Hemp, Food, and the Courts: Reviewing California’s Bold ban on Intoxicating Hemp Products
This article reviews Cheech and Chong Go to Court: Legal Challenges to California’s Prohibition of Hemp in Food Products by Jordan Paraise published in INDIANA INT’L & COMP. LAW REVIEW [Vol. 35:283] ($34.95)
The debate over hemp in food has taken center stage in California, where regulators and industry groups are clashing over whether intoxicating hemp products belong in the grocery aisle. In “Cheech and Chong Go to Court: Legal Challenges to California’s Prohibition of Hemp in Food Products” (Indiana International & Comparative Law Review), Professor Jordan Paradise, JD provides an in-depth look at the legal landscape shaping this high-stakes issue.
This review unpacks the article’s main contributions, places them in context with recent cannabis regulation debates, and highlights where the conversation is headed next.
Key Takeaways from the Article
Federal vs. State Conflicts
Despite decades of calls to reschedule or decriminalize cannabis, federal inaction left space for states like California to regulate hemp-derived products.
The DEA’s proposed rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III raises questions about how hemp foods, often marketed as dietary supplements, fit into FDA oversight
The Hemp Loophole
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp containing <0.3% Δ9-THC on a dry weight basis, but failed to address total cannabinoid content or synthetic cannabinoids (e.g., delta-8 THC). This opened the door to “intoxicating hemp” products being sold as candy, beverages, and snacks.
California’s Emergency Regulations
California now bans hemp food products with detectable THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids, imposes a 21+ age restriction, and sets strict serving size limits
The hemp industry—including Cheech and Chong’s own licensing company—sued, but a state court refused to block enforcement.
Public Health Framing
Regulators justified the rules with concerns about hospitalizations related to intoxication events, accidental pediatric ingestion, and misleading marketing practices.
This aligns with the FDA’s repeated warnings that cannabinoids have not been approved as food additives or dietary supplements.
How This Connects to Broader Cannabis Policy
Professor Paradise’s analysis resonates with broader debates I’ve written about on Marcu Enterprises:
The Role of the FDA in Defining Cannabis and Hemp – My article in Cannabis Innovations explores how federal agencies like FDA and DEA shape the regulatory patchwork (Watch here)..
Estimating the Vast Potential of Cannabis Products – An exploration of just how many product variations exist—and why oversight matters (read here).
Hemp has Gourmet Food Potential - The culinary world is always on the lookout for ingredients that not only enhance flavor but also add nutritional value. Hemp, particularly its seeds and seed oil, have emerged as a game-changing ingredient in gourmet food, offering both health benefits and a unique taste profile. (Read more)
These discussions connect directly to hemp food policy: the tension between innovation, safety, and enforcement is the recurring theme.
Final Thoughts
Professor Paradise’s article makes clear: hemp in food is not a “harmless loophole” but a regulatory flashpoint. California’s restrictive stance may foreshadow national policy, especially as Congress revisits the Farm Bill. For industry stakeholders, researchers, and public health advocates, understanding these developments is essential.
As I’ve argued in multiple places, the future of cannabis regulation will hinge on balance: encouraging innovation while protecting consumers. The hemp food debate is where that balancing act is being tested most visibly.
