Amanda Falkner, Jane Kolodinsky, Tyler Mark, William Snell, Rebecca Hill, Amelia Luke, Jonathan Shepherd, Hannah Lacasse
{"title":"美国大麻的重新引进:州和部落大麻生产计划的内容分析。","authors":"Amanda Falkner, Jane Kolodinsky, Tyler Mark, William Snell, Rebecca Hill, Amelia Luke, Jonathan Shepherd, Hannah Lacasse","doi":"10.1186/s42238-023-00181-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp (< 0.3% THC by dry weight) into the US agricultural sector has been complex and remains confounded by its association with cannabis (> 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill's reintroduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15172,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cannabis Research","volume":"5 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245984/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reintroduction of hemp in the USA: a content analysis of state and tribal hemp production plans.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Falkner, Jane Kolodinsky, Tyler Mark, William Snell, Rebecca Hill, Amelia Luke, Jonathan Shepherd, Hannah Lacasse\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42238-023-00181-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp (< 0.3% THC by dry weight) into the US agricultural sector has been complex and remains confounded by its association with cannabis (> 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill's reintroduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cannabis Research\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245984/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cannabis Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-023-00181-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cannabis Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-023-00181-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The reintroduction of hemp in the USA: a content analysis of state and tribal hemp production plans.
Background: The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp (< 0.3% THC by dry weight) into the US agricultural sector has been complex and remains confounded by its association with cannabis (> 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill's reintroduction.
Methods: A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed.
Results: Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe.
Conclusions: Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
