Hemp has the ability to mitigate the toxin transfer from contaminated soil into food products. This process uses phytoremediation, an organic process where toxins are absorbed by plant roots and then stored in the cellulose for disposal. Hemp phytoremediation became more well-known after the Chernobyl disaster for its use in helping grow crops that are safe for consumption.
There is also considerable potential for other industries using hemp in the manner that the automobile industry has demonstrated is feasible. Of course, all other types of transportation vehicles from bicycles to airplanes might make use of such technology. Natural fibers have considerable advantages for use in conveyance (Karus et al. 2000): low density and weight reduction, favorable mechanical, acoustical, and processing properties (including low wear on tools), no splintering in accidents, occupational health benefits (compared to glass fibers), no off-gassing of toxic compounds, and price advantages. Additional types of composite using hemp in combination with other natural fibers, post-industrial plastics or other types of resins, are being used to produce non-woven matting for padding, sound insulation, and other applications.
Although global abnormalities in white matter and grey matter are not associated with cannabis abuse, reduced hippocampal volume is consistently found. Amygdalar abnormalities are sometimes reported, although findings are inconsistent. Preliminary evidence suggests that this effect is largely mediated by THC, and that CBD may even have a protective effect.
The basic commercial options for growing hemp in North America is as a fiber plant, an oilseed crop, or for dual harvest for both seeds and fiber. Judged on experience in Canada to date, the industry is inclined to specialize on either fiber or grain, but not both. Hemp in our opinion is particularly suited to be developed as an oilseed crop in North America. The first and foremost breeding goal is to decrease the price of hempseed by creating more productive cultivars. While the breeding of hemp fiber cultivars has proceeded to the point that only slight improvements can be expected in productivity in the future, the genetic potential of hemp as an oilseed has scarcely been addressed. From the point of view of world markets, concentrating on oilseed hemp makes sense, because Europe has shown only limited interest to date in developing oilseed hemp, whereas a tradition of concentrating on profitable oilseed products is already well established in the US and Canada. Further, China’s supremacy in the production of high-quality hemp textiles at low prices will be very difficult to match, while domestic production of oilseeds can be carried out using technology that is already available. The present productivity of oilseed hemp—about 1 t/ha under good conditions, and occasional reports of 1.5 to 2 t/ha, is not yet sufficient for the crop to become competitive with North America’s major oilseeds. We suggest that an average productivity of 2 t/ha will be necessary to transform hempseed into a major oilseed, and that this breeding goal is achievable. At present, losses of 30% of the seed yields are not uncommon, so that improvements in harvesting technology should also contribute to higher yields. Hemp food products cannot escape their niche market status until the price of hempseed rivals that of other oilseeds, particularly rapeseed, flax, and sunflower. Most hemp breeding that has been conducted to date has been for fiber characteristics, so that there should be considerable improvement possible. The second breeding goal is for larger seeds, as these are more easily shelled. Third is breeding for specific seed components. Notable are the health-promoting gamma-linolenic acid; improving the amino acid spectrum of the protein; and increasing the antioxidant level, which would not only have health benefits but could increase the shelf life of hemp oil and foods.
Every crop grown and every variety may be inspected and sampled by a TDA plant inspector prior to harvest. The grower should contact TDA 30 days prior to harvest for inspection. The license holder is responsible for paying all fees associated with the sample. Each sample is $150. Please keep in mind that the way you set up your production method, may influence the number of samples required to represent the amount of material being produced. Growing multiple varieties will also increase the sampling cost.
Ten years ago hemp cultivation was illegal in Germany, England, Canada, Australia, and other countries. Essential to overcoming governmental reluctance in each country was the presentation of an image that was business-oriented, and conservative. The merits of environmentalism have acquired some political support, but unless there is a reasonable possibility that hemp cultivation is perceived as potentially economically viable, there is limited prospect of having anti-hemp laws changed. Strong support from business and farm groups is indispensable; support from pro-marijuana interests and what are perceived of as fringe groups is generally counterproductive. It is a combination of prospective economic benefit coupled with assurance that hemp cultivation will not detrimentally affect the enforcement of marijuana legislation that has led most industrially advanced countries to reverse prohibitions against growing hemp. Should the US permit commercial hemp cultivation to resume, it will likely be for the same reasons.
In 1951, Congress passed the Boggs Act, which for the first time included Cannabis with narcotic drugs. In 1970, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana was classified by Congress as a Schedule I drug. Drugs in Schedule I are distinguished as having no currently accepted medicinal use in the United States. Other Schedule I substances include heroin, LSD, mescaline, and methaqualone.
In 1937, the U.S. Treasury Department introduced the Marihuana Tax Act. This Act imposed a levy of $1 per ounce for medicinal use of Cannabis and $100 per ounce for nonmedical use. Physicians in the United States were the principal opponents of the Act. The American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the Act because physicians were required to pay a special tax for prescribing Cannabis, use special order forms to procure it, and keep special records concerning its professional use. In addition, the AMA believed that objective evidence that Cannabis was harmful was lacking and that passage of the Act would impede further research into its medicinal worth. In 1942, Cannabis was removed from the U.S. Pharmacopoeia because of persistent concerns about its potential to cause harm.[2,3]
The scientific debate regarding taxonomy has had little effect on the terminology in widespread use among cultivators and users of drug-type Cannabis. Cannabis aficionados recognize three distinct types based on such factors as morphology, native range, aroma, and subjective psychoactive characteristics. Sativa is the most widespread variety, which is usually tall, laxly branched, and found in warm lowland regions. Indica designates shorter, bushier plants adapted to cooler climates and highland environments. Ruderalis is the informal name for the short plants that grow wild in Europe and Central Asia.