Industrial Hemp – Page 5

29 Dec 2012

Support The Industrial Hemp Farming Act

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

Lawmakers in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are seeking to allow for the commercial farming of industrial hemp by introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

House Bill 1831, which was introduced last year by Texas Republican Ron Paul and a coalition of 25 co-sponsors, and SB 3501, introduced this August in the Senate by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and three co-sponsors, would exclude low potency varieties of marijuana from federal prohibition. If approved, this measure will grant state legislatures the authority to license and regulate the commercial production of hemp as an industrial and agricultural commodity. Several states — including North Dakota, Montana, and Vermont — have enacted regulations to allow for the cultivation of hemp under state law. However, none of these laws can be implemented without federal approval. Passage of HR 1831 would remove existing federal barriers and allow states that wish to regulate commercial hemp production the authority to do so.

Vote Hemp President, Eric Steenstra stated, "It is due time for the Senate as well as President Obama and the Attorney General to prioritize the crop’s benefits to farmers and to take action like Rep. Paul and the cosponsors of H.R. 1831 have done. With the U.S. hemp industry valued at over $400 million in annual retail sales and growing, a change in federal policy to allow hemp farming would mean instant job creation, among many other economic and environmental benefits."

According to a 2010 Congressional Resource Service report, "approximately 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp." But the United States does not. As a result, U.S. companies that specialize in hempen goods have no choice but to import hemp material. These added production costs are then passed on to the consumer who must pay artificially high retail prices for hemp products.

Previous versions of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act have been introduced in the House, but failed to receive a public hearing or a committee vote. This is the first year the issue has ever been introduced in the Senate. Please write your members of Congress today and tell them to end the federal prohibition of industrial hemp production. For your convenience, a prewritten letter will be e-mailed to your member of Congress when you enter your contact information below. For more information about industrial hemp, please visit: http://www.votehemp.org.

Thank you for assisting NORML’s federal law reform efforts.

23 Dec 2012

Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 1

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, December 19, 2012

Because of the power vested in the EU Commission in Brussels, Belgium, with command over a space encompassing 27 nations with more than 500 million citizens and the largest nominal world gross domestic product (GDP) of 18 trillion US dollars, it’s perhaps no surprise in this era of moral promiscuity that powerful private lobby groups such as the tobacco industry, the drug lobby, the agribusiness lobby and countless others spend enormous sums of money and other favors—legal and sometimes illegal—to influence policy decisions of the EU Commission.

This revolving door of corrupt ties between powerful private industry lobby groups and the EU Commission was in full view recently with the ruling of the European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) trying to discredit serious scientific tests about the deadly effects of a variety of Monsanto GMO corn.

Cancer of Corruption

In September 2012, Food and Chemical Toxicology, a serious international scientific journal, released a study by a team of scientists at France’s Caen University led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. Before publication the Seralini study had been reviewed over a four-month period by a qualified group of scientific peers for its methodology and was deemed publishable.

It was no amateur undertaking. The scientists at Caen made carefully-documented results of tests on a group of 200 rats over a two-year life span, basically with one group of non-GMO fed rats, a so-called control group, and the other a group of GMO-fed rats.

Significantly, following a long but finally successful legal battle to force Monsanto to release the details of its own study of the safety of its own NK603 maize (corn), Seralini and colleagues reproduced a 2004 Monsanto study published in the same journal and used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its 2009 positive evaluation of NK603.

Seralini’s group based their experiment on the same protocol as the Monsanto study but, critically, were testing more parameters more frequently. And the rats were studied for much longer—their full two year average life-time instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long time span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared 4 to7 months into the study. In industry’s earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike. It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.

The study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO diet study. They tested also “for the first time 3 doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.” [1]

Their findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs…Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…” [2]

Four times meant four hundred percent more large tumors in GMO fed rats than in normally fed ones of the control group. Because rats are mammals, their systems should react to chemicals or, in this case GMO corn treated with Monsanto Roundup chemical herbicide, in a similar way to those of a human test subject. [3]

In their study the Seralini group further reported, “By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls [non-GMO-fed—w.e.] were affected. The Roundup treatment groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors for one female, in each group.” [4]

Such alarming results had not yet become evident in the first 90 days, the length of most all Monsanto and agrichemical industry tests to date, a clear demonstration of how important it was to conduct longer-term tests and apparently why the industry avoided the longer tests.

Seralini and associates continued to document their alarming findings: “We observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R (Roundup) alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered. R has been shown to disrupt aromatase which synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005), but to also interfere with estrogen and androgen receptors in cells (Gasnier et al., 2009). In addition, R appears to be a sex endocrine disruptor in vivo, also in males (Romano et al., 2010). Sex steroids are also modified in treated rats. These hormone-dependent phenomena are confirmed by enhanced pituitary dysfunction in treated females.” [5]

Roundup herbicide, by terms of the license contract with Monsanto, must be used on Monsanto GMO seeds. The seeds are in fact genetically “modified” only to resist the weed-killing effect of Monsanto’s own Roundup, the world’s largest-selling weed-killer.

In plain language, as another scientific study led by Prof. Seralini noted, “GMO plants have been modified to contain pesticides, either through herbicide tolerance or by producing insecticides, or both, and could therefore be considered as ‘pesticide plants’” [6]

Further, “Roundup Ready crops [such as Monsanto NK603 maize-w.e.] have been modified in order to become insensitive to glyphosate. This chemical, together with adjuvants in formulations, constitutes a potent herbicide. It has been used for many years as a weed killer…GMO plants exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup…can even accumulate Roundup residues throughout their life…Glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA (with its own toxicity) are found in GMOs on a regular and regulatory basis. Therefore, such residues are absorbed by people eating most GMO plants (as around 80% of these plants are Roundup tolerant).” [7]

Suspiciously enough, Monsanto had repeatedly refused scientific requests to publish the exact chemicals used in its Roundup aside from one—glyphosate. They argued that it was a “trade secret.” Independent analyses by scientists indicated, however, that the combination of glyphosate with Monsanto’s “mystery” added chemicals created a highly toxic cocktail that was shown to toxically affect human embryo cells in doses far lower than used in agriculture.[8]

Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modiﬁed maize,” published in Food and Chemical Toxicology.

What was more than alarming in the context of Seralini’s first long-term independent study of the effects of a GMO diet on rats was that it took place some twenty years after US President George H.W. Bush gave the commercial release of GMO seeds the green light and mandated no government safety tests before release. Bush did so following a closed-door meeting with top officials of Monsanto Corporation, the world’s largest GMO concern.

The US President decreed then that GMO seeds were to be permitted in the United States with not one single independent precautionary government test to determine if they were safe for human or animal consumption. It became known as the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence. The EU Commission dutifully aped the US Substantial Equivalence Doctrine of “hear no bad effects, see no bad effects…hear no evil, see no evil.”

EFSA ‘science’ exposed

What the Seralini study has set off has been the scientific equivalent of a thermonuclear explosion. It exposed the fact that the EU “scientific” controls on GMO were nothing other than accepting without question the tests given them by the GMO companies themselves. As far as the irresponsible bureaucrats of the EU Commission were concerned, when it came to GMO, the Monsanto fox could indeed “guard the hen house.”

Suddenly, with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, clearly the EU Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history and how they reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. Only it was no novel but a real-life conspiracy that evidently involved some form of collusion between Monsanto and the GMO agrichemical cartel, EU commissioners, the GMO panel members of EFSA, complacent major media and several member governments of the EU, including Spain and Holland.

The Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009 without first conducting or insuring any independent testing. They admitted in their official journal that they relied on “information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto), the scientific comments submitted by Member States and the report of the Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission.” EFSA also admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days. Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, a reason why longer-term studied were obviously warranted. [9]

The Spanish report cited by EFSA was itself hardly convincing and was anything but independent. It stated, “according to the current state of scientific knowledge and after examining the existing information and data provided by the Monsanto Company, the Spanish Commission on Biosafety could give a favorable opinion to the commercialization in the EU of maize NK603…” And the scientific comments submitted by Member States seemed to include Spain and Holland which applied to license the Monsanto seed in the first place. [10]

The EFSA concluded at the time of its approval in 2009 that, “the molecular data provided [by Monsanto-w.e.] are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern.” The Brussels scientific panel further declared amid scientific-sounding verbiage that, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health in the context of the intended uses.” [11]

Now, in September 2012, three years after the commercial introduction of Monsanto GMO maize in the EU, Seralini showed, complete with ghastly photos, that Monsanto’s GMO maize demonstrably caused severe rates of cancerous tumors and early death in rats.

The EU Commission in Brussels had guidelines that were as revealing for what they did not say as for what they did say about what precautions are taken to insure public health and safety from exposure to GMO plants and their paired toxic herbicides: “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet been observed.” [12]

Because of US Government arm-twisting and of the obviously powerful lobby power of the Monsanto-led GMO agrichemical lobby in the US and EU, as of the time of the Seralini study, no regulatory authority in the world had requested mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides. The only studies available were a tiny handful of 90 day rat feeding trials carried out by the biotech industry and no studies longer than that, apparently on the principle that conflict of interest in an area as important as the safety of food should not be taken as a serious matter.

Revealingly, the EU stated publicly their seemingly reassuring policy: “GMO critics claim that feeding studies with authorized GMOs have revealed negative health effects. Such claims have not been based on peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted evaluations. If reliable, scientific studies were to indicate any type of health risk, the respective GMO would not receive authorization.” [13] That was the EU official line until the 2012 Seralini bomb exploded in their faces.

EU Commission deception, coverup

The September 2012 Seralini study was peer-reviewed, and it was published in a highly respected international scientific journal after such review. What was the response of the EU Commission and the EFSA? Nothing short of fraudulent deception and coverup of their corruption by the Monsanto GMO lobby.

On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.” Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.” [14] Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

At the very minimum, the precautionary principle in instances involving even the potential for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious, independent long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the Seralini tests. That refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested the EFSA might be trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the very least.

Instead of clarity, the EFSA statement once more fed EFSA critics who had long argued that the scientists on EFSA’s GMO Panel had blatant conflicts of interest with the very GMO lobby they were supposed to regulate. Corporate Europe Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the EFSA response, “EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.” [15]

More damaging for the shoddy EFSA coverup on behalf of Monsanto was the fact that over half of the scientists involved in the GMO panel which positively reviewed the Monsanto’s study for GMO maize in 2009, leading to its EU-wide authorization, had conflicts of interests with the biotech industry.[16]

A report by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) found that more than half of the GMO panel experts who signed the approval had conflicts of interest.

The conflicts ranged from receiving research funding from the biotech industry, being a member or collaborator in a pro-biotech industry association, to writing or reviewing industry-sponsored publications. Some conflicts revealed a conflict of scientific interests, with some panel members involved in working on the creation of transgenic plants – including potatoes – with antibiotic-resistant marker genes – including nptII.[17]

Secondly, although none of EFSA’s GMO panel members were medical experts in the use of antibiotics in human medicine, they decided that neomycin and kanamycin were antibiotics with “no or only minor therapeutic relevance”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified these antibiotics as “critically important” in 2005.

Dutch scientist Harry Kuiper, chair of the EFSA GMO panel who had close links to the biotech industry, played a key role in the framing of this disputed key scientific advice.

Kuiper himself is an open advocate of less controls on GMO seed proliferation in the EU. He has led the EFSA GMO panel since 2003, during which time EFSA went from no GMO approvals to 38 GMO seeds approved for human consumption. The criteria for approval were developed by Kuiper for EFSA in cooperation with Monsanto and the GMO industry and a Monsanto pseudo-scientific front group called ILSI, the Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute, between 2001 and 2003. The board of the noble-sounding ILSI in 2011 was comprised of senior people from Monsanto, ADM (one of the world’s biggest purveyors of GMO soybeans and corn), Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods (major proponent of GMO in foods) and Nestle, another giant GMO food industry user. [18]

One critic of the blatant conflict of interest in having the top EU food safety regulator in bed with the industry whose practices he is mandated to objectively assess noted, “During that period, Harry Kuiper and Gijes Kleter (both members of the EFSA GMO Panel) were active within the ILSI Task Force as experts and as authors of the relevant scientific publications. It is a scandal that Kuiper has remained as Chair of EFSA’s GMO Panel since 2003, and that he is still Chair in spite of the massive criticism directed at the Panel from NGOs and even from the Commission and EU member states.” [19]

The brazen conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the agribusiness lobby and the EFSA went further. In May 2012 Professor Diána Bánáti was forced to resign as Chairman of the EFSA Management Board when it was learned she planned to take up a professional position at the Monsanto-backed International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) in Washington. The same Diána Bánáti had been forced to resign, not as EFSA chairman but as a simultaneous Board Member of ILSI in 2010. Public interest groups made calls for her to resign from EFSA but to no avail. [20] At ILSI she will be able to use expertise and contacts gained from working for the EFSA to help GMO companies like Monsanto and other food industry companies influence policy across the world.

In sum, it came as no surprise to those familiar with the notorious “revolving door” in Brussels between the GMO industry and the regulatory body entrusted with making independent decisions on the risks of GMO in the EU, that EFSA condemned the Seralini study results. Most telling however of the brazen pro-GMO industry bias of EFSA’s GMO Panel members was the fact that the final ruling statement by the EFSA GMO Panel reviewing Seralini’s results announced, “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.” [21]

The EFSA is not the only source of blatant and reckless pro-GMO sentiment in Brussels. Some weeks before release of the embarrassing Seralini study, Anne Glover, chief scientific adviser of the EU Commission, said in an interview on 24 July, 2012, “There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.” She added that the precautionary principle also no longer applies, which means the EU should not err on the side of caution on the approval of GMOs.[22]

Were there any pretense of scientific responsibility in the clearly corrupt EFSA panel, or Professor Glover’s office, they would have immediately called for multiple, independent similar long-term rat studies to confirm or disprove the Seralini results. They and the Monsanto GMO lobby influencing them clearly had no desire to do anything but try to slander the Seralini group with vague accusations and hope the obedient international media would take the headline and close the embarrassing story. It was typical of the entire history of the spread of patented GMO seeds and paired toxic herbicides like Roundup.

Notes:

[1] Seralini et al., Op. Cit.

[2] Ibid.

[3] WiseGeek, Why are Rats used in Animal Testing?, accessed in http://www.wisegeek.org/why-are-rats-used-in-animal-testing.htm

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Gilles-Eric Seralini et al, Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements, Environmental Sciences Europe 2011, 23:10, accessed in http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Aris, A., Leblanc, S., Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada, Reproductive Toxicology, 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

[9] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on applications (EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-22 and EFSA-GMO-RX-NK603) for the placing on the market of the genetically modified glyphosate tolerant maize NK603 for cultivation, food and feed uses and import and processing, and for renewal of the authorisation of maize NK603 as existing product, The EFSA Journal (2009) 1137, 1-50.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] GMO-Kompass, Food Safety Evaluation–Evaluating Safety: A Major Undertaking, February 15, 2006, accessed in http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.html

[13] Ibid.

[14] EFSA, Séralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk assessment community, EFSA Press Release, 28 November 2012, accessed in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

[15] Corporate Europe Observatory, Op. Cit.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Corporate Europe Observatory, Approving the GM potato: conflicts of interest, flawed science and fierce lobbying, CorporateEurope.org, November 7, 2011, accessed in http://corporateeurope.org/publications/approving-gm-potato-conflicts-in…

[18] ILSI, 2011 Annual Report, Board of Trustees, accessed in http://www.ilsi.org/Documents/ILSI_AR2011_rFinal.pdf

[19] Tore B. Krudtaa, Harry Kuiper Chair of EFSA GMO panel – Another regulator in the business of deregulation?, Monsanto.No, 22 September 2011, accessed in http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/166-harry-kuiper-chair-of-efsa-gmo-panel-another-regulator-in-the-business-of-deregulation

[20] EFSA, FAQ on the resignation of Diana Banati as member and Chair of EFSA´s Management Board, accessed in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqresignationdianabanati.htm

[21] EFSA, Séralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk assessment community, EFSA Press Release, 28 November 2012, accessed in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm.

[22] EurAktiv.com, GMOs: “Anne Glover, you are wrong,” 27 July 2012, accessed in http://www.euractiv.com/cap/gmos-anne-glover-wrong-analysis-514185

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GLOBAL RESEARCH PUBLISHERS

Order William Engdahl’s Book directly from Global Research

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name:: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number:: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year:: 2007
Pages:: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $24.95

Special Price: $17.00

18 Dec 2012

Gov. Steve Beshear: Law Enforcement Issues with Hemp Must Be Worked Out

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

By Kenny Colston

Credit Kentucky Governor’s Office

Gov. Steve Beshear

Before he joins the call for legalized industrial hemp, Gov. Steve Beshear wants law enforcement officials to resolve their concerns about the issue.

The issue: Some Kentucky officials believe legalized industrial hemp would be good for Kentucky’s economy, but law enforcement officials are concerned that such a move would conflict with efforts to crack down on marijuana growers.

“I think we’re going to have to answer those questions before we can really move forward in the industrial hemp area,” Beshear said.

Kentucky is central in the movement to legalize hemp as an agricultural crop, largely thanks to the advocacy of Agriculture Commissioner James Comer and U.S. Sen. Rand Paul.

Comer has helped revive a dormant state commission on hemp — which he chairs — and is working on a new economic study to prove the crop’s prowess.

Hemp is a cousin and lookalike to marijuana that lacks the chemicals that cause psychoactive effects. Comer has attempted to dispel concerns from Kentucky State Police officials, pointing out that hemp and marijuana can be easily told apart. And that hemp would cross-pollinate with marijuana and reduce the latter plant’s drug effects, he argues.

Another Democrat, House Speaker Greg Stumbo, has the same stance as Beshear. Stumbo said that as a former attorney general, he is currently deferring to law enforcement’s opinion on hemp.

But several in Kentucky’s federal delegation approve of hemp’s legalization, including U.S. Paul and Republican U.S. Reps.-elect Andy Barr and Thomas Massie. Democratic Congressman John Yarmuth also supports the issue.

16 Dec 2012

Ky voices: Rand Paul: Legalize hemp to aid Ky. economy

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

Published: December 15, 2012

By Rand Paul

A recent national poll concluded that 43 percent of Americans believe unemployment and job creation is the most important issue facing our country. So it’s no surprise that Republicans and Democrats in Washington claim to be big supporters of creating jobs.

But the truth is D.C. policy-makers on both sides of the aisle stifle jobs and opportunity with regulations and policies that hurt our work force. And often, it flies in the face of common sense. The perfect example of this is the debate over industrial hemp.

Prior to World War II, Kentucky led the nation in providing 94 percent of all industrialized hemp. However, it was outlawed under an umbrella law that made marijuana illegal. This was simply because they are in the same botanical family and look similar.

But there are major differences in the two plants. Marijuana is made up of 20 percent tetrohydrocannabinol (THC), the mind-altering chemical, while industrial hemp plants contain less than 0.3 percent.

Comparing hemp to marijuana is like comparing poppy seeds found on bagels to OxyContin. Poppy seeds are in the same family of opiate — the same family that contains codeine, morphine, OxyContin and even heroin.

Yet, you can buy and consume food containing poppy seeds, as thousands of Americans do each day, without experiencing the narcotic effects the rest of its plant is harvested for.

So, the issue with hemp isn’t that the plant is harmful. It’s that the plant might be mistaken for marijuana.

This presents some challenges for law enforcement. But we can address those challenges. And we can return to growing and producing hemp in Kentucky. And in the process, create jobs and opportunity here.

Let me share an example of the economic potential for industrial hemp.

Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps is based in California and sells products made from hemp plants. David Bronner, the company’s CEO, says it grossed over $50 million in sales this past year. But since the production of industrial hemp is outlawed in America, the company must import 100 percent of the hemp used in their products from other countries.

The company sends hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars every year to other countries because American farmers are not allowed to grow this plant. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not allow the legal growth of hemp.

Today, hemp products are sold around the U.S. in forms of paper, cosmetics, lotions, auto parts, clothes, cattle feed and so much more. If we were to start using hemp plants again for paper, we could ultimately replace using trees as the main source for our paper supply.

One acre of industrial hemp plants can grow around 15,000 pounds of green hemp in about 110 days. For every ton of hemp converted into paper, we could save 12 trees. It is a renewable, sustainable, environmentally conscious crop.

Back in August, I stood alongside Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer and a bipartisan group of legislators and promised Kentuckians that I would join the fight to allow the growth and production of industrial hemp. Comer stated that day that the soil and the climate in Kentucky are perfect for the growth of hemp, and that could ultimately allow the commonwealth to be the nation’s top producer.

Recently, Comer revived the long-dormant Kentucky Hemp Commission by calling its first meeting in more than 10 years. This took real leadership and I applaud him for his action. To help get the ball rolling and show our commitment, Bronner wrote a $50,000 check to the commission and I have pledged to match that donation from my personal political action committee.

While Comer and the commission work to address this issue in Kentucky, I have co-sponsored legislation in the U.S. Senate that would require the federal government to honor state laws allowing production of industrial hemp and would exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana.

My vision for the farmers and manufacturers of Kentucky is to see us start growing hemp, creating jobs and leading the nation in this industry again. These jobs will be ripe for the taking, and I want the farmers in Kentucky to be the first in line.

12 Dec 2012

Excerpt from the 1961 UN Convention on Narcotics

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

AND HOW THE UNITED NATIONS CONTROLS ALL NARCOTICS INCLUDING (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) CANNABIS AND HEMP.

COULD THIS BE THE REAL REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT ADOPTED NEW LAWS AND LEGAL OPINIONS ON MARIJUANA?

IS IT THE UNITED NATIONS WE SHOULD BE PROTESTING OR OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS? DOES OUR OWN GOVERNMENT EVEN HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE MATTER?

THE N W O OVER RIDES OUR OWN COUNTRY’S LAWS, AND RULE OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE…

HERE IS A LINK TO THE ENTIRE PDF….

SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961,
AS AMENDED BY THE 1972 PROTOCOL AMENDING THE
SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961

PREAMBLE

The Parties,

Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind,
Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes,
Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind,
Conscious of their duty to prevent and combat this evil,
Considering that effective measures against abuse of narcotic drugs require co-ordinated and universal action,
Understanding that such universal action calls for international co-operation guided by the same principles and aimed at common objectives,
Acknowledging the competence of the United Nations in the field of narcotics control and desirous that the international organs concerned should be within the framework of that Organization,
Desiring to conclude a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use, and providing for continuous international co-operation and control for the achievement of such aims and objectives,
Hereby agree as follows:

Article 1
DEFINITIONS

1. Except where otherwise expressly indicated or where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall apply throughout the Convention:
a) “Board” means the International Narcotics Control Board,
b) “Cannabis” means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.
c) “Cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus Cannabis,
d) “Cannabis resin” means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.
e) “Coca bush” means the plant of any species of the genus Erythroxylon.
f) “Coca leaf” means the leaf of the coca bush except a leaf from which all ecgonine, cocaine and any other ecgonine alkaloids have been removed.
g) “Commission” means the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Council.
h) “Council” means the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
i) “Cultivation” means the cultivation of the opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plant.
j) “Drug” means any of the substances in Schedules I and II, whether natural or synthetic.
k) “General Assembly” means the General Assembly of the United Nations.
1 Note by the Secretariat: The Preamble to the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, reads as follows:
“The Parties to the Present Protocol,
“Considering the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, done at New York on 30 March 1961 (hereinafter called the Single Convention),
“Desiring to amend the Single Convention
“Have agreed as follows:”
– 1 –
l) “Illicit traffic” means cultivation or trafficking in drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention.
m) “Import” and “export” mean in their respective connotations the physical transfer of drugs from one State to another State, or from one territory to another territory of the same State.
n) “Manufacture” means all processes, other than production, by which drugs may be obtained and includes refining as well as the transformation of drugs into other drugs.
o) “Medicinal opium” means opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use.
p) “Opium” means the coagulated juice of the opium poppy.
q) “Opium poppy” means the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.
r) “Poppy straw” means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy, after mowing.
s) “Preparation” means a mixture, solid or liquid, containing a drug.
t) “Production” means the separation of opium, coca leaves, cannabis and cannabis resin from the plants from which they are obtained.
u) “Schedule I”, “Schedule II”, “Schedule III” and “Schedule IV” mean the correspondingly numbered list of drugs or preparations annexed to this Convention, as amended from time to time in accordance with article 3.
v) “Secretary-General” means the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
w) “Special stocks” means the amounts of drugs held in a country or territory by the Government of such country or territory for special government purposes and to meet exceptional circumstances; and the expression “special purposes” shall be construed accordingly.
x) “Stocks” means the amounts of drugs held in a country or territory and intended for:
i) Consumption in the country or territory for medical and scientific purposes,
ii) Utilization in the country or territory for the manufacture of drugs and other substances, or
iii) Export;
but does not include the amounts of drugs held in the country or territory,
iv) By retail pharmacists or other authorized retail distributors and by institutions or qualified persons in the duly authorized exercise of therapeutic or scientific functions, or
v) As “special stocks”.
y) Territory” means any part of a State which is treated as a separate entity for the application of the system of import certificates and export authorizations provided for in article 31. This definition shall not apply to the term “territory” as used in articles 42 and 46.
2. For the purposes of this Convention a drug shall be regarded as “consumed” when it has been supplied to any person or enterprise for retail distribution, medical use or scientific research; and “consumption” shall be construed accordingly.

Article 2
SUBSTANCES UNDER CONTROL

1. Except as to measures of control which are limited to specified drugs, the drugs in Schedule I are subject to all measures of control applicable to drugs under this Convention and in particular to those prescribed in article 4 c), 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 37.
2. The drugs in Schedule II are subject to the same measures of control as drugs in Schedule I with the exception of the measures prescribed in article 30, paragraphs 2 and 5, in respect of the retail trade.
3. Preparations other than those in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of control as the drugs which they contain, but estimates (article 19) and statistics (article 20) distinct from those dealing with these drugs shall not be required in the case of such preparations, and article 29, paragraph 2 c) and article 30, paragraph 1 b) ii) need not apply.
4. Preparations in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of control as preparations containing drugs in Schedule II except that article 31, paragraphs 1 b) and 3 to 15 and, as regards their acquisition and retail distribution, article 34, paragraph b), need not apply, and that for the purpose of estimates (article 19) and statistics (article 20) the information required shall be restricted to the quantities of drugs used in the manufacture of such preparations.
– 2 –
5. The drugs in Schedule IV shall also be included in Schedule I and subject to all measures of control applicable to drugs in the latter Schedule, and in addition thereto:
a) A Party shall adopt any special measures of control which in its opinion are necessary having regard to the particularly dangerous properties of a drug so included; and
b) A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit the production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession or use of any such drug except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only, including clinical trials therewith to be conducted under or subject to the direct supervision and control of the Party.
6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24, the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28.
7. The opium poppy, the coca bush, the cannabis plant, poppy straw and cannabis leaves are subject to the control measures prescribed in article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), article 20, paragraph 1, subparagraph g), article 21 bis and in articles 22 to 24; 22, 26 and 27; 22 and 28; 25; and 28, respectively:
8. The Parties shall use their best endeavours to apply to substances which do not fall under this Convention, but which may be used in the illicit manufacture of drugs, such measures of supervision as may be practicable.
9. Parties are not required to apply the provisions of this Convention to drugs which are commonly used in industry for other than medical or scientific purposes, provided that:
a) They ensure by appropriate methods of denaturing or by other means that the drugs so used are not liable to be abused or have ill effects (article 3, paragraph 3) and that the harmful substances cannot in practice be recovered; and
b) They include in the statistical information (article 20) furnished by them the amount of each drug so used.

Article 3
CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF CONTROL
1. Where a Party or the World Health Organization has information which in its opinion may require an amendment to any of the Schedules, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information in support of the notification.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit such notification, and any information which he considers relevant, to the Parties, to the Commission, and, where the notification is made by a Party, to the World Health Organization.
3. Where a notification relates to a substance not already in Schedule I or in Schedule II,
i) The Parties shall examine in the light of the available information the possibility of the provisional application to the substance of all measures of control applicable to drugs in Schedule I;
ii) Pending its decision as provided in subparagraph iii) of this paragraph, the Commission may decide that the Parties apply provisionally to that substance all measures of control applicable to drugs in Schedule I. The Parties shall apply such measures provisionally to the substance in question;
iii) If the World Health Organization finds that the substance is liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs in Schedule I or Schedule II or is convertible into a drug, it shall communicate that finding to the Commission which may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, decide that the substance shall be added to Schedule I or Schedule II.
– 3 –
4. If the World Health Organization finds that a preparation because of the substances which it contains is not liable to abuse and cannot produce ill effects (paragraph 3) and that the drug therein is not readily recoverable, the Commission may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, add that preparation to Schedule III.
5. If the World Health Organization finds that a drug in Schedule I is particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects (paragraph 3) and that such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages not possessed by substances other than drugs in Schedule IV, the Commission may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, place that drug in Schedule IV.
6. Where a notification relates to a drug already in Schedule I or Schedule II or to a preparation in Schedule III, the Commission, apart from the measure provided for in paragraph 5, may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, amend any of the Schedules by:
a) Transferring a drug from Schedule I to Schedule II or from Schedule II to Schedule I; or
b) Deleting a drug or a preparation as the case may be, from a Schedule.
7. Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the World Health Organization and to the Board. Such decision shall become effective with respect to each Party on the date of its receipt of such communication, and the Parties shall thereupon take such action as may be required under this Convention.
8. a) The decisions of the Commission amending any of the Schedules shall be subject to review by the Council upon the request of any Party filed within ninety days from receipt of notification of the decision. The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-General together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based;
b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review and relevant information to the Commission, the World Health Organization and to all the Parties inviting them to submit comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council for consideration;
c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission, and the decision of the Council shall be final. Notification of the Council’s decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the Commission, to the World Health Organization, and to the Board;
d) During pendency of the review the original decision of the Commission shall remain in effect.
9. Decisions of the Commission taken in accordance with this article shall not be subject to the review procedure provided for in article 7.

Article 4
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary:
a) To give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories;
b) To co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention; and
c) Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.

11 Dec 2012

Kentucky State Police commissioner against hemp

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

12/8/2012 8:59:00 AM
Kentucky State Police commissioner against hemp

By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky State Police Commissioner Rodney Brewer said his agency is opposed to proposals to grow industrial hemp in Kentucky even though he sees the benefits for the agriculture industry.
Brewer said after a meeting of the newly restarted Kentucky Hemp Commission that state police are concerned the agricultural pluses will be offset by law enforcement minuses such as distinguishing between hemp and its cousin, marijuana.
"It’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to the casual observer or even the astute observer to tell the difference between hemp and marijuana as its being grown" he said. He added that problem becomes even more difficult when police use helicopters to search for marijuana fields, a common practice.
Hemp and marijuana are the same species, cannabis sativa, but are genetically distinct. Hemp has a negligible content of THC, the psychoactive compound that gives marijuana users a high.
The commission, led by Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, held its second meeting since it came out of a decade-long dormancy. Comer is aggressively pursuing state legislation that would allow hemp, which is illegal to grow in the United States, to be grown in Kentucky with federal approval.
Comer says the crop could provide agriculture and manufacturing jobs in Kentucky, as it once did during World War II. U.S. retail sales of hemp products exceeded $400 million last year, according to industry estimates.
The versatile crop can be turned into paper, clothing, food, biofuels, lotions and many other products.

MY RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE (WHICH HASN’T BEEN APPROVED YET (?)).

What "really" bothers me is the fact that it seems the "Police Departments" throughout the state of Kentucky seem to be the only ones that are making waves over the "Hemp" bill. Yes, I said Hemp, not marijuana – That being said I am for repealing the prohibition on both.

Now, there are two problems that may be itching the necks of the police departments. One is that they really can’t tell the difference between the two plants. I do not see that as a problem because first of all they should be educated enough to be able to tell the difference and two, I’m sure there is some kind of quick field test to verify exactly what type of plant that it is by the THC level.

Then again, it would be nearly impossible to grow "good grade" "Marijuana" outdoors if there were Hemp fields anywhere (or everywhere) nearby – Hemp will definitely override the marijuana plants which just might irritate the growers of marijuana and a few of their business partners. Hmmm.

I am pro HEMP and Marijuana (Cannabis). HEMP should be grown in the fields and Cannabis for consumption grown indoors – and BOTH should be legitimately freed !!!!

But I guess there is nothing like a black market plant to line your pants pockets with….

God Bless the Farmers!
ShereeKrider

7 Dec 2012

Kentucky ag chief says support for hemp is increasing statewide

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

By Janet Patton — [email protected]

LOUISVILLE — Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer said he sees widespread support building in the General Assembly and across the state for legislation pushing industrial hemp.

Comer told the Kentucky Farm Bureau that hemp represents the only potential job-creation effort under discussion in Frankfort.

Afterward, Comer said that the state hemp commission, which he chairs, has received numerous offers to sponsor legislation. The commission meets Friday, and Comer said members will discuss potential legislation and the possibility of a new economic study to evaluate the hemp market.

In a separate interview, state Sen. Paul Hornback, R-Shelbyville, said he supports legislation to move Kentucky to the forefront of potential hemp production. Hornback is widely expected to become the next chairman of the Senate agriculture committee. He said that if he is named chairman, he would call Comer’s hemp bill for a vote.

It is unclear what the legislation would encompass; several states have endorsed hemp production, but under federal law, it can’t be grown because it isn’t distinguished from marijuana.

Comer said Thursday that for Kentucky farmers to really benefit, the state also needs to attract processing and manufacturing facilities, something he said has drawn interest from county executives around the state.

Leigh Maynard, chairman of the University of Kentucky agriculture economics department, said gauging how much farmers could benefit is difficult. With record corn prices, farmers might not want to switch to an unproven commodity without an established infrastructure.

Janet Patton: (859) 231-3264. Twitter: @janetpattonhl.

28 Nov 2012

Ag commissioner: Sheriff’s support for industrial hemp a big boost to legalization efforts

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

Industrial hemp was widely grown in Kentucky until the late 19th century and was re-established briefly in the 1940s to make products for the military.

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Nov. 28, 2012) — Agriculture Commissioner James Comer applauded Christian County Sheriff Livy Leavell Jr. on Wednesday for supporting the production of industrial hemp in Kentucky during the annual conference of the Kentucky Association of Counties in Louisville.

“Sheriff Leavell’s support is a big step for the industrial hemp initiative,” Comer said. “By having a high-ranking member of Kentucky’s law enforcement community on our side, we can more effectively break down any myths that are still attached to this potential crop. I am so grateful to all the local elected officials for their overwhelming support of this effort. Together, we will bring jobs to Kentucky and new opportunities to our farmers.”

Comer was joined in his remarks to KACo by Katie Moyer, chairperson of the Kentucky Hemp Coalition, and John Riley, a former magistrate from Spencer County. Moyer and Riley are members of the Kentucky Industrial Hemp Commission, which is chaired by Comer.

“I am so proud of my hometown sheriff,” Moyer said. “Sheriff Leavell made the effort to get the facts about industrial hemp — what it is, what it isn’t, and how it can benefit Kentucky’s economy.”

Comer told the assembled county judge/executives, magistrates, sheriffs and other county officials that legislation to allow Kentucky farmers to grow industrial hemp will be one of his top legislative priorities in 2013. The Kentucky Industrial Hemp Commission will meet again before the 2013 session of the Kentucky General Assembly to finalize legislation it hopes will pass during the session.

Industrial hemp would create manufacturing jobs in Kentucky, Comer said, and provide farmers with another crop that would help them continue to make a living on the farm. He said it is important for Kentucky to be first in the nation to establish an industrial hemp production and manufacturing industry.

The industrial hemp initiative also continues to make progress on the national level. Recently elected U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of northern Kentucky on Tuesday became the 36th co-sponsor of federal legislation that would require the federal government to honor state laws allowing production of industrial hemp. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Bowling Green sponsored a companion bill in the U.S. Senate in August.

Industrial hemp was widely grown in Kentucky until the late 19th century and was re-established briefly in the 1940s to make products for the military. A Congressional Research Service study says hemp is contained in as many as 25,000 products in the global market including textiles, automotive applications, furniture, food products, paper, construction materials and personal care products.

15 Nov 2012

Comer: Legalizing industrial hemp is top priority

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

BRUCE SCHREINER, Associated Press

Updated 2:24 p.m., Wednesday, November 14, 2012

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer says he will seek to legalize industrial hemp in 2013, and to kick off the effort he convened a Wednesday meeting of a hemp commission that hasn’t met in years.

A grassroots movement seeking to allow Kentucky farmers to grow industrial hemp gained new ground as the commissioner vowed passing hemp legislation would be his top priority. For now, however, federal law prohibits growing the plant for industrial, recreational or medicinal purposes because of its association with marijuana.

A farmer himself, Comer told members of the Kentucky Industrial Hemp Commission that the crop would flourish in the Bluegrass state and create manufacturing jobs if the federal government gives the go-ahead. He said hemp is a versatile crop that can be turned into paper, clothing, food, biofeuel, lotions and many other products.

"We can’t let our feet drag on this," Comer told reporters after Wednesday’s meeting. "We can’t let the General Assembly say, ‘Well we want to create a task force to study it.’ By that time … this will be another thing that the Kentucky General Assembly has loafed around on and let slip away."

He said that if federal authorities authorize industrial hemp cultivation, states would be in a "mad dash" to revive production — and Kentucky needs to be positioned for that possibility.

Comer, a Republican, presided over the first meeting of the hemp commission in a decade.

The board was created in 2001 to oversee industrial hemp research in Kentucky and make recommendations to the governor. Comer convened the 18-member panel to advocate for industrial hemp and work on marketing and education efforts.

Kentucky once was a leading producer of industrial hemp, a tall, leafy plant later outlawed for decades. Hemp and marijuana are the same species, cannabis sativa, but are genetically distinct. Hemp has a negligible content of THC, the psychoactive compound that gives marijuana users a high.

Those seeking to legalize the plant argue that it would create a new crop for farmers, replacing a hemp supply now imported from Canada and other countries. During World War II, the U.S. government encouraged farmers to grow hemp for the war effort because other industrial fibers were in short supply. But the crop hasn’t been grown in the U.S. since the 1950s when the federal government moved to classify hemp as a controlled substance related to marijuana.

Comer said he wants to see farmers planting industrial hemp in Kentucky by the spring of 2014, but only if the federal government approves.

"We will only do this in Kentucky if the United States Congress and the federal government give us permission," he said.

The hemp commission received $100,000 in seed money Wednesday to help pay for its advocacy for the plant.

Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, co-sponsor of federal legislation to remove restrictions on hemp cultivation, is donating $50,000 from his political action committee to the commission. That donation is being matched by Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a natural soap manufacturer that uses hemp oil in its products.

David Bronner, chief executive of the California-based company, said the U.S. is the largest consumer market for hemp seed and fiber products, yet its farmers are prevented from growing the crop and sharing in the benefits.

"We’re continuing to hand the world’s largest market to Canadian farmers and Chinese farmers, and it’s ridiculous," he said after the hemp commission meeting.

The commission’s membership includes state lawmakers, hemp advocates and law enforcement representatives.

Maj. Anthony Terry, commander of the Kentucky State Police Special Enforcement Troop and a commission member, said after the meeting that law enforcement has reservations about legalizing hemp.

"We’re not supportive of it at this point," Terry said.

Terry raised concerns that people charged with marijuana possession or trafficking would claim they were caught with hemp instead of marijuana. That would force law enforcement to test every confiscated sample to determine if it was in fact marijuana, at great expense, he said.

Comer said the agriculture department wants to work with law enforcement.

"There’s nothing to hide," Comer said. "This crop has suffered from false stereotypes and misperceptions for years."

Other hemp commission members present included John Riley, a former magistrate in Spencer County; state Rep. Tom McKee, D-Cynthiana, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee; state Sen. John Schickel, R-Union; and M. Scott Smith, dean of the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture.

After the meeting, Comer went to the state Capitol pitch the legislation to a joint meeting of the House and Senate Agriculture committees.

Comer, a former state lawmaker, tried to assure his former colleagues that legalizing industrial hemp wouldn’t risk a voter backlash, saying misconceptins about hemp are "past us now."

"The people of Kentucky know the difference between industrial hemp and that other plant," he said.

Sen. David Givens, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said afterward that the Republican-led Senate is open-minded about the issue.

He said that Comer’s strong support for the hemp legislation will advance the legalization campaign. Givens, R-Greensburg, said hemp supporters are making headway in changing perceptions, but he has questions about establishing state regulatory oversight of a crop that may someday be legal.

"Do we need to create a bureaucracy for what would be a legal crop?" he said.

14 Nov 2012

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul Champions Legalization of Industrial Hemp Bill S.3501 (Oct 17, 2012)

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

Sen. Rand Paul Answers Farms.com Questionnaire on Hemp Bill

By Amanda Brodhagen, Farms.com

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced a historic bill on Aug. 2, 2012 that would remove restrictions on industrial hemp farming in the United States. While Bill S.3501 has gained wide bi-partisan support, it has also sparked a controversial debate largely over federal policy that currently doesn’t distinguish between non-drug oilseeds – hemp from psychoactive drugs such as Marijuana. There have been over seventeen states that have passed pro-hemp legislation to date including, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia. However, despite state authorization for farmers to grow hemp, state laws are overridden by the federal drug policy.
Although, farmers have technically been given permission to grow hemp for industrial use, they don’t for fear of raids by federal agents or even face prison time if they plant hemp as a crop. Sen. Rand Paul has been advocating on behalf of farmers to make changes to a 75 year old law that prohibits farmers from growing hemp for industrial use. If the bill passes, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act would remove federal restrictions to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp, distinguishing hemp from marijuana.
Sen. Rand Paul answers a questionnaire prepared by Farms.com Editor Amanda Brodhagen – explaining the history of the bill, how it could help farmers, the economic benefits and the key participants involved. The Senator answers thirteen questions that provide greater insight into the importance of this bill.

• Can you provide some insight into the historical resistance towards hemp?
“The passing of 1937 Marijuana Tax Act in conjunction with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 essentially banned the industrial use of hemp by defining hemp as a narcotic and requiring farmers to hold Drug Enforcement Administration permits. Our nation is a far cry from the one that used to encourage farmers to grow hemp for its versatility through the Hemp for Victory program.”
• Why does the Senator support the efforts to legalize hemp for industrial use in Kentucky?
“In addition to the economic benefits associated with the industrialization of hemp, there has been substantial grassroots support behind this issue in Kentucky. Hemp can be used for nutritional supplements, cattle feed and bedding, textiles, paper, cosmetics and alternative fuels. Prior to the industrial ban, the Commonwealth routinely accounted for half of all hemp production in the United States.
Being from an agricultural state, I often think of our farmers who have dealt with persistent droughts and the toll it has taken on them and their families. This environmentally sustainable crop requires fewer pesticides and can replenish our soil through crop rotation, increasing yields the following year.”

(Source: http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/hempstudy.pdf)
• How does the Senator defend the comparisons between industrial hemp and marijuana?
“I’ve found that these comparisons are often made by those who are unfamiliar with the crop. It is true that hemp is in the same plant species as marijuana. However, the two are very different. On average, hemp contains less than 1 percent of THC, the primary psychoactive chemical in marijuana, while marijuana can contain upwards of 10 percent THC.

As my father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), sponsor of an industrial hemp bill in the House often jokes, you would need to smoke a hemp cigarette the size of a telephone pole for it to possibly have any effect.”
• What are the most commonly grown cash crops in Kentucky?
“The top five cash crops in Kentucky last year were corn, soybeans, tobacco, wheat and hay.”

(Source:http://www.kyagr.com/pr/kpc/September102012/documents/2011-Kentucky-cash-receipts.pdf)
• What do you foresee as the economic benefits of allowing farmers to grow industrial hemp?
“Hemp has grown increasingly popular in the United States. Selling between $60 million to $100 million in hemp-based foods and nutritional supplements each year, these products could be produced and grown in the U.S. rather than abroad.”
(Source: http://nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32725.pdf)

• What kind of response has the Senator been receiving from farmers about the bill to legalize hemp?
“I’ve spoken with many farmers in Kentucky and the response has overwhelming been, “I wish this would have been done sooner!” This bill has brought in a lot of support from the both sides of the aisle. It is an economic issue rather than a partisan one.”

• How profitable would growing hemp be for Kentucky farmers?
“According to the University of Kentucky, the industrialization of hemp would create 70,000 jobs in the Commonwealth with upwards of $1.5 trillion in annual earnings.”
(Source: http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/hempstudy.pdf)

• What would be a typical profit margin for a farmer growing industrial hemp after all input costs have been calculated?

“According to Vote Hemp, farmers in Manitoba, Canada, have yielded $150/acre once costs are factored in. To put this into perspective, the profit margin for hemp is between $50-75/acre more than canola, one of the U.S. and Canada’s most abundant crops.
While these numbers are based on Canada’s agricultural landscape, U.S. farmers are expected to yield higher profit margins by growing different varieties of hemp.”
• Is there a market demand for industrial hemp?
“The demand for hemp has grown exponentially in recent years. In 1997, hemp-based sales were at $75 million worldwide. Since that time, North America alone has grossed $400 million in hemp-based sales annually. Nearly half of that can be attributed to the U.S.”
(Source: http://nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32725.pdf)
• Do you think some farmers would still be skeptical about growing hemp for industrial use even if the bill passes?
“Farmers and consumers in Kentucky have been advocating for the use of industrial hemp for years; our legislature has also been working towards this. I believe that when this bill is passed, the Commonwealth will be ready.”
• What are some of the key things that the Senator is doing to raise awareness and gain support for his sponsored bill?

“During my time at the Kentucky State Fair, I participated in a rally with Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer advocating for industrial hemp.”
• Who are the key advocates of the bill?
“Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is the leading sponsor of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2012. I am an original cosponsor with Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).”
• Is the Senator confident that the bill will pass?
“Although there is a groundswell of public support behind this bipartisan bill, we will need to make some headway with current Members of Congress for S. 3501 to pass.”

Note from the Editor Thank you Senator Rand Paul for shedding light on Bill S. 3501. It’s apparent that the Hemp Bill is pro-farmer and eliminates the barriers for agricultural producers to cultivate hemp has a legal crop recognized by states and the federal government. This bill not only provides opportunities for economic benefits for rural economies but it also puts an end to the negative association that industrial hemp has from marijuana.
CONTINUE READING…

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 »