Politics
Feds Issue Confusing Reminders On Use Of Welfare Benefits To Buy Marijuana And Hemp Products
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued two back-to-back updates on the use of federal welfare benefits to buy cannabis foods or drinks—at one point singling out hemp-derived CBD as a prohibited item but then replacing that with broader language focusing on “cannabis/marijuana.”
An FAQ from USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service was first updated last week to clarify rules on what can and cannot be purchased using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Unlike the previous version of the federal webpage, the new one explicitly lists cannabis among the products that can’t be purchased with the benefits.
“Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy…Food and drinks containing controlled substances such as cannabis/marijuana,” it now says. Other SNAP-restricted items include alcohol, cigarettes, vitamins, pet food and foods that are hot at the point of sale.
But for reasons that aren’t clear, this is the second cannabis-related update to the FAQ in a matter of days. An initial update last week specified that SNAP benefits couldn’t go toward “cannabis-derived products, such as CBD, and any other controlled substances.”
That CBD-specific language was quickly removed, however.
Marijuana Moment reached out to USDA for clarification, but a representative was not immediately available.
In any case, the new FAQ language doesn’t necessarily represent a policy change, as USDA first issued guidance in 2020 stipulating that while people can use SNAP benefits for certain foods containing “hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder, and hemp seed oil,” they cannot buy “hemp plants, leaves, and shoots.”
USDA further clarified at the time that foods “containing cannabis-derived products, such as CBD, and any other controlled substances, are not eligible to be purchased with SNAP benefits,” similar to what’s articulated in the latest update to the FAQ. The same language was maintained in another update last year.
Why the agency determined that its important to clarify the cannabis prohibition on its FAQ page now is unclear, but it comes at a time when many in the cannabis space are closely watching for signals about how the administration will navigate marijuana and hemp issues during President Donald Trump’s second term.
In his first term, Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill that federally legalized hemp, creating an industry that has since experienced significant volatility amid concerns about the resulting proliferation of a largely unregulated market for intoxicating cannabinoid products.
But despite signing that legislation into law—and later endorsing marijuana rescheduling and industry banking access on the 2024 campaign trail—the president hasn’t publicly commented on cannabis policy issues since taking office in January.
Meanwhile, a pair of GOP-led congressional bills filed earlier this month would prevent people from using federal financial assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program at cannabis dispensaries.
Back at USDA, the agency recently released a noticed that it is terminating a series of trade advisory committees to comply with an executive order Trump signed in February that’s meant to reduce the size of the federal government across multiple agencies. One of those committees that had been expanded to include hemp industry representatives to promote the crop internationally.
Meanwhile, a report released by USDA last month found that, even as more states and some congressional lawmakers pursued bans on consumable hemp products, the industry saw significant growth in 2024.
The National Hemp Report, which USDA conducts annually to assess the economic health of the market, showed that hemp farmers cultivated 45,294 acres of the crop last year, up 64 percent from 2023. And the industry’s value jumped about 40 percent, increasing to $445 million.
—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
As the fate of the consumable hemp market remains murky amid legislative pushback, a congressional committee held a hearing on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month—with a hemp industry expert explaining how the market is “begging” for federal regulations around cannabis products.
Lawmakers have consistently raised concerns about FDA’s refusal to establish rules allowing for the marketing of federally legal hemp as a food item or dietary supplement.
One potential legislative solution that U.S. Hemp Roundtable’s Jonathan Miller noted to the committee is a bipartisan bill Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) filed last year that would create a federal regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoids.
The legislation would empower states to set their own rules for products such as CBD while also empowering FDA to ensure that certain safety standards are met in the marketplace.
In the absence of FDA rules, states from California to Florida to Texas have pushed for sweeping changes to their own laws around consumable hemp products. While much of the focus has been on intoxicating products, federally legal CBD businesses have also found themselves increasingly in the crosshairs.
Meanwhile, as lawmakers prepare to once again take up large-scale agriculture legislation this session, congressional researchers in January provided an overview of the policy landscape around hemp—emphasizing the divides around various cannabis-related proposals among legislators, stakeholders and advocates.
Senate Democrats released the long-awaited draft of 2024 Farm Bill last year that contained several proposed changes to federal hemp laws—including provisions to amend how the legal limit of THC is measured and reducing regulatory barriers for farmers who grow the crop for grain or fiber. But certain stakeholders had expressed concern that part of the intent of the legislation was to “eliminate a whole range of products” that are now sold in the market.
Photo courtesy of Kimzy Nanney.
