The Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency has scheduled a second public hearing on proposed changes to Michigan’s cannabis administrative rules.
This hearing is important for Michigan’s hemp farmers, processors, product manufacturers, retailers, laboratories, and consumers. The proposed rules include provisions that could determine how industrial hemp moves through Michigan’s regulated cannabis market—and whether hemp businesses face clear, workable requirements or unnecessary marijuana-style regulation.
The hearing begins at **9:00 AM on Thursday, July 23, 2026**, at the Cannabis Regulatory Agency office in Lansing. Members of the public may testify in person, participate virtually through Zoom, or submit written comments.
Why Michigan’s Hemp Industry Must Participate
Industrial hemp is a legal agricultural commodity with uses in food, fiber, grain, building materials, animal bedding, bioplastics, wellness products, and thousands of other applications.
It should not automatically be regulated as marijuana simply because both plants belong to the cannabis family.
The CRA’s proposed rules contain several provisions affecting the testing, processing, storage, sale, and tracking of industrial hemp within Michigan’s regulated cannabis system. Some proposed changes may help create a clearer pathway for hemp. Others need clarification or revision to prevent excessive costs, contradictory requirements, and barriers to market access.
This is our opportunity to make sure the final rules protect consumers while also protecting Michigan agriculture and small businesses.
Key Hemp Issues That Deserve Public Comment
Keep Hemp Out of the Marijuana Tracking System
Hemp should be tracked through ordinary business records, including invoices, certificates of analysis, lot numbers, licenses, and shipping documents.
Hemp farmers and processors should not be forced into marijuana inventory systems, plant tagging requirements, or Metrc-style controls. Those systems were designed for high-THC marijuana, not lawful agricultural commodities.
When a hemp-derived ingredient enters a licensed marijuana facility, the facility may need a method to document its receipt. However, that should not require the entire upstream hemp supply chain to operate inside the marijuana tracking system.
Do Not Exclude Adult-Use Processors from Working with Hemp
The proposed language must clearly allow both medical and adult-use licensed processors to obtain and process lawful industrial hemp.
Michigan should not create a rule under which a medical marijuana processor can work with hemp while an adult-use-only processor cannot.
That type of technical wording could reduce processing capacity, limit markets for farmers, and discourage investment in Michigan.
Avoid Duplicate Licenses and Excessive Fees
Businesses already licensed and inspected by the CRA should not be forced to obtain another expensive license simply to handle or sell lawful hemp products.
A streamlined hemp endorsement, automatic authorization, or reduced-cost registration would provide accountability without forcing businesses to pay twice for overlapping regulation.
High fees do not necessarily improve consumer safety. They often eliminate small businesses and leave only the largest operators able to participate.
Define Separate Storage Reasonably
The proposed rules require industrial hemp to be stored separately from marijuana.
That should mean clearly labeled and physically separated inventory—a designated shelf, cabinet, bin, pallet, or storage area.
It should not be interpreted to require a separate vault, building, secure room, or costly marijuana-style storage system.
The purpose should be to prevent inventory confusion, not to treat lawful hemp as if it presents the same regulatory risk as marijuana.
Protect Fiber, Grain, Seed, and Other Industrial Uses
Michigan’s rules should clearly distinguish between intoxicating cannabis products and traditional industrial hemp commodities.
Hemp fiber, hurd, grain, seed, oil, protein, textiles, hempcrete, animal bedding, bioplastics, and similar materials should remain under the agricultural, food, feed, building, or commercial regulations that already apply to those products.
They should not be subjected to marijuana licensing, child-resistant packaging, marijuana testing panels, security systems, or cannabis inventory tracking.
Products should be regulated according to their intended use and actual risk—not simply because they came from the cannabis plant.
Protect Legitimate Hemp Processing
During normal extraction and processing, a lawful hemp crop can produce an intermediate material that temporarily exceeds the 0.3% THC threshold.
Michigan must provide a legal pathway for licensed processors to possess and continue processing that material when it:
- Originated from documented, legally grown hemp
- Remains inside a licensed processing facility
- Is not sold to consumers in that form
- Is remediated, transferred through an authorized pathway, or destroyed
- Is fully documented through business records
Without this protection, normal hemp extraction can become legally risky, making it harder for Michigan farmers to find in-state processors and buyers.
Require Transparency for Product THC Limits
Any new THC limit affecting finished hemp products must be clearly published in the proposed rule language.
Major product restrictions should not be created later through informal agency guidance, testing instructions, bulletins, or enforcement interpretations.
Before adopting a new limit, the public deserves clear answers:
- Which products would be affected?
- Would the rule apply to full-spectrum CBD products?
- Would limits be based on percentage, serving size, package size, or all three?
- What scientific evidence supports the limit?
- What authority allows the CRA to impose it?
- How would the rule affect farmers, processors, retailers, and consumers?
Michigan’s hemp industry cannot plan, invest, or comply when important requirements remain unclear.
Come Testify on July 23
We encourage Michigan hemp farmers, processors, business owners, researchers, consumers, and supporters to attend the hearing and speak.
You do not need to be an attorney or regulatory expert.
Tell the CRA:
- How your farm or business is affected
- What practical problems the proposed rules could create
- Why hemp should remain separate from marijuana regulation
- What changes would protect consumers without destroying market opportunities
- Why Michigan should support—not discourage—hemp agriculture and manufacturing
Personal experience matters. A short, clear statement from a farmer, processor, retailer, or consumer can have a powerful impact.
Public Hearing Information
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2026
Time: Beginning at 9:00 AM
Location:
Cannabis Regulatory Agency
2407 N. Grand River Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
Enter through the south entrance.
Participate Virtually
**Zoom link:** https://bit.ly/4xwVg93
**Passcode:** 151914
Submit Written Comments
Written comments may be emailed to:
**[CRA-AdminRules@michigan.gov](mailto:CRA-AdminRules@michigan.gov)**
Comments must be received by **5:00 PM on Friday, July 24, 2026**.
What Happens After the Hearing?
After the public hearing and comment period close, the CRA may make additional edits based on the testimony and written comments it receives.
The final rules will then move through legal certification and be submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a bipartisan legislative committee made up of five members of the Michigan Senate and five members of the Michigan House of Representatives.
That means public participation now can still influence the final outcome.
Michigan Hemp Cannot Afford to Stay Silent
Rules written without meaningful hemp-industry participation can create unintended consequences that last for years.
Michigan has an opportunity to establish sensible regulations that protect consumers, support farmers, encourage manufacturing, expand markets, and recognize the fundamental difference between hemp and marijuana.
But that will not happen automatically.
Please join iHemp Michigan on July 23 and make your voice heard.
**Come testify. Submit written comments. Stand up for Michigan hemp.**