Inside the Policy Fight Shaping the Future of Hemp-Derived Products

In the second part of an interview with The Educated Patient, Thomas Winstanley, executive vice president and general manager at Edibles.com, outlines what he sees as a critical (and misunderstood) policy moment for the hemp-derived consumer products industry. Having recently met with Senate and House offices in Washington, D.C., Winstanley says lawmakers are largely unaware of the full implications of language included in a recent continuing resolution tied to the Farm Bill.

According to Winstanley, the proposed language would not only restrict intoxicating hemp-derived products but also eliminate access to all hemp-derived compounds, including nonintoxicating options, by making extraction effectively impossible under the current definition. While the stated intent, particularly from policy makers like U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, is to limit intoxication, Winstanley argues the science and regulatory language do not align with that goal. Instead, the policy would dismantle the entire category, regardless of product type or safety profile.

A one-year moratorium currently extends through November 2026, and Winstanley says the industry is racing against the clock to push for a different outcome: smart regulation rather than prohibition. He emphasizes that many of the concerns raised by lawmakers, such as preventing youth access and removing unsafe products from the market, are shared by responsible brands. Where they differ is in approach.

Winstanley outlines several commonsense safeguards the industry is actively advocating for, including age verification for purchase, child-resistant and non-youth-appealing packaging, mandatory third-party testing and clearer distinctions between product categories. Without these guardrails, he warns, removing compliant companies from the market would leave consumers more vulnerable, not safer.

If the policy moves forward unchanged, Winstanley says regulated, transparent brands would disappear, while unregulated sellers would continue operating. Consumers seeking familiar products may turn to untested or misleading alternatives, including imported or synthetic compounds that fall outside U.S. oversight. This outcome, he argues, would undermine domestic farmers, disrupt an American supply chain and increase reliance on foreign sources with fewer safety controls.

Ultimately, Winstanley frames the debate as a choice between thoughtful regulation and unintended harm. In his view, eliminating an entire category without replacement safeguards would not reduce risk but instead push consumers toward a less transparent and more dangerous marketplace, precisely the outcome policy makers are trying to avoid.