HR-10079-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Beth Van Duyne (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would establish a federal regulatory framework for hemp-derived beverages containing naturally-occurring cannabinoids (like THC and CBD), overriding a per-container THC limit set in a 2026 appropriations law. It would create a three-tiered manufacturer-wholesaler-retailer distribution system modeled on alcohol regulation, require permits from the Treasury's Tax and Trade Bureau, set labeling and advertising rules, set the minimum purchase age at 21, and regulate these beverages as food under the FDA while imposing a new excise tax of 8 cents per milligram of intoxicating THC content.
Who benefits
Hemp-derived beverage manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers who gain a clear federal regulatory pathway and permit system; beverage companies that had faced uncertainty from the stricter per-container THC cap in the 2026 appropriations law; alcohol-industry-style distributors positioned to operate in the new three-tier system; consumers who want access to labeled, tested THC beverages; and the federal government, which gains new excise tax revenue.
Who is hurt
Producers of intermediate hemp cannabinoid products who must now navigate new permitting and containment restrictions; small manufacturers unable to afford compliance, testing, and multi-tier permitting costs; public health advocates and some state regulators concerned about intoxicating beverages being classified as ordinary food products; consumers who ultimately pay the new per-milligram excise tax through higher prices; and companies excluded from holding permits in more than one distribution tier, which could disadvantage vertically integrated small businesses relative to larger separated-tier operators.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill brings much-needed regulatory clarity to a rapidly growing hemp beverage market that has operated in a legal gray area, replacing an overly restrictive per-container THC cap with serving-based limits, mandatory testing, age verification, and labeling requirements modeled on well-established alcohol regulation. They contend this protects consumers from unregulated, potentially mislabeled products while still preserving state and tribal authority to impose stricter rules or bans, and that the new excise tax creates a sustainable funding mechanism for oversight.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill effectively legalizes and normalizes a new class of intoxicating consumer beverages by classifying THC drinks as ordinary food rather than subjecting them to the same scrutiny as alcohol or drugs, potentially increasing youth and public access to psychoactive products. They contend the three-tier permitting system and testing requirements could still be costly enough to favor large, well-capitalized manufacturers over small hemp producers, and that overriding the more restrictive THC limits Congress just enacted in the 2026 appropriations law undermines recently established safety guardrails before they could take effect.
Constitutional context
Congress regulates hemp-derived beverage manufacturing, interstate distribution, and imposes the new excise tax under its Commerce Clause and Taxing and Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cls. 1 and 3); the bill explicitly preserves state and tribal regulatory authority, avoiding the anti-commandeering and preemption issues seen in other consumer product contexts.
Checks and balances
Congress delegates significant rulemaking authority to the Treasury's Tax and Trade Bureau, FDA/HHS, and jointly to multiple agencies to set testing, labeling, permitting, and serving-size standards, with courts able to review these regulations post-Loper Bright without automatic deference, and Congress retaining oversight through mandatory annual reporting requirements.
Historical precedent
The bill's three-tier distribution and permitting model directly mirrors the existing federal regulatory structure for alcohol under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, though direct federal regulation of hemp-derived intoxicating beverages as a distinct product category has no close historical precedent.