Hemp in Brazil: Technical notes pave the way for agricultural regulation

The debate surrounding hemp in Brazil is beginning to take on new dimensions within the federal government itself. Two technical notes produced in 2026 place at the center of the discussion a question that could define the future of this production chain in the country: is it possible to treat hemp as a specific agricultural crop, regulatorily separated from varieties of Cannabis sativa L. with significant THC expression?

On one hand, a technical note from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) acknowledges the existence of a regulatory gap for industrial hemp and suggests the development of specific rules for the crop. The document considers as elements of a future regulation a definition based on THC content, agricultural licensing, traceability, inspection, and the industrial destination of production.

On the other hand, the Conselho Federal de Química (CFQ) presents a chemical-scientific rationale stating that analytical instruments exist that can differentiate industrial hemp from other cannabis chemotypes and monitor its compliance throughout the production chain.

Together, the documents put on the table not only the possibility of regulating hemp, but also which tools could be utilized by the State to control prospective Brazilian production.

MAPA acknowledges gap at the beginning of the chain

Technical Note No. 2/2026, issued by the Social Participation and Diversity Advisory Office of the Cabinet of the Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, specifically analyzes the “regulatory gap concerning industrial hemp” and proposes guidelines for its regulation. After all, what is this discussion about hemp in Brazil?

The central point raised by the document is that the Brazilian normative framework does not yet adequately differentiate high-THC varieties of Cannabis sativa L. from low-THC varieties intended for non-psychoactive and non-pharmaceutical uses.

According to the note, the absence of this distinction prevents hemp from being legally recognized as a distinct agricultural crop, despite its agronomic characteristics and economic purposes.

The problem lies particularly in the first link of the hemp chain in Brazil.

The document notes that existing regulations focus on sanitary control, derivatives, end products, and pharmaceutical inputs, while lacking a specific framework for the agricultural cultivation of hemp that establishes licensing mechanisms, agronomic inspection, THC limits, traceability, and control of primary production.

In the assessment presented by the note, this gap has a direct impact on the development of agro-industrial activities associated with hemp.

Generic prohibition may limit industry and research

MAPA's analysis goes beyond identifying the legal gap.

The note argues that maintaining a blanket prohibition on the plant, without distinction based on purpose or composition, generates legal uncertainty, dependency on imported inputs, and restrictions on national productive development, scientific research, and agro-industrial innovation.

The understanding presented is that a specific regime could simultaneously enable a monitored economic activity and enhance the State's inspection capacity.

This is an important point for the regulatory debate: in the view expressed by the document, regulating hemp in Brazil should not be interpreted as simply removing controls.

The conclusion itself states that specific regulation should be understood as a measure of “qualifying state control,” and not as an unwarranted easing of drug policy.

Is it technically possible to separate hemp from high-THC cannabis?

It is precisely on this issue that the technical note from the Conselho Federal de Química adds another layer to the debate.

Produced by CFQ's Support Committee for the Chemical Input Production Chain, the document aims to provide chemical background to MAPA for a possible specific regulation of industrial hemp.

The analysis is based on the classification of cannabis into three major chemotypes: THC-dominant, intermediate THC/CBD, and CBD-dominant, the latter being associated by the document with industrial hemp.

According to the CFQ, metabolomic studies show that differentiation is not restricted solely to the isolated amount of a single cannabinoid. Profiles of minor cannabinoids, terpenes, and phenolic compounds also form chemical signatures linked to the plant's genetic background.

In practice, this means that a future regulatory inspection would not necessarily need to look at a plant and merely ask, “how much THC is in here?” A broader system of identification, certification, and monitoring could be established.

A chemical identity for the plant

Among the possibilities presented by the CFQ is the use of “chemical signatures” or fingerprints.

Chromatographic techniques combined with spectral and spectrometric detectors can produce reproducible chemical profiles capable of aiding in cultivar identification and differentiation between chemotypes.

The technical proposal presented involves three pillars: genetic characterization of propagating material, prior establishment of a reference chromatographic signature for each cultivar, and periodic monitoring of THC and other cannabinoids.

The system could also include a national database of chemical profiles and chain-of-custody records from propagating material to harvest.

In theory, this would create the conditions to audit the origin of the material and verify whether a given production remains within the parameters established by the regulation.

THC limit enters the center of the discussion

THC content appears as one of the most critical points in both documents.

The CFQ note highlights the limit of 0.3% Δ⁹-THC in dry matter as an internationally adopted benchmark, citing the United States, Canada, and the European Union. The document also maintains that this parameter can be measured by validated analytical methodologies.

The graph presented on page 3 of the note illustrates this difference: while chemotype I appears as THC-dominant, chemotype III, associated with hemp, shows a predominance of CBD/CBDA and residual THC.

However, MAPA's note introduces a question particularly relevant to Brazil.

By recommending that a future definition of hemp be based on THC content, the Ministry suggests that this limit be “adjusted for tropical agriculture countries with higher solar incidence”.

The document, however, does not establish what that percentage should be.

This opens an important technical discussion: if Brazil moves toward agricultural regulation of hemp, it will be necessary to decide not only whether there will be a THC limit, but what that limit will be, how sampling will be conducted, at what stage of the crop analysis will take place, and what procedures will be adopted in the event of non-compliance.

Can climate turn hemp into THC-dominant cannabis?

Another point addressed by the CFQ is the environmental influence on cannabinoid concentration.

The note acknowledges that environmental factors can quantitatively alter cannabinoid production. However, it argues that this influence occurs within a genetically determined biosynthetic architecture.

According to the document, the hypothesis that a CBD-dominant cultivar spontaneously transforms into a THC-dominant plant solely due to environmental conditions finds no consistent support in the analyzed genetic literature.

This does not mean an absence of risk.

The CFQ identifies cross-pollination with THC-dominant cultivars as one of the main concerns, as it can introduce genetic traits capable of altering the phytochemical profile of subsequent generations.

To mitigate this issue, measures such as certified seeds or previously validated clones, geographic isolation, control of genetic origin, periodic THC testing, and chemical signature databases are cited.

Hemp can also be differentiated in the field

The differences are not confined to the laboratory.

The CFQ points out morphoagronomic characteristics associated with different cultivation purposes.

Hemp cultivars in Brazil intended for fiber production tend, according to the note, to display taller stature, elongated internodes, less lateral branching, and lower floral density, with management directed toward fibrous biomass or seeds.

Conversely, plants selected for inflorescence production tend to feature a more compact architecture, greater branching, and higher density of resinous flowers, with management focused on maximizing trichomes and floral biomass.

In the Council's technical assessment, therefore, differentiation should not rely exclusively on an isolated reading of THC concentration, but jointly consider chemical, genetic, and agronomic characteristics.

What a Brazilian regulation could entail

Based on the two documents, a possible framework—not yet an approved regulation—is beginning to emerge for a Brazilian industrial hemp chain.

The proposal outlined by MAPA involves a THC-based definition, agricultural authorization and licensing, traceability, inspection, mandatory industrial destination, and the integration of hemp into productive development, innovation, and agricultural sustainability policies.

The CFQ adds tools that could make this control technically feasible: certified seeds or propagating materials, genetic characterization, chromatographic fingerprints, periodic testing, metrological traceability, and a chemical profile database.

In its technical-chemical conclusion, the Council considers a specific regulatory framework for industrial hemp within agricultural authorities to be technically feasible, given that differentiation could be established through verifiable and auditable quantitative criteria.

The debate is now also economic regarding hemp in Brazil

The discussion presented by the documents is not limited to medical cannabis.

MAPA's note cites the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) when referring to hemp as a multipurpose agricultural crop and an input for industrial supply chains, with potential tied to value addition, innovation, and sustainability.

This changes the scope of the Brazilian discussion.

If specific regulation moves forward, the debate ceases to be focused solely on the sanitary control of cannabis-derived products and expands to encompass agriculture, plant genetics, seeds, laboratories, traceability, industrial processing, and agricultural inspection.

The documents, however, do not establish this regulation nor do they, on their own, authorize the commercial cultivation of hemp in Brazil.

What they do is establish two essential pieces for the discussion: MAPA acknowledges a regulatory gap and proposes guidelines to address it; the CFQ maintains that scientific and analytical tools exist to differentiate and control hemp in Brazil with an industrial focus.