversight may be on the horizon.
September 2024 Emergency Regulations Extended
The “emergency hemp regulations” were initially set to expire on June 23, 2025. However, this emergency was extended for an additional 90 days (through September 23, 2025) as the CDPH began proposing to make those regulations permanent. (June 13, 2025 – Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
Accordingly, a 45-day public comment period began on June 13, 2025 and a hearing for public comments was scheduled for Monday, July 28, 2025. Since we could not attend in person, our firm submitted a public comment for consideration by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). For a quick read, this CA NORML summary contains a few of the public comments from that public hearing.
Now that the initial public comment period has closed, the CDPH may now decide to change its initial proposal either in response to public comments or on its own accord. The agency must then decide whether a change is non-substantial, substantial and sufficiently related, or substantial and not sufficiently related. Each of these classifications may or may not require additional notice.
Unfortunately, this next stage of the process takes a bit of time, as the CDPH must summarize and respond to each timely comment that was directed at the proposal (or at the procedures followed by the agency during the rulemaking action). For each comment, the agency must include either an explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the comment or state the reasons for rejecting the comment.
Now that the CDPH has begun the rulemaking process promptly, they essentially have until June 13, 2026, to transmit a final rulemaking action to the Office of Administrative Law for review. Until then, the “emergency regulations” remain in full effect.
AB-8: Proposed Integration of Hemp-derived Cannabinoids into the Cannabis Regulatory Framework Makes Its Way to the Governor’s Desk
Under AB 8, California lawmakers continue to grapple with tightening hemp regulation by attempting to integrate hemp-derived cannabinoids into the state’s existing cannabis framework for both medical and adult-use markets. The bill expressly bans synthetically derived cannabinoids, such as delta-8 THC, citing safety concerns about lab-created compounds that have often escaped regulatory scrutiny.
The Bill, proposed by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry also clarifies rules for hemp-based topicals and revises definitions of “industrial hemp” and “hemp-derived cannabinoids” to close loopholes and eliminate ambiguity. These changes are designed to provide a clearer compliance pathway for businesses while protecting consumers from the proliferation of unregulated products.
During committee review, lawmakers stripped out excise tax provisions that had originally been part of the bill, leaving hemp-derived cannabinoids untaxed under this measure. Instead, the focus has continually shifted to standardizing definitions, product categories, and compliance requirements, which signals that legislators are currently prioritizing regulatory clarity and enforcement over immediate revenue collection.
Ultimately, these proposed reforms under AB-8 are intended to crack down on gray-market sales of chemically altered hemp products, support legitimate operators, and align hemp oversight with California’s broader cannabis market.
Legislators have until September 30, 2025, to get a final version of the bill to the Governor’s desk to either sign or veto.
Work with Experienced California Cannabis Attorneys
Federal and state regulators are moving quickly to reshape the hemp and cannabis marketplace. If your business manufactures, distributes, or sells hemp-derived products in California, these proposals could significantly impact your operations.
At Manzuri Law, our cannabis attorneys closely monitor legislative and regulatory changes, submit comments during rulemaking, and help clients adapt compliance strategies before enforcement begins. Whether you need guidance on product classifications, licensing, or navigating the gray areas of evolving hemp regulations, our team is here to protect your business and position you for success.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation and safeguard your place in California’s cannabis industry.