By Aaron SchatzowThe US hemp industry has grown steadily over the past two decades, but it has been plagued by a growing concern over the potential impact on the environment.
The industry is increasingly exporting hemp products, and hemp-processing plants have emerged as key parts of that process.
However, the issue has become especially acute as the US has transitioned from using cotton as its primary crop to the importation of more hemp products.
This shift has been accompanied by increased use of pesticides, and environmental regulations have become more restrictive.
The result: The US has not only become a destination for hemp exports, but the country is also seeing a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of this.
As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ordered states to increase their efforts to reduce emissions from their growing hemp crop.
In March, the EPA released a list of requirements for states to comply with the rules.
The EPA said it had “further reviewed” the requirements, which include: A ban on hemp production and cultivation; The addition of “special conditions” to the crop for use in processing; Implementing a system to ensure that “all hemp production operations” are using “safe, certified, and pest-free” products.
The list of “safe” products is based on a review of the science on hemp and other crops that has been developed by the EPA.
While the rules require that all hemp production facilities be at least 50% certified by the National Hemp Commission, that number is very low compared to the size of the US economy.
The US hemp economy is estimated to be worth about $6.5 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, so the vast majority of the industry is going to need to grow its production to be profitable.
“I would not be surprised if the EPA’s decision is that it’s really a way to protect the farmers and the processors who do the work that’s going to be required,” Robert McBride, president of the Hemp Industries Association, told the Washington Post.
Hemp is grown by a variety of growers, including in California, Oregon, Montana, Arizona, and New Mexico.
The majority of these are small operations, with farmers and processors growing the crop in the most efficient ways possible.
California and Oregon are the two states where the largest amount of hemp is grown.
Both states have passed legislation that requires the use of the most toxic pesticides.
These regulations are aimed at minimizing the environmental impact on local ecosystems and the public health of their populations.
Environmental groups have also been pushing to loosen the regulations, arguing that it would be a waste of resources to continue with these rules.
“It’s a waste to put up with this toxic pesticide spraying,” Joe Romm, director of communications for the Hemp Industry Association, said to the Washington Times.
Romm said the EPA regulations would make it “more difficult to grow and protect our crops” and would ultimately result in less hemp being exported.
At the same time, the government has been pushing for stricter regulations, saying the government will not be able to do its job properly unless it has access to data on the amount of emissions that are being generated.
“We can’t have all the answers,” said Richard Besser, director for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), according to Reuters.
“And we’re really just asking the government to come to the table and negotiate with us and come to an agreement.
That’s really what we’re asking.”
According to the EPA, the regulations would “create more opportunities for polluters to pollute the air and water.”
The agency said that by the time the regulations take effect, the US will be “less dependent on imports of hemp, and more dependent on domestic hemp growers who can produce the hemp we need to meet our domestic needs.”
Habstrakt, the Hemp and Hemp Industries Council, said the rules are “dangerous and unnecessary.”
The group argues that “a moratorium on hemp exports would only delay and delay” the hemp industry’s transition to an entirely different product.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.