A founder letter from The Brothers Apothecary on Oregon’s hemp law, national hemp regulation, and the federal change coming in November 2026.
For nearly a decade, The Brothers Apothecary has worked with hemp as part of a broader herbal tradition. Our products have always been built around botanicals, careful formulation, testing, and responsible use. We have aimed to support, follow, and encourage smart hemp regulation. Not shortcuts, loopholes, or intoxication for intoxication’s sake.
That is why we want to be clear from the beginning: we understand why lawmakers are concerned.
The hemp market has changed dramatically since the 2018 Farm Bill. In many states, intoxicating hemp-derived products have appeared in gas stations, smoke shops, convenience stores, and online marketplaces with inconsistent testing, questionable labeling, candy-like packaging, and little meaningful oversight. The FDA has specifically warned that THC products may be packaged and labeled in ways that appeal to children and may be sold online or in retail settings like convenience stores and gas stations, sometimes without meaningful age limits.
We do not believe that extracted, stacked, high-dose hemp-derived Delta-9 edibles represent the best future for hemp.
If a company can extract THC from hemp, concentrate it, and formulate it into products that resemble adult-use cannabis edibles, then that loophole should be addressed. Hemp should not be used as a workaround to sell unregulated cannabis products outside of proper age-gated, tested, clearly labeled systems.
But that is not the same thing as saying all hemp products should be treated as dangerous.
There is a meaningful difference between loophole-driven intoxicating products and properly tested, non-intoxicating, full-spectrum hemp products that contain only naturally occurring trace cannabinoids. That distinction matters. Unfortunately, many lawmakers are writing laws that fail to distinguish between bad actors and responsible herbal product companies.
Sources appear at the end of our statement.
What Happened in Oregon
In Oregon, House Bill 4121 created a new hemp product registry through the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission. The registry applies to cannabinoid hemp items intended for human or animal consumption or use, including products such as gummies, beverages, tinctures, capsules, vapes, and smokable flower. OLCC’s enforcement bulletin also states that topical products, such as lotions and soaps, are excluded from registration.
The cost is the core issue for us.
Oregon’s hemp item registration fee is $400 per product, with a $400 annual renewal fee. Changes to an approved hemp item registration require a separate $25 amendment fee.
For a company with only a handful of products, that may be manageable. For a small botanical company with more than 70 formulations, it becomes atmospheric. The law also allows civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, and each violation can be treated as a separate violation.
That is why we made the difficult decision not to join the Oregon registry at this time. We removed all affected hemp products from our Oregon café and herb shop. We kept topical products, such as balms and essential oil rollers, where permitted, because those products are treated differently and are not the issue lawmakers claim to be targeting.
This was not a decision made because we oppose testing, labeling, transparency, or compliance. It was a decision made because the cost structure is not scaled for small businesses with broad herbal product lines.
We support Certificates of Analysis. We support batch tracking. We support pre-harvest testing. We support finished product testing. We support FDA food facility registration where applicable. FDA requires food facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for U.S. consumption to register, and dietary supplement cGMP rules recognize batch, lot, and control numbers as mechanisms for tracing the manufacturing history of a product. We support this.
The hemp industry should embrace those standards. But regulation should be built to improve the industry, not price small companies out of existence.
The November 2026 Federal Change Is a De Facto Hemp Ban
The bigger issue is what happens next.
On November 12, 2026, a federal change included in H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2026, is scheduled to take effect. It changes the federal definition of hemp from a Delta-9 THC standard to a broader total THC standard and limits final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to no more than 0.4mg total THC per container.
That number is not rooted in rational science.
A 0.4mg THC limit per package does not regulate impairment. It eliminates trace, naturally occurring THC from many full-spectrum hemp products. A more rational framework would regulate serving size, total package amount, age restriction, product type, warning language, packaging, and intended use.
That is already how adult-use cannabis is regulated. In Oregon, OLCC guidance states that adult-use marijuana edibles may contain up to 10mg THC per serving and 100mg THC per package. California uses the same general edible standard: 10mg THC per serving and 100mg THC per package.
By comparison, the federal hemp threshold of 0.4mg THC per package is not a dose standard. It is not a serving standard. It is not meaningfully tied to intoxication. It is a prohibition standard.
There are better options.
Lawmakers could apply serving-size caps, adult-use restrictions, child-resistant packaging, QR-code COAs, batch-level testing, warning statements, “do not drive or operate machinery” language where appropriate, and approved-use style labeling similar to the way over-the-counter products communicate directions and warnings. FDA’s OTC Drug Facts framework already demonstrates that consumer products can be regulated through standardized directions, warnings, active ingredient disclosures, and use language.
Instead, Congress chose a number so low that it threatens to erase compliant full-spectrum hemp products along with the intoxicating products lawmakers say they are trying to address.
The Economic Impact of Poor Hemp Regulation Is Real
This is not just a product issue. It is a farming issue, a manufacturing issue, a retail issue, and a jobs issue.
Whitney Economics estimated the national hemp-derived cannabinoid market at more than $28 billion, supporting 328,000 workers and $13 billion in wages, with an overall economic impact above $79 billion.
States and local governments are already showing what happens when lawmakers reach for prohibition instead of careful regulation. In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson vetoed a proposed hemp ordinance, describing it as a broad ban that could harm small hemp retailers and calling for regulation that protects young people without dismantling small businesses.
Oregon should understand this better than most. It initially spearheaded good hemp regulation.
Hemp has supported farmers, manufacturers, formulators, retailers, labs, designers, printers, distributors, and small shops. When lawmakers write broad laws without understanding the marketplace, the damage does not stop at the shelf. It moves through the entire local economy.
Lawmakers Should Prioritize the Real Public-Health Threats
This is also why the national attention on compliant hemp products feels misdirected.
Across the country, products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine, also known as 7-OH, have become increasingly available. FDA has described certain 7-OH products as dangerous opioid products and recommended scheduling action under the Controlled Substances Act.
FDA has also issued warning letters to companies marketing 7-OH products sold online and in smoke shops, gas stations, and corner stores.
That is a serious public-health issue. It is not the same category as a properly tested, non-intoxicating full-spectrum hemp tea, honey, capsule, or topical product made by a small herbal company following the law.
If lawmakers want to protect the public, they should focus on products with clear abuse potential, opioid-like activity, lack of testing, youth-oriented packaging, and dangerous marketing. They should not erase responsible hemp businesses through thresholds so low that ordinary full-spectrum products cannot survive.
Our Position: Rational Hemp Regulation
We respectfully understand lawmakers’ position. THC limits are necessary. Age restrictions are appropriate for intoxicating products. Bad packaging should be prohibited. Products marketed to children should be removed. Synthetic or chemically converted cannabinoids should be regulated or restricted. COAs should be required. Batch tracking should be normal. Labels should be clear.
But regulation must be rooted in science, proportionality, and a real understanding of the marketplace.
A 100mg hemp-derived Delta-9 edible created by stacking extracted THC into a recipe is not the same thing as a full-spectrum hemp product with trace, naturally occurring THC. Treating them the same does not protect consumers. It eliminates the responsible companies while leaving space for black-market products and less accountable sellers.
The Brothers Apothecary supports rational hemp regulation.
We support transparent testing. We support proper manufacturing standards. We support keeping intoxicating products away from children. We support closing the loopholes that allowed the worst parts of the hemp market to grow unchecked.
We do not support laws that use those bad actors as justification to destroy the rest of the industry.
If you care about hemp, herbal products, small businesses, or consumer access to properly tested full-spectrum products, please contact your state and federal lawmakers. Ask them to support science-based hemp regulation, not blanket prohibition. Ask them to distinguish intoxicating loophole products from non-intoxicating full-spectrum hemp. Ask them to protect consumers without dismantling small businesses that have tried to follow the law from the beginning.
We are not asking for no rules.
We are asking for rules that make sense.
Shane & Jesse Richardson
The Brothers Apothecary
Sources and Further Reading
- OLCC: Hemp Registry Enforcement Bulletin
- OLCC: Hemp Registry FAQs
- Oregon Administrative Rule 845-026-6010: Hemp Registry Fees
- Oregon Administrative Rule 845-026-6110: Hemp Registry Civil Penalties
- Arnold & Porter: Major Changes to Federal Regulation of Hemp-Derived Products
- Saul Ewing: Congress Enacts Hemp THC Products Ban
- OLCC: Increased Potency Resources and FAQ
- California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Section 17304: THC Concentration Limits
- FDA: Registration of Food Facilities
- 21 CFR Part 111: Dietary Supplement Current Good Manufacturing Practice
- FDA: The Over-the-Counter Drug Facts Label
- FDA: 5 Things to Know About Delta-8 THC
- HHS/FDA: FDA Takes Steps to Restrict 7-OH Opioid Products
- FDA: Warning Letters for Products Containing 7-Hydroxymitragynine
- Whitney Economics: U.S. National Cannabinoid Report Executive Summary
- City of Chicago: Mayor Brandon Johnson Hemp Veto Statement
Jesse Richardson is a brother and co-founder of The Brothers Apothecary. Jesse studied Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles and Medicinal Plants & Ethnobotanical Research at Cornell University. He is an avid student of nature and is always working on something new at The Apothecary!
