Hemp Regulation 2025: What’s Changing in Federal and State Rules for Delta‑8, THCa, and Hemp‑Derived THC

Overview

The U.S. hemp market is undergoing another major compliance reset in 2025. States are moving quickly to regulate (or prohibit) intoxicating hemp cannabinoids like delta‑8 THC, delta‑10 THC, and THCa; agencies are tightening testing, packaging, and labeling standards; and several jurisdictions are closing the retail “loophole” by restricting sales to adult-only channels or licensed dispensaries. At the same time, the federal baseline remains anchored to the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp definition, the USDA hemp program, and the DEA’s position that synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain Schedule I.

This informational update aggregates the most consequential federal and state changes affecting hemp businesses—growers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers—so you can plan licensing and compliance strategies with confidence.

The Federal Baseline (Unchanged—but under pressure)

2018 Farm Bill definition still governs

Federally, “hemp” remains cannabis with 0.3% total THC on a dry-weight basis. USDA’s hemp framework and compliance testing continue to apply for cultivation licensing and enforcement. See the USDA Hemp Rule and program resources at the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS):

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/hemp

Key federal pillars that remain in force:

Total THC testing via post‑decarboxylation (delta‑9 THC + 0.877×THCa) under USDA rules for growers.
Negligent violation threshold and remediation/destruction pathways for non‑compliant hemp crops, enforced by USDA or state plans approved by USDA.

Congress continues to debate updates to the hemp definition and the sale of intoxicating hemp products in Farm Bill negotiations. For background on the legal landscape, see the Congressional Research Service report: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48637

DEA: Synthetic THC remains controlled

DEA’s 2020 interim final rule implementing the 2018 Farm Bill clarified that “all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain Schedule I controlled substances”. This has become a central reference point for state actions on delta‑8 and other chemically converted cannabinoids manufactured from CBD isolate. See the federal rulemaking notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/21/2020-17356/implementation-of-the-agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018

What this means operationally:

Conversions of CBD into delta‑8, delta‑10, or other THC isomers are likely to be treated as synthetic THC under DEA’s interpretation, even if the inputs come from lawful hemp.
Enforcement against retail delta‑8 remains primarily state-led, but DEA’s interpretation is frequently cited in litigation and rulemaking.

FDA/FTC: Marketing and safety enforcement is active

FDA and FTC continue joint enforcement against CBD and hemp‑THC sellers making unapproved health claims or marketing products that may appeal to children (e.g., copycat candy packaging). Review FDA’s warning letters page for up‑to‑date actions and common pitfalls: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/warning-letters-cannabis-derived-products

Implications for brands and retailers:

No health claims (disease treatment or prevention) without FDA approval.
Avoid youth‑appealing packaging; use child‑resistant, tamper‑evident packaging; follow state age‑gating rules.
Maintain current, batch‑specific Certificates of Analysis (COAs) accessible via QR code or URL.

State Trends Reshaping the Hemp Market in 2025

The dominant state trend is to limit or channel intoxicating hemp products through adult-use frameworks or to prohibit them outright. Most states that allow sales now require:

21+ age restrictions for any product with detectable THC.
Serving/package potency limits and bans on inhalable products in some states.
Independent lab testing for total THC, residual solvents (for converted cannabinoids), heavy metals, pesticides, and microbials.
Prominent labeling (total THC per serving/package, ingredient disclosure, warning statements) and QR codes linking to COAs.
Retail permits and/or manufacturer licenses with inspection authority and civil penalties.

Below are notable 2024–2025 developments by jurisdiction.

Colorado: Clear rules on hemp in food and “intoxicating hemp” workstreams

Colorado continues to be a compliance bellwether with dedicated agencies for hemp in food and for cannabis enforcement.

Hemp in Food (CDPHE): Rules at 6 CCR 1010‑24 (effective Jan 14, 2024) define allowable hemp ingredients, testing, labeling, and registration requirements. The 2025–2026 Hemp and Safe Harbor Hemp application forms are available, signaling ongoing oversight for manufacturers selling into Colorado’s food market. Guidance: https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dehs/hemp-food
Intoxicating Hemp (MED): The Marijuana Enforcement Division hosts the “Intoxicating Hemp” page, continuing the work of SB22‑205’s task force and guidance on separating intoxicating hemp products from general retail channels. Resource: https://med.colorado.gov/intoxicating-hemp

What to do now in CO:

Register applicable food facilities and products; ensure panels include total THC and residual solvent testing when conversions are used.
Confirm label claims, serving sizes, and warnings meet CDPHE and local health department rules.

Minnesota: Lower‑potency hemp edibles remain, with strict potency and 21+ rules

Minnesota retains a distinct “lower‑potency hemp edibles” category with statutory potency caps and age restrictions:

5 mg THC per serving; 50 mg per package caps for hemp‑derived edibles and beverages.
21+ only sales and robust packaging/labeling requirements.
Statutory framework: Minn. Stat. § 151.72 (hemp‑derived consumer products). Text: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/151.72

Minnesota’s new Office of Cannabis Management is integrating oversight across cannabis and hemp-derived THC edibles. Expect continued guidance revisions as adult‑use licensing rolls out.

Virginia: THC caps and CBD‑to‑THC ratio standard

Virginia enforces one of the nation’s most stringent frameworks for hemp‑derived products, focused on preventing intoxication outside licensed cannabis channels.

Most retail hemp products must not exceed 2 mg total THC per package unless the product meets a 25:1 CBD:THC ratio minimum; sale is restricted to 21+ for any product with detectable THC.
Oversight is by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), with civil penalties for non‑compliance and authority to embargo products.
Reference: Virginia Code Title 3.2 (Food and Drink), Chapter 51. Code portal: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title3.2/chapter51/

Operational takeaways in VA:

Re‑formulate SKUs or adjust package counts/servings to comply with the 2 mg/25:1 standard.
Expect retail inspections and swift enforcement on labeling, QR codes, and age gating.

New York: Cannabinoid Hemp Program tightens around synthetics and youth access

New York’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) regulates cannabinoid hemp (distinct from adult‑use cannabis). Current trends include:

Ban on delta‑8 and other synthetically derived cannabinoids in cannabinoid hemp products.
Product registration, testing, and labeling mandates, with 21+ sales for products containing any THC.
Increasing enforcement against non‑compliant retailers.
Program hub: https://cannabis.ny.gov/cannabinoid-hemp-program

What NY hemp brands should do:

Verify each SKU’s cannabinoid profile, ingredient sourcing, and lab methods; remove any chemically converted cannabinoids from cannabinoid hemp lines.
Keep current OCM product registrations and COAs; ensure warning language meets 9 NYCRR requirements.

Texas: Consumable hemp remains, with a hard line on smokable manufacturing

Texas maintains a statewide Consumable Hemp Program for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, while upholding a ban on manufacturing smokable hemp within the state.

DSHS licensing/registration applies to manufacturers and retailers of consumable hemp products; retail age restrictions and labeling/testing are enforced.
Program portal: https://www.dshs.texas.gov/consumer-protection/food-establishments/consumable-hemp-program

Action items in TX:

Maintain DSHS registration, product COAs, and compliant labels; confirm out‑of‑state manufacturers meet Texas testing standards.
Avoid in‑state manufacture of smokable hemp products; vet inhalable SKUs carefully for retail compliance.

Ohio: Program shift and growing pressure on intoxicating hemp retail

Ohio’s hemp landscape is in transition.

State signals a shift for grower licensing to the USDA beginning in 2026; stakeholders should plan to apply directly to USDA for cultivation licenses for the 2026 season. See analysis and updates from Ohio State University’s Farm Office: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/blog-tags/hemp and ODA hemp resources: https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/hemp-program/resources
Policymakers are considering channeling intoxicating hemp products to licensed dispensaries. Businesses should watch legislative calendars and prepare for possible retail channel restrictions.

Near‑term Ohio priorities:

For 2025 crops, reconfirm whether you operate under an active ODA license or must prepare for USDA licensing for 2026.
Audit retail SKUs for age gating, labeling, and youth‑appeal risks; monitor bills that could redefine lawful sales venues.

Louisiana: ATC oversight for consumable hemp; 21+ controls

Louisiana requires retailers selling consumable hemp to hold appropriate permits and to comply with strict packaging/labeling and age restrictions.

Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC) conducts permitting and inspections; non‑compliance can lead to fines and permit action.
ATC portal: https://atc.louisiana.gov/

Best practices in LA:

Confirm ATC permits before sales; use child‑resistant packaging and compliant warnings; validate 21+ at point of sale.

California: Emergency rule push to curb intoxicating hemp in food and supplements

California’s AB 45 (2021) legalized many hemp‑derived ingredients in foods and dietary supplements under CDPH oversight, but regulators moved in late 2024 to block intoxicating cannabinoids in those categories.

In September 2024, the California Department of Public Health filed emergency regulations narrowing allowable hemp ingredients in food, beverages, and dietary supplements—effectively prohibiting products with detectable THC or intoxicating cannabinoids in those categories and ramping up enforcement. See industry analysis: https://www.troutman.com/insights/closing-the-loophole-updates-on-federal-and-state-attempts-to-regulate-intoxicating-hemp-derived-products/?pdf=display

What CA operators should do:

If you manufacture or sell into California’s food or supplement channels, conduct a SKU‑by‑SKU review to confirm no detectable THC; reconsider placement of intoxicating products into licensed cannabis channels.
Maintain CDPH food/manufacturing registrations as applicable and keep COAs aligned with California’s test panel expectations.

Compliance Essentials for Hemp Businesses in 2025

Whether you operate in one state or nationally, expect regulators to evaluate your products through the lens of consumer safety and youth access prevention. Build the following controls into your SOPs:

Product formulation and potency

Use the total THC metric: delta‑9 THC + 0.877×THCa for compliance decisions.
Avoid or clearly substantiate no‑conversion claims; if you use chemical conversion from CBD to THC isomers, expect heightened scrutiny and require residual solvent testing.
Conform to state potency caps (e.g., MN 5 mg/serving, 50 mg/package) and channel intoxicating products only where permitted.

Testing and COAs

Require ISO/IEC 17025‑accredited labs and a panel covering cannabinoid profile, residual solvents, heavy metals, pesticides, and microbials.
Ensure COAs match retail labels exactly (lot, batch, date, method) and host them behind QR codes/URLs.

Packaging, labeling, and marketing

Child‑resistant, tamper‑evident packaging; no youth‑appealing branding or copycat food packaging.
Clear THC per serving/package, ingredients, net contents, warnings, and 21+ statements where required.
No disease claims or unapproved structure/function claims; enforce strict marketing approval workflows.

Licensing and registration

Maintain appropriate manufacturing and retail registrations (e.g., TX DSHS Consumable Hemp, CO CDPHE food registrations, NY OCM product registration).
For cultivation, confirm whether your state operates under a USDA‑approved plan or requires direct USDA licensure for 2026 and beyond.

Retail operations and age gating

Electronic age verification for all THC‑containing products.
Geo‑fence e‑commerce where certain product types are prohibited.
Train staff on refusal protocols and documentation of compliance checks.

Enforcement Outlook (Next 12–18 months)

Expect momentum in three areas:

Retail channel restrictions: More states are considering moving intoxicating hemp into licensed cannabis channels or banning specific product forms.
Uniform testing expectations: Increased emphasis on total THC, conversion by‑product monitoring, and residual solvents for chemically converted cannabinoids.
Youth access controls: Crackdowns on copycat packaging, gummies/candies, and convenience‑store sales without age checks.

Businesses should watch for rulemaking calendars, emergency rules, and legislative sessions in their core markets. Set a quarterly cadence to reassess SKU legality by state and to update labels and COAs.

State-by-State Quick Planning Notes

Colorado: Use CDPHE’s 2025–2026 hemp food forms and align with “safe harbor” criteria; monitor MED’s intoxicating hemp guidance.
Minnesota: Keep edibles under 5 mg/serving and 50 mg/package; register products as required and maintain 21+ controls.
Virginia: Reformulate to meet 2 mg/package or 25:1 CBD:THC; expect retail inspections and civil fines for non‑compliance.
New York: No delta‑8 or synthetics; ensure OCM product registrations, compliant labels, and adult‑only controls for products with THC.
Texas: Maintain DSHS consumable hemp registrations; do not manufacture smokable hemp in‑state; ensure robust COAs and labels.
Ohio: Prepare for USDA cultivation licensing in 2026; monitor proposals that may move intoxicating hemp into dispensaries.
Louisiana: Secure ATC permits for consumable hemp; 21+ age gating and compliant packaging are critical.
California: Treat CDPH’s emergency rules as controlling for food/supplement channels; keep intoxicating hemp out of those categories.

Key Links and References

USDA Hemp Program: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/hemp
DEA IFR on synthetically derived THC: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/21/2020-17356/implementation-of-the-agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018
FDA Warning Letters (cannabis‑derived products): https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/warning-letters-cannabis-derived-products
Colorado Hemp in Food (CDPHE): https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dehs/hemp-food
Colorado Intoxicating Hemp (MED): https://med.colorado.gov/intoxicating-hemp
Minnesota Stat. § 151.72 (hemp‑derived edibles): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/151.72
New York Cannabinoid Hemp Program (OCM): https://cannabis.ny.gov/cannabinoid-hemp-program
Texas Consumable Hemp Program (DSHS): https://www.dshs.texas.gov/consumer-protection/food-establishments/consumable-hemp-program
Ohio ODA Hemp Resources: https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/hemp-program/resources
OSU Farm Office (hemp updates): https://farmoffice.osu.edu/blog-tags/hemp
Louisiana ATC: https://atc.louisiana.gov/
CRS overview on hemp definition and challenges: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48637
Industry analysis of CA emergency rules on intoxication: https://www.troutman.com/insights/closing-the-loophole-updates-on-federal-and-state-attempts-to-regulate-intoxicating-hemp-derived-products/?pdf=display

Final Takeaways

The federal 0.3% total THC definition still applies to cultivation, but states are asserting control over finished products, especially those with intoxicating effects.
Converted cannabinoids like delta‑8 and delta‑10 face expanding restrictions or bans; expect tighter lab scrutiny and more states channeling sales to adult‑only venues—or licensed dispensaries.
Proactive compliance—accurate COAs, age gating, clear labels, and jurisdiction‑specific potency caps—is the most reliable way to protect revenue and reduce enforcement risk in 2025.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. For tailored compliance support, rule monitoring, and state‑by‑state SKU vetting, connect with our team at CannabisRegulations.ai.