WASHINGTON, DC — On behalf of voters nationwide — including farmers, environmentalists and entrepreneurs — Vote Hemp is sending a survey to all presidential candidates this week to gauge their views on the farming, manufacture and sale of industrial hemp products in the United States. The results of the survey will be released on January 5, 2004, but embargoed copies of the survey will be available to members of the media in mid-December.

“The Vote Hemp 2004 Candidate Survey will be published online at the www.VoteHemp.com Web site and in print versions that we will distribute at events nationwide,” says Eric Steenstra, President of the Vote Hemp, the nation’s leading non-profit organization dedicated to the legal acceptance of industrial hemp — the non-psychoactive variety of cannabis sativa plant. Candidates have until December 15 to review and answer four questions in the survey. Candidates that do not reply to the survey will be viewed as unfriendly to the millions of voters who purchase and use hemp products (over $150 million in U.S. hemp sales in 2000 alone).

The following questions will be asked of candidates:

2. The Bush Administration has attempted to ban nutritious and safe hemp seed products that are exempt from the definition of marijuana. These foods products include bread, waffles, energy bars, non-dairy milk and many other items that have been sold for years in thousands of stores. They DO NOT get people high or cause people to fail drug tests. They DO contain an excellent balance of essential fatty acids and protein. Do you feel that hemp food products should remain legal?

3. In April of 2003 Zogby conducted a national poll of 1,000 likely voters that revealed a majority support allowing US farmers to grow industrial hemp under a regulated system. Were you aware that 79% of American voters support allowing US farmers to grow hemp to supply US companies like Ford, Chrysler, and Ralph Lauren?

4. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has made the research of industrial hemp nearly impossible by denying or delaying permits to researchers in Hawaii and elsewhere. Would you support or introduce legislation to allow states to conduct research on industrial hemp without a special permit from DEA?

Hundreds of U.S. businesses are manufacturing and selling a wide variety of products made from industrial hemp in thousands of retail stores across the country. Products made with hemp fiber, hurd or seed can now be found in chain stores like Wal-Mart, Staples, Whole Foods Market and The Body Shop, as well as in more than 2 million U.S. cars by Ford, Chrysler and other major auto makers. Unfortunately, American companies have no choice but to import hemp from Canada, Europe and Asia. This is despite the fact that hemp grows well in all 50 states and the U.S. has a long history of hemp farming dating back to colonial times when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp on their farms and promoted the use of hemp. A recent Zogby poll of 1,000 likely voters showed that 66% of Americans support allowing U.S. farmers to grow industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — U.S. COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT — The Hemp Industries Association (HIA), representing over 200 hemp companies in North America, is predicting victory in a major legal battle to prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from banning nutritious hemp foods such as waffles, bread, cereal and snack bars. A decision in HIA v. DEA is expected within six months. “Retailers and manufacturers of hemp foods should be confident that we will win this case,” says David Bronner, a board member of both the HIA and Vote Hemp, and Chair of the HIA Food and Oil Committee. “The three judge panel seemed in agreement over our main argument that the DEA’s ‘Final Rule’ ignores Congress’ specific exemption in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under the definition of marihuana that excludes hemp seed and stalk from control. Based on the questions posed to the DEA, it appears the court reasonably views trace insignificant amounts of THC in hemp seed in the same way as it sees trace amounts of opiates in poppy seeds,” says Bronner.

During the final oral arguments held in San Francisco on September 17, 2003, the HIA argued that the DEA’s “Final Rule” banning nutritious hemp foods misinterprets the CSA. While the Court challenged HIA attorney Joe Sandler over how the DEA could or could not control a hypothetical plant containing trace THC in the Amazon rainforest, the judges were completely unconvinced by DEA attorney Daniel Dormont’s arguments that Congress did not exempt hemp seed from the CSA even if the seed contains tiny insignificant amounts of naturally-occurring THC.

According to the hearing transcript available at https://www.votehemp.com/PDF/Oral_Arguments_HIAvDEA.pdf, Dormont was read back the section of the CSA dealing with the hemp seed exemption on three occasions by Judge Alex Kozinski. By the third occasion, a frustrated Kozinski stated “… I tried to say it once before. What this tells me is Congress knew full well that stalks and seeds and fiber could be carriers of some level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They were aware of that. Nevertheless, it said unless you do the extracting part they are not marihuana under the definition. That is what it says to me.” Near the end of the DEA’s arguments, Judge Kozinski asked Dormont “Can you tell me how you are going to save the [poppy seed] bagel?” The question drew laughter from the packed courtroom, but is a serious issue considering that the irrational logic behind the DEA’s attempted hemp food ban could easily be applied to poppy seed bagels.

Even the DEA acknowledged that hemp foods have no abuse potential, stating “The concern of the Drug Enforcement Administration isn’t particularized to the particular products that these Petitioners make. The DEA has never said, has never focused on the particular products and said anyone can get high from them, or that they pose a harm to people.” In regards to widespread outrage over the DEA’s “Final Rule” — 115,000 public comments and a letter from Congress co-signed by 22 Representatives submitted to DEA opposed to the hemp food ban — Chief Judge Mary Schroeder asked the DEA: “Did you take into account the objections of people who might say that this doesn’t make a lot of sense?” Dormont admitted the rule “wasn’t popular.”

Due to a Court-ordered stay of the DEA’s “Final Rule,” hemp foods remain perfectly legal to import, sell and consume while the Court considers arguments and renders a decision. “A positive decision by the Court will dramatically improve the demand for hemp foods due to hemp seed’s phenomenal omega-3 content and well-balanced protein,” says Bronner. The DEA’s “Final Rule,” issued on March 21, 2003, is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued by the DEA on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a Ninth Circuit stay issued on March 7, 2002. The hemp industry won a major victory against the DEA on June 30, 2003 when the Ninth Circuit permanently invalidated the “Interpretative Rule.” On March 28, 2003 the HIA petitioned the Ninth Circuit to again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil products in the U.S., and on April 16, 2003 the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the DEA’s “Final Rule.”

U.S. hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at www.TestPledge.com). The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates. The recently-revived global hemp market is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — U.S. COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT —Lawyers representing 250 companies in the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) will make final oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals located at 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA September 17, at 4:00 PM. At the hearing, HIA lawyers will argue that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) attempt to ban nutritious hemp foods misinterprets the Controlled Substances Act and violates the Administrative Procedures Act.

WHO: Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration
WHAT: Final Oral Arguments in Federal Court Over Legality of Hemp Food
WHEN: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 at 4:00 PM PST
WHERE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA

If this new “Final Rule” were to take effect, it would ban hemp seed and oil and consequently destroy the multimillion-dollar hemp food industry. Due to a Court ordered Stay, hemp foods remain perfectly legal to import, sell and consume while the Court hears arguments and renders a decision. The hemp industry expects a decision on the “Final Rule” in the next six months.

Background Re: HIA v. DEA in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The DEA’s “Final Rule,” issued on March 21, 2003, is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued by the DEA on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a Ninth Circuit Stay issued on March 7, 2002. The hemp industry won a major victoryagainst the DEA on June 30, 2003 when the Ninth Circuit invalidated the “Interpretative Rule.” On March 28, 2003 the HIA and the Organic Consumers Association petitioned the Ninth Circuit to once again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil products in the U.S. through their “Final Rule” and on April 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit again issued a Stay.

U.S. hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.testpledge.com). The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates.

The recently revived global hemp market is a thriving commercial success. Numerous personal care products now use hemp as a key ingredient in skin cream, lip balm and soap. If upheld, the DEA rule could prohibit the importation of hemp oil, effectively denying these personal care companies a key ingredient in their products. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — U.S. COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT — The Hemp Industries Association (HIA), member food and body care companies, and their customers applauded a decision issued today by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, invalidating the Drug Enforcement Administration’s October 2001 “Interpretive Rule” that would have construed the Controlled Substances Act to ban edible hemp seed, oil and oil and seed products.

Writing for the majority opinion, Judge Betty Fletcher said, “Because the DEA rule is inconsistent with the THC regulation at the time of promulgation, it is a procedurally invalid legislative rule, not an interpretive rule. The petition requesting that we declare the rule to be invalid and unenforceable is granted.” To download a PDF copy of the opinion, see https://www.votehemp.com/PDF/HIAvDEA_9th_opinion.pdf.

“This is great news, but because the court narrowly declared the DEA ‘Interpretive Rule’ invalid on procedural grounds, hemp food remains in legal limbo until the court decides on the industry’s challenge to the DEA’s ‘Final Rule’ which is virtually identical to the ‘Interpretive Rule,'” said Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp, a non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and free market for industrial hemp.

“However, today’s court ruling not only ensures hemp foods will continue to be legally available to consumers in the meantime, but also strikes a major blow to the ultimate validity of DEA’s Final Rule,” added Steenstra.

On March 28, 2003 the HIA, several hemp food and cosmetic manufacturers and the Organic Consumers Association filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit asking for a review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s “Final Rule” regarding hemp foods. If this new “Final Rule” were to take effect, it would ban hemp seed and oil and consequently destroy the multimillion-dollar hemp food industry. Due to a Court ordered Stay, hemp foods remain perfectly legal to import, sell and consume while the Court hears arguments from the HIA and DEA and renders a decision.

The HIA brief charges that the DEA’s “Final Rule” should be invalidated because the agency is exercising arbitrary and capricious authority by attempting to outlaw hemp seed and oil without holding formal hearings on the issue or finding any potential for abuse. Because trace infinitesimal THC in hemp seed is non-psychoactive and insignificant, Congress exempted non-viable hemp seed and oil from control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), just as Congress exempted poppy seeds from the CSA, although they contain trace opiates otherwise subject to control. The brief also charges that the DEA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in exempting hemp seed mixed with animal feed, although Congress made no such distinction in the CSA.

Additionally, the brief elucidates other major failures by the DEA — namely, the lack of hearings on this issue and the failure to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires assessing effects of the proposed change on small businesses. The brief is available as a PDF at: 
https://www.votehemp.com/PDF/HIAvDEA_finalrules_petition.pdf

Final Legal Schedule in Hemp Food Fight:

• July 24, 2003: Deadline for the DEA’s response to HIA brief.
• August 8, 2003: Deadline for the HIA’s reply to DEA’s response. 
• September 17, 2003: Oral Arguments begin in San Francisco.
• ???: Final Ruling expected late 2003, or early 2004.

North American hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from any psychoactive effects or workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.testpledge.com). The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates. The recently-revived global hemp market is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — U.S. COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT — On Tuesday, June 24, the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), which represents the interests of the Hemp Industry and encourages the research and development of new hemp products, filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit asking for a review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) “Final Rule” regarding hemp foods. If this new “Final Rule” were to take effect, it would ban hemp seed and oil and consequently destroy the multimillion dollar hemp food industry. Due to a Court ordered Stay, hemp foods remain perfectly legal to import, sell and consume while the Court hears arguments from the HIA and DEA and renders a decision.

The HIA brief charges that the DEA’s “Final Rule” should be invalidated because the agency is exercising arbitrary and capricious authority by attempting to outlaw hemp seed and oil without holding formal hearings on the issue or finding any potential for abuse. Because trace infinitesimal THC in hemp seed is non-psychoactive and insignificant, Congress exempted non-viable hemp seed and oil from control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), just as Congress exempted poppy seeds from the CSA, although they contain trace opiates otherwise subject to control. The brief also charges that the DEA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in exempting hemp seed mixed with animal feed, although Congress made no such distinction in the CSA.

Additionally, the brief elucidates other major failures by the DEA — namely, the lack of hearings on this issue and the failure to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires assessing effects of the proposed change on small businesses. The brief is available as a PDF at: 
https://www.votehemp.com/PDF/HIAvDEA_finalrules_petition.pdf

Final Legal Schedule in Hemp Food Fight:

• July 24, 2003: Deadline for the DEA’s response to HIA brief.
• August 8, 2003: Deadline for the HIA’s reply to DEA’s response. 
• September 17, 2003: Oral Arguments begin in San Francisco.
• ??: Final Ruling expected late 2003, or early 2004.

The “Final Rule,” issued on March 21, 2003, is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a Ninth Circuit Stayissued on March 7, 2002. On March 28, 2003 the HIA, several hemp food and cosmetic manufacturers and the Organic Consumers Association petitioned the Ninth Circuit to once again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil products in the U.S., and on April 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit again issued a Stay.

North American hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from any psychoactive effects or workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.testpledge.com). The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates. The recently-revived global hemp market is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

ARLINGTON, VA — DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION HEADQUARTERS —Hemp enthusiasts gave away hemp food products at Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offices in 65 cities today to protest attempts by the federal government to ban the increasingly popular food. Vote Hemp organized the “DEA Hemp Food Taste Tests” on the day a new “Final Rule” was supposed to take effect. The rule would have banned human consumption of hemp foods sold in thousands of stores. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the rule last week when they granted a stay of the ban at the request of about 250 U.S. and Canadian hemp companies who have filed suit against the DEA.

Initial reports from Taste Tests around the country confirm that skeptical DEA employees tried samples of hemp pretzels served with hemp mustard, along with hemp energy bars, hemp butter, toasted hemp seed — to name a few items. One employee at DEA headquarters in Arlington, VA commented, “mmm, that’s good stuff.” Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp says, “We gave DEA employees a chance to taste what they would have been missing if their ban succeeded. They need to know there is nothing dangerous or deceptive about hemp food. Trying to ban hemp foods is as ridiculous as a ban on poppy seeds because they contain trace amounts of opiates or banning orange juice because it contains alcohol.”

Hemp seed has a well-balanced protein content and the highest amount of essential fatty acids (EFAs) of any oil in nature: EFAs are the “good fats” that, like vitamins, the body does not produce and requires for good health. Dr. Udo Erasmus, an internationally recognized nutritional authority on fats and oils, writes in Fats that Heal — Fats that Kill: “Hemp seed oil may be nature’s most perfectly balanced oil.” Not surprisingly, shelled hemp seed and oil are increasingly used in natural food products, such as corn chips, frozen waffles, nutrition bars, hummus, nondairy milks, breads and cereals. In the last few years, the hemp foods industry has grown from less than $1 million to over $6 million in annual retail sales.

The new “Final Rule,” issued on March 21, 2003, is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a Ninth Circuit Stay issued on March 7, 2002. On March 28, 2003 the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), as well as the Organic Consumers Association petitioned the Ninth Circuit to once again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil products in the U.S. Hemp advocates say that the public and Congress need to hear from outraged citizens.

The DEA’s previous attempts to ban hemp foods prompted a major public outcry. Over 115,000 public comments were submitted to the DEA against their new rules. In 2002, 25 members of Congress wrote the DEA telling the agency that their “Interpretive Rule” that attempts to ban edible hemp seed or oil products containing “any THC” is “overly restrictive.”

North American hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from any psychoactive effects or workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.testpledge.com). The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates. The recently-revived global hemp market, with retail sales of over $250 million worldwide, is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — U.S. COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT — Late yesterday the Court granted the hemp industry’s Motion to Stay the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) “Final Rule,” which was issued March 21, 2003 and would have banned the sale of nutritious hemp foods containing harmless trace amounts of naturally-occurring THC under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970. This “Final Rule” is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a Ninth Circuit Court Stay issued on March 7, 2002.

Both Motions to Stay were brought jointly by the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and several major hemp food companies in the U.S. and Canada. The court is currently hearing a substantive challenge to the Final Rule, which the hemp industry is optimistic that the Court will ultimately invalidate.

Because trace infinitesimal THC in hemp seed is non-psychoactive and insignificant, the U.S. Congress exempted non-viable hemp seed and oil from control under the CSA, just as Congress exempted poppy seeds from the CSA, although they contain trace opiates otherwise subject to control. The hemp industry is assuring retailers and consumers that hemp food products should continue to be stocked, sold and consumed. Joe Sandler, counsel for the HIA, stated: “The Court’s order effectively prevents the DEA from enforcing its ‘Final Rule.’ With this stay in effect, all those who sell, import, manufacture, distribute and retail edible hemp oil and seed, and oil and seed products, can continue those activities secure in the knowledge that such products remain perfectly lawful.”

Hemp seed has a well-balanced protein content and the highest content of essential fatty acids (EFAs) of any oil in nature: EFAs are the “good fats” that, like vitamins, the body does not produce and requires for good health. Dr. Udo Erasmus, an internationally recognized nutritional authority on fats and oils, writes in Fats that Heal — Fats that Kill: “Hemp seed oil may be nature’s most perfectly balanced oil.” Not surprisingly, shelled hemp seed and oil are increasingly used in natural food products, such as corn chips, nutrition bars, hummus, nondairy milks, breads and cereals. In the last few years, the hemp foods industry has grown from less than $1 million a year to over $5 million in retail sales.

North American hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from any psychoactive effects or workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.testpledge.com).

The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates. The recently-revived global hemp market, with retail sales of over $250 million worldwide, is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Vote Hemp expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to rule on a Motion to Stay the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) “Final Rule” on hemp food products by the end of this week. Hemp food products will be all-but-banned in the U.S. on April 21, 2003 without a Court Stay of new DEA hemp rules, and hemp advocates want the public and DEA agents responsible for the ban to taste what they will be missing. Citizens from around the country will be challenging the DEA’s “Final Rule” on hemp food products by visiting more than 70 DEA outposts for a picnic at noon on April 21, 2003.

The new “Final Rule,” issued on March 21, 2003, is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a Ninth Circuit Stay issued on March 7, 2002. On March 28, 2003 the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), several hemp food and cosmetic manufacturers and the Organic Consumers Association petitioned the Ninth Circuit to once again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil products in the U.S. Hemp advocates say that the public and Congress need to hear from outraged citizens.

“The Court’s decision will effectively make or break the hemp foods industry,” says David Bronner, Chair of the HIA’s Food and Oil Committee.

At lunchtime, hemp advocates and concerned citizens will set up tables with hemp food products and information near — not on — DEA property. “Our goal is to solicit participation from the public and DEA employees in taste tests and to provide a forum to highlight the absurdity of prohibiting hemp foods,” says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp.

WHO:  Citizens, Hemp Advocates, Vote Hemp
WHAT:  Nationwide Day of Action Challenging the DEA on Hemp Foods
WHERE:  Nationwide at DEA offices (for locations, call 202-232-8997)
WHEN: Monday, April 21, 2003 at noon

The DEA’s previous attempts to ban hemp foods prompted a major public outcry. Over 115,000 public comments were submitted to the DEA against their new rules. On December 4, 2001, Vote Hemp, working with students, nutritionists and hemp manufacturers, organized the first-ever “DEA Taste Tests” at DEA offices and natural food stores in 76 cities around the country in order to educate the public. In 2002, 25 members of Congress wrote the DEA telling the agency that their “Interpretive Rule” that attempts to ban edible hemp seed or oil products containing “any THC” is “overly restrictive.”

North American hemp food companies voluntarily observe reasonable THC limits similar to those adopted by European nations as well as Canada and Australia. These limits protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from any psychoactive effects or workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.testpledge.com). The DEA has hypocritically not targeted food manufacturers for using poppy seeds (in bagels and muffins, for example) even though they contain far higher levels of trace opiates. The recently-revived global hemp market, with retail sales of over $250 million worldwide, is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s Drug War paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — U.S. COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT — On March 21, while most Americans were captivated by the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published their final rules on hemp foods. The new “Final Rule” essentially bans the sale of all hemp food products by April 21, 2003 and is virtually identical to an “Interpretive Rule” issued on October 9, 2001 that never went into effect because of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Stay issued on March 7, 2002. Today, the Hemp Industries Association and several hemp food and cosmetic manufactures will petition the Ninth Circuit to once again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil in the U.S.

“The DEA’s charade of supposedly protecting the public from safe and nutritious hemp food is finally going to end,” says David Bronner, Chairman of the Hemp Industry Association’s Food and Oil Committee. “The court is currently hearing a substantive challenge to the “Interpretive Rule,” and in light of the announcement of the “Final Rule,” the hemp industry is optimistic that the Court will ultimately invalidate the DEA’s rule, as one of the prime criteria in granting the Stay was whether the hemp industry is likely to ultimately prevail on the merits of the case,” adds Bronner.

Background on the DEA Hemp Food Fight

Because trace infinitesimal THC (an active ingredient in marijuana) in hemp seed is non-psychoactive and insignificant, the U.S. Congress exempted non-viable hemp seed and oil from control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (see 21 U.S.C. §802(16)), just as Congress exempted poppy seeds from the CSA, although they contain trace opiates otherwise subject to control. Hemp seed has a well-balanced protein content and the highest content of essential fatty acids (EFAs) of any oil in nature: EFAs are the “good fats” that, like vitamins, the body does not produce and requires for good health. Dr. Udo Erasmus, an internationally recognized nutritional authority on fats and oils, writes in Fats that Heal — Fats that Kill: “Hemp seed oil may be nature’s most perfectly balanced oil.” Not surprisingly, shelled hemp seed and oil are increasingly used in natural food products, such as corn chips, frozen waffles, nutrition bars, hummus, nondairy milks, breads and cereals. In the last few years, the hemp foods industry has grown from less than $1 million a year to over $6 million in retail sales.

DEA attempts to ban hemp foods prompted a major public outcry. Over 115,000 public comments were submitted to the DEA against banning hemp food. On December 4, 2001, Vote Hemp, working with students, nutritionists, and hemp manufacturers, organized the first ever “DEA Taste Tests” at DEA offices and natural food stores in 76 cities around the country to educate the public. In 2002, 22 members of Congress wrote the DEA telling the agency that their “Interpretive Rule” that bans edible hemp seed or oil items that contain “any THC” is “overly restrictive.”

Unlike the U.S., other Western countries (such as Canada, Germany and Australia) have adopted rational THC limits for foods, similar to those voluntarily observed by North American hemp food companies which protect consumers with a wide margin of safety from any psychoactive effects or workplace drug-testing interference (see hemp industry standards regarding trace THC at http://www.TestPledge.com). The 10-year-old global hemp market is a thriving commercial success. Unfortunately, because the DEA’s drug-war paranoia has confused non-psychoactive industrial hemp varieties of cannabis with psychoactive “marihuana” varieties, the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing and processing of industrial hemp.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

WASHINGTON, DC — Kenex Ltd., a Canadian firm exporting industrial hemp products to the U.S. for the past five years, filed its NAFTA Notice of Arbitration with the U.S. State Department on August 2nd. Kenex and the U.S. will select a three-member arbitration panel to determine if at least $20 million compensation is due to Kenex for losses stemming from the DEA’s attempt to ban hemp seed foods.

“We met with the U.S. government in March in the hope of avoiding a protracted trade dispute, but the Bush administration failed to recognize that Kenex’s products are legal under current law,” says Joe Sandler, a Kenex attorney. “Our client has no choice but to seek compensation under NAFTA.”

The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation to prohibit the growing of industrial hemp. However, the U.S. is the number one importer and consumer of hemp products, including hemp foods. Hemp seed is an exceptional source of protein, omega-3 and omega-6 essential fatty acids, and independent studies and reviews conducted by foreign governments have confirmed that the trace tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in the hemp seed and oil cannot cause psychoactivity or other health effects, or result in a confirmed positive urine test for marijuana, even when unrealistically high amounts of hemp seed and oil are consumed daily (see http://www.TestPledge.com). Popular hemp foods include waffles, bread, cereal, snack foods, energy bars, ice cream and non-dairy milk.

Three years ago, on August 9, 1999, U.S. Customs at the behest of the DEA impounded a Kenex hemp birdseed shipment, issued recalls on other shipments, and threatened Kenex with over $500,000 in fines. The DEA attempted to justify the birdseed seizure by its then secretive unwritten “Zero-THC Policy” that deems hemp seed containing any traces of naturally-occurring THC, no matter how insignificant, illegal. This policy contradicts the 1970 Controlled Substances Act (CSA), in which Congress specifically exempts sterilized hemp seed and oil from control notwithstanding trace amounts of THC, just as poppy seeds which contain trace amounts of opiates are exempted by Congress from the CSA under the definition of the “opium poppy.”

The hemp exemption in the CSA was enacted under the definition of “marihuana” in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act originally, and coincidentally, Aug. 2nd is the 65th anniversary of the Congressional exemption for legitimate industrial hemp products such as Kenex’s. But according to the DEA, Kenex’s birdseed was a Schedule I controlled substance because of miniscule insignificant trace amounts of naturally-occurring THC. Customs eventually released the shipment and dropped the case after finding that the DEA lacked authority for its “Zero-THC Policy.” By this time, however, Kenex had lost most of its major customers as well as a major investor, and was financially devastated.

In March 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that the DEA lacked authority to implement a “Zero-THC Policy” because of the Congressional hemp exemption. In an effort to circumvent that ruling without public notice or comment, the DEA issued an “Interpretive Rule” on October 9, 2001 that effectively established its “Zero-THC Policy” on that date. The hemp industry, including Kenex, took the DEA to court, and on March 7, 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked DEA’s rule pending the forthcoming decision on the case, and hemp foods remain perfectly legal to import, sell and consume.

The DEA’s attempt to ban hemp food sales in the U.S. is a clear violation of NAFTA. Hemp is a recognized commodity of trade under both NAFTA and WTO; the DEA did not provide any notice and opportunity to U.S. trading partners or foreign companies to provide input into its ruling; the U.S. did not conduct a risk assessment or offer any science-based rationale for issuance of the rule; the DEA did not seek to minimize impact on trade; and it has not similarly regulated poppy seeds and their trace opiates. The Government of Canada, in response to the DEA’s new rule, stated that, “In reviewing the interim rule there is no evidence that the effective ban on relevant Canadian food products in the U.S. market is based on any risk assessment. Therefore, Canada objects to these measures.”

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially.