Whole Circle Farms’ Comments on Oregon HB 4121

Subject: Public Comments on Proposed OLCC Hemp Product Registry Rules
October 29, 2025
Nicole Blossé, Rules Coordinator
Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission
[email protected]

I am writing to submit public comments on the proposed rules for the Hemp Product Registry under HB 4121, as outlined in the OLCC’s rulemaking package. As a small hemp farmer and owner of Whole Circle Farms, I have been deeply affected by the ongoing regulatory changes in Oregon’s hemp industry. We were one of the first hemp license holders in Oregon, obtaining our license in 2015, and have witnessed firsthand the industry’s growth followed by its decline, which I believe is partly due to over regulation. I urge the OLCC to reconsider aspects of these rules to prevent further devastation to small farmers and businesses like mine.

Our Journey Since 2015: A Decade of Escalating Barriers

Whole Circle Farms has been committed to sustainable organic hemp production since our inception in 2015, one of the very first licensed hemp operations in the state. From day one, we faced a new permit, fee, or inspection nearly every year, each with an escalating cost. What began as a modest license fee and basic reporting requirements grew into an ever-expanding web of compliance obligations.

After the 2018 Farm Bill boom, thousands of new entrants flooded the market. When many of those operations failed or exited, the remaining small-scale producers like us were left to shoulder the full weight of the regulatory infrastructure. Our fees were increased to cover the shortfall, even as our revenues declined.

Just last year, Oregon introduced a “new vendor’s license” that every retailer even a small gift shop or health food store must purchase simply to carry a hemp or CBD product. Imagine approaching a local boutique to stock our CBD salve for arthritis relief, only to tell them: “Oh, by the way, you now need to pay the state for a special license just to put this on your shelf.” There is no documented public health crisis tied to hemp or CBD, yet this requirement treats a safe, plant-based remedy like a controlled substance. It doesn’t protect consumers; it generates revenue at the expense of small businesses and stifles distribution.

This pattern of layering new fees and licenses has turned a promising agricultural opportunity into a financial trap. The cost of participation has long outpaced any profit, and these proposed rules represent the latest and potentially final blow to small farmers who have carried this industry from the beginning.

Background and Personal Impact

The cumulative burden of these regulations has made it increasingly difficult to operate profitably. Compliance costs, testing, labeling, registration fees, vendor licenses, and enforcement risks have far outpaced potential profits. Over regulation has created an environment where small operations struggle to survive, turning what should be a viable agricultural commodity into an unsustainable venture. Oregon has historically been a state that supports small businesses and innovative agriculture, yet these rules risk undermining that legacy by treating hemp more like a value added, high risk product rather than the agricultural commodity it truly is.

Furthermore, hemp-derived cannabinoid products are functionally equivalent to dietary supplements sold nationwide with little to no state-level oversight. The supplement industry operates under federal DSHEA guidelines with no mandatory product registration, no per SKU fees, no state specific testing mandates, and no threat of per unit penalties, yet it manages to provide safe, consumable products at scale.

In fact, when we encountered a supplement falsely labeled “organic” without the USDA seal or any proof of certification, we tried to report it. Our USDA accredited certifier directed us to the Oregon Department of Agriculture; the ODA told us they have no authority over dietary supplements. It was a regulatory dead end.

This real world example shows that even blatant mislabeling in the supplement space faces zero state enforcement while Oregon now proposes to crush small hemp operators with fees, per unit penalties, and mandatory registration for the exact same compounds. Oregon’s proposed rules impose a far heavier regulatory burden on hemp than on supplements containing identical or similar compounds, creating an unfair and anticompetitive disadvantage for Oregon farmers and manufacturers.

Specific Concerns and Recommendations

Drawing from discussions in recent industry meetings, including those hosted by the Oregon Healthy Alternatives Association, I share the following concerns and suggestions:

1. Enforcement and Penalties (Sections 6110 and 6120): The proposed per-unit violation structure appears overly aggressive and could lead to rapid escalation of penalties, disproportionately affecting small farmers. I recommend shifting to a batch based violation system to avoid destroying entire inventories due to minor or unintentional issues, such as diverted products intended for out of state markets. Additionally, incorporate a 30 day cure period before issuing penalties to allow operators time to address compliance without immediate financial ruin.
2. Fees and Implementation Timeline (Section on Registration Fees): The $400 per-product registration fee is burdensome for small businesses with diverse or limited product lines. This, combined with the January 1st implementation timeline, does not provide adequate time for adaptation. I propose reducing the fee and introducing a sliding scale based on business size or production volume to promote small farms. For example, smaller operations (e.g., under a certain acreage or revenue threshold) could pay reduced fees.
3. Testing and Labeling Standards (Section 6030): Requiring ORLAP accredited labs duplicates efforts and increases costs, particularly for producers serving out-of-state markets. Advocate for alignment with federal standards, such as those from ASTM, to reduce redundant testing and cash flow strains. Labeling requirements should also adopt national standards rather than mirroring Oregon’s cannabis practices, which add unnecessary complexity and expense for small producers.
4. Overall Regulatory Approach, these rules extend the authority granted under HB 3000, contributing to a “massive license die off” in the industry. Oregon’s approach risks creating a “failed cannabis industry 2.0” by treating hemp as de facto marijuana, discouraging investment and driving businesses out of state. When compared to the supplement industry’s light touch federal regulation and the complete absence of state enforcement for mislabeling Oregon’s rules are disproportionate and punitive. I urge the OLCC to scale back enforcement capacity and prioritize collaboration with the industry to foster growth rather than hinder it. Hemp should be regulated as an agricultural commodity, not a highly controlled substance, to support small farms and economic opportunities in rural Oregon.

In summary, these proposed rules exacerbate the challenges small hemp farmers face, making it nearly impossible to continue operations amid rising costs and declining profits. After a decade of increasing fees, licenses, and oversight often with no corresponding public health justification, small producers like Whole Circle Farms are at a breaking point. By implementing a sliding scale for fees, extending timelines, aligning with federal standards, and recognizing the supplement industry’s successful model of minimal oversight, the OLCC can better support small businesses while maintaining necessary oversight.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope these suggestions will be considered to preserve Oregon’s hemp industry.

Sincerely,
Rochelle Koch
Owner, Whole Circle Farms
[email protected]