Michigan hemp producers could head into 2026 nonetheless sure by the state’s Industrial Hemp Growers Act, if lawmakers don’t take motion on measures that might switch oversight of hemp farming to the federal authorities.
Two measures launched this month stay pending: Home Invoice 5094 (filed Oct. 7) and Senate Invoice 608 (filed Oct. 16) would repeal the state-run licensing system administered by the Michigan Division of Agriculture and Rural Improvement (MDARD) and transfer hemp regulation to the U.S. Division of Agriculture’s Home Hemp Manufacturing Program.
Time operating quick
The 2025 legislative session continues by way of Dec. 31, giving each payments a window to progress. As of late October, every stays in committee with no recorded votes, based on legislative monitoring companies.
“Time is of the essence to get a invoice handed … since farmers are making planting selections quickly about subsequent season,” Robbin Pott of Pott Farms in Willis, Michigan, instructed Michigan Farm Information.
Growers say the state framework provides pointless price. Annual licensing and testing charges can exceed $1,500 per farm, sampling should happen 20–30 days earlier than harvest, and assessments have to be carried out by DEA-registered laboratories, based on MDARD. Any lot testing above the 0.3 p.c THC restrict have to be remediated or destroyed inside 30 days—typically wiping out income for small producers.
“The system is dear and dangerous,” Pott mentioned.
The transition to federal oversight might have an effect on the state sources and help that Michigan hemp farmers have relied upon. The state’s program had supplied localized help, together with workshops and steerage tailor-made to Michigan’s distinctive agricultural surroundings. The transfer to a federal program could imply farmers lose entry to such companies, doubtlessly leaving some with out the identical degree of help for navigating regulatory challenges.
MDARD’s 2024 report listed 36 energetic hemp farmers, down from 572 in 2019.
Intoxicating hemp debate
As lawmakers take into account dropping the state program, they’re concurrently targeted on the speedy unfold of delta-8 THC and different intoxicating hemp derivatives, based on iHemp Michigan. The Hashish Regulatory Company (CRA) already classifies such compounds as hashish, requiring marijuana-industry licenses for his or her sale. New proposals would tighten packaging, advertising and marketing, and age-limit guidelines, and will merge enforcement underneath a single hashish code.
Trade advocates warn that the emphasis on intoxicating hemp has overshadowed industrial hemp reform, delaying the hand-off to USDA that the majority farmers help. For MDARD, separating low-THC fiber and grain producers from psychoactive-product producers stays an administrative problem.
State officers acknowledge that federal oversight would simplify licensing and decrease prices however say legislative approval is required. With the session nonetheless open, the payments might advance earlier than December—however till they do, Michigan’s hemp {industry} stays underneath its personal expensive framework, dealing with excessive compliance prices and coverage uncertainty as lawmakers divide their consideration between industrial hemp and intoxicating hemp regulation.
Nationwide context
Michigan’s state of affairs displays a broader nationwide pattern. After the 2018 Farm Invoice legalized hemp underneath federal legislation, states might both function their very own USDA-approved hemp applications or defer on to federal licensing. Many initially selected state management, believing localized oversight would higher help growers and processors.
Over time, a number of states have deserted their unbiased applications as a result of excessive administrative prices, declining participation, and the complexity of sustaining USDA compliance for sampling and testing. Others, together with North Dakota, New Mexico, and Maine, have transitioned to the federal framework to scale back bills and streamline regulation.
A handful of bigger states — corresponding to Colorado, Oregon, and Kentucky — proceed to handle their very own hemp applications, emphasizing nearer ties with analysis establishments and native processors. Nonetheless, even in these jurisdictions, regulators acknowledge that federal requirements now form enforcement. For smaller markets like Michigan, the financial and administrative logic more and more favors USDA oversight, which supplies uniform guidelines and decrease prices whereas sustaining important compliance safeguards.
