HEMP ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & CDFA ENFORCEMENT

A crop that tests above the 0.3% delta-9 THC limit on a dry-weight basis is subject to a mandatory destruction order by the county agricultural commissioner. If the test result is between 0.3% and 1.0% THC (the “negligence tolerance” band), the cultivator may request a re-test within 10 days of receiving the original test results. If the re-test also exceeds 0.3%, or if the original result exceeds 1.0% THC (the “culpable negligence” threshold), the crop must typically be destroyed within 45 days at the cultivator’s expense. An over-THC-limit finding constitutes a negligent violation and counts toward the three-strike ban under Food and Agricultural Code §81012. Challenging sampling methodology, chain of custody, and laboratory procedures at the outset — before and during the hearing process — is the primary defense strategy.

Not permanently — but the consequences are serious. Under Food and Agricultural Code §81012, a hemp cultivator or handler who accumulates three negligent violations within five years is ineligible to participate in California’s hemp program for five years from the date of the third violation. During that five-year period, the operator may not register hemp cultivation sites, obtain sampling agent authorization, or operate as a registered hemp handler. After the five-year ban expires, the operator must reapply and meet all current registration requirements. There is no lifetime ban, but a five-year exclusion from a rapidly evolving market can be effectively permanent for a small cultivation operation.

CDFA hemp enforcement is structurally different in almost every way. The DCC uses a centralized agency with a career enforcement staff, a formal monetary fine schedule, and the OAH for formal hearings. CDFA hemp enforcement is decentralized: county agricultural commissioners perform the on-the-ground enforcement with varying degrees of rigor, the penalty structure is built around crop destruction and registration consequences rather than fines, and the hearing process runs through the county commissioner first and then the CDFA Secretary’s Legal Office — not the OAH. Hemp manufacturing enforcement adds a third agency: the CDPH, with its own inspection and enforcement program under AB 45. Operators active in both cannabis and hemp must understand both enforcement frameworks.a

Yes. The CDFA registration application requires disclosure of all California cannabis licenses held by the applicant. Hemp registrations are not subject to DCC approval, but the DCC is aware of and monitors dual registrations. Importantly, a hemp registration does not provide any protection from DCC enforcement if cannabis is cultivated or processed under the guise of a hemp operation — the THC testing requirement exists precisely to police this boundary. Conversely, a DCC enforcement action against a cannabis license does not automatically affect a separate CDFA hemp registration, but adverse DCC findings may be considered by the CDFA in evaluating the fitness of the same individuals for hemp program participation.

Hemp manufacturing and distribution in California is governed primarily by AB 45 (2021) and its implementing regulations, found at Health & Safety Code §§111920 et seq. and Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, § 23010 et seq. These regulations establish permitting requirements for hemp manufacturers and distributors, product standards (including THC content limits for hemp products sold to consumers), labeling and advertising requirements, and CDPH inspection and enforcement authority. AB 8 (2025) directed the DCC to develop regulations integrating hemp-derived products into the licensed cannabis retail market — those regulations are in active development and will layer additional compliance obligations on hemp product manufacturers and distributors operating in California.