A Memo on the Hemp Industry Shift
LEGAL MEMORANDUM ON UPCOMING CHANGES TO FEDERAL HEMP LAW
RE: Federal Redefinition of Hemp, Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Products, and Industrial Hemp; FDA Mandates; and Implications for Oklahoma Cannabis and Hemp Operators
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary
II. Issues Presented
III. Background
IV. Statutory Interpretation and Analysis
A. New Federal Definition of Hemp
B. Excluded Categories (No Longer Hemp)
C. Definition and Limits of Industrial Hemp
D. Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Products
E. FDA Mandate (Within 90 Days)
V. Federal Enforcement Consequences
A. Controlled Substances Act
B. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
C. Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act Exposure
VI. Oklahoma-Specific Analysis
A. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA)
B. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF)
C. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (OBNDD)
D. Oklahoma Criminal Code Implications
E. Oklahoma Risk Assessment
F. Oklahoma Practice Advisory and Recommendations
VII. Legislative Intent and National Impact
VIII. Additional Considerations and Strategic Planning
A. Transition Timing, Existing Inventory, and Implementation Period
B. Contractual and Financing Implications
C. Civil Liability, Consumer Claims, and Insurance Coverage
D. Laboratory Testing and Evidentiary Standards
E. Employment, HR, and Professional-Licensing Ramifications
F. Tribal, Local, and Interstate Dynamics
G. Interaction with Future Federal Cannabis Policy
H. Compliance Documentation, Internal Controls, and Communication Strategy
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent federal statutory language fundamentally redefines “hemp,” “industrial hemp,” and “hemp‑derived cannabinoid products,” effectively eliminating intoxicating hemp products from lawful federal commerce, outlawing synthetic or converted cannabinoids (including Delta‑8 THC, Delta‑10 THC, THC‑O, THCP, HHC, and similar materials), and imposing strict THC limits in finished products (no more than 0.4 mg combined THC and similar‑effect cannabinoids per container). These changes represent the most sweeping federal intervention into cannabinoid markets since the 2018 Farm Bill and will reshape the national hemp industry. Industry groups such as the U.S. Hemp Roundtable have warned publicly that the amendment may eliminate up to ninety-five percent of the existing market and jeopardize more than 300,000 jobs nationwide.
The new definitions also create substantial criminal exposure under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) for manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and transporters whose products fall within the new exclusions. This memorandum analyzes the statutory language, discusses the mandatory FDA cannabinoid classification lists due within 90 days, and outlines practical impacts for Oklahoma hemp processors, OMMA licensees, OBNDD‑registered entities, law enforcement, and the broader cannabis ecosystem.
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
1. How does the new federal statutory language redefine “hemp” and which products are newly excluded from that category?
2. How does the law differentiate “industrial hemp” from hemp‑derived cannabinoid products?
3. What federal regulatory and enforcement consequences arise from these changes, including under the CSA and FDCA?
4. How do these federal shifts interact with Oklahoma’s regulatory structure, including OMMA, OBNDD, and state criminal statutes governing THC?
5. What compliance obligations and risk‑mitigation strategies should Oklahoma businesses adopt immediately?
III. BACKGROUND
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp defined as Cannabis sativa L. and derivatives containing no more than 0.3% Δ9‑THC on a dry‑weight basis. That framework unintentionally created a national intoxicating‑hemp market driven by chemical conversion of CBD into Delta‑8 THC and similar cannabinoids. States, including Oklahoma, experienced widespread proliferation of unregulated intoxicants, with inconsistent enforcement. The new federal statutory language closes these gaps and recharacterizes most intoxicating hemp products as federally illegal.
IV. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS
A. NEW FEDERAL DEFINITION OF HEMP
The statute limits hemp to Cannabis sativa L. and derivatives containing no more than 0.3% total tetrahydrocannabinols (THC + THCA) on a dry‑weight basis. While this appears similar to prior law, the definitional exclusions dramatically narrow the category.
B. EXCLUDED CATEGORIES (NO LONGER HEMP)
Hemp expressly excludes:
Viable seeds from plants exceeding 0.3% total THC;
Any intermediate product containing cannabinoids not naturally occurring in cannabis;
Any cannabinoid that is naturally occurring but was synthesized or manufactured outside the plant, including Delta‑8 THC, Delta‑10 THC, HHC, THC‑O, THCP, and other converted cannabinoids;
Intermediate products containing >0.3% combined total THC and “similar‑effect cannabinoids” (a new FDA‑determined category);
Intermediate products marketed as consumer‑ready;
Final products exceeding 0.4 mg total THC and similar‑effect cannabinoids per container.
C. INDUSTRIAL HEMP
Industrial hemp is now limited to:
Fiber, stalk, hurd, and non‑cannabinoid derivatives;
Grain (including oil, cake, hulls);
Leaf microgreens from immature plants grown from compliant seeds;
Academic/research plants not entering commerce;
Seeds produced solely for the above purposes.
This effectively removes cannabinoid isomer extraction from industrial hemp. Enforcement of the new “fiber-only” industrial hemp category will focus less on labels and more on actual use, supply chain, and infrastructure. Federally, USDA and ODAFF will police who may call a crop “industrial hemp” through licensing, pre-harvest testing, movement permits, and destruction orders, while OBNDD, DEA, and local law enforcement will step in whenever purported “fiber” or “grain” material is in fact feeding a cannabinoid supply chain. In practice, regulators will look at genetics and planting patterns (true fiber/grain cultivars versus resinous cannabinoid cultivars), the equipment and processes used (decortication, milling, feed or materials manufacturing versus extraction and distillation), the nature of the finished products (textiles, building materials, feed, food ingredients versus oils, distillates, vapes, or edibles), and the identity of customers (industrial and ag buyers versus vape shops and “wellness” brands). If “industrial hemp” materially functions as an input for cannabinoid products, agencies are likely to treat the operation as outside the industrial hemp safe harbor and instead as marijuana or controlled-substance activity subject to OMMA/OBNDD and CSA enforcement.
D. HEMP-DERIVED CANNABINOID PRODUCTS
Defined as cannabinoids meant for human or animal use via inhalation, ingestion, or topical application. Includes intermediate and final products. Intermediate products include: Extracts, distillates, isolates, oils, tincture bases, powders, and pre‑final formulations. Final products include: Smokable flower, vapes, edibles, beverages, tinctures, capsules, topicals. Any final product with >0.4 mg total THC/similar‑effect cannabinoids is excluded from “hemp” and thus federally illegal.
E. FDA MANDATE (WITHIN 90 DAYS)
FDA must publish:
List of cannabinoids naturally produced by cannabis;
List of naturally occurring THC‑class cannabinoids;
List of cannabinoids with similar or marketed‑similar effects to THC;
Clarification of “container.”
These lists will determine which cannabinoids are lawful.
V. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT CONSEQUENCES
A. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
Products excluded from the definition of hemp revert to the definition of marijuana or controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 802. Manufacturers engaged in cannabinoid conversion, retailers selling intoxicating hemp products, transporters moving such products in interstate commerce, and online sellers shipping excluded cannabinoid products into restrictive jurisdictions all face renewed felony exposure under the CSA. The statutory change will substantially weaken “Farm Bill” defenses that have been raised in both criminal and civil contexts.
B. FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
Most hemp-derived cannabinoid products, as currently formulated and marketed, will be treated as unapproved drugs, misbranded products, or adulterated foods under the FDCA. FDA now has explicit statutory backing to regulate these products more aggressively, particularly where intoxicating or non-naturally occurring cannabinoids are present.
C. MONEY LAUNDERING AND BANK SECRECY ACT EXPOSURE
Businesses that continue to handle converted or excluded cannabinoids risk not only CSA exposure but also liability under federal money-laundering statutes and Bank Secrecy Act obligations. Financial institutions providing services to such businesses will face enhanced due diligence burdens, and operators will encounter increased difficulty securing traditional banking, payment processing, and investment capital.
VI. OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
A. THE OKLAHOMA MEDICAL MARIJUANA AUTHORITY (OMMA)
Although OMMA does not regulate hemp or hemp-derived products, the federal redefinition of hemp materially affects OMMA licensees. Governor Kevin Stitt’s July 2023 THCA memorandum directed all state agencies (including OMMA, OBNDD, and ODAFF) to treat THCA as equivalent to THC for regulatory and enforcement purposes, consistent with the DEA’s interpretation that THCA converts to delta-9 THC upon decarboxylation. The new federal statute adopts this same total tetrahydrocannabinols standard. As a result, cannabis material containing THCA but measuring below 0.3 percent delta-9 THC no longer qualifies as hemp under federal law and therefore constitutes marijuana under both federal and Oklahoma law.
This has immediate implications for OMMA processors. A processor licensed under the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority may not acquire, mix, or incorporate any cannabinoid material that falls outside the federal definition of hemp. This includes any intermediate material containing greater than 0.3 percent total tetrahydrocannabinols, any cannabinoids produced by synthetic conversion, and any cannabis product that does not meet the strict statutory definition of hemp.
OMMA processors may not “legalize” excluded cannabinoid products by blending them with marijuana-derived materials. OMMA’s authority is confined to marijuana grown and transferred within the OMMA-regulated supply chain, and any incorporation of federally illegal cannabinoids would constitute handling of a Schedule I substance outside the statutory scheme governing Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program.
The proliferation of THCA-dominant hemp flower in Oklahoma retail settings will now be treated uniformly with OMMA’s existing interpretation. THCA flower and other isomers are no longer hemp under federal law and cannot be sold outside the licensed marijuana marketplace. Retail possession and distribution of such material constitutes possession or distribution of marijuana or a controlled substance under Oklahoma law. OMMA has no jurisdiction over these retailers; however, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (“OBNDD”) and local law enforcement agencies retain full authority to enforce these provisions.
B. THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD, AND FORESTRY (ODAFF)
ODAFF administers the Oklahoma Industrial Hemp Program pursuant to the Oklahoma Hemp Production Act, 2 O.S. § 3-401 et seq., and the associated administrative rules codified at OAC 35:30-31. These provisions were adopted in alignment with the 2018 Farm Bill and incorporate the federal definition of hemp by reference. Under the new federal statutory language, a substantial portion of hemp previously cultivated under ODAFF licensure will no longer qualify as hemp and must therefore be treated as medical marijuana under OMMA licensure. ODAFF is required to enforce federal hemp production standards as a condition of maintaining a USDA-approved state hemp production plan.
ODAFF’s regulatory authority includes field registration, GPS staking requirements, pre-harvest sampling, THC compliance testing, issuance of movement permits, and mandatory crop destruction procedures for non-compliant material. The new federal definition dramatically expands what constitutes non-compliant hemp, because any plant or derivative exceeding 0.3 percent total tetrahydrocannabinols or containing excluded cannabinoids (whether naturally occurring or synthesized) falls outside the statutory definition of hemp. ODAFF must therefore require destruction of any crop or intermediate material that no longer satisfies federal criteria. Moreover, the narrowing of lawful industrial hemp to fiber, grain, non-cannabinoid derivatives, research plants not entering commerce, and microgreens produced from compliant seed will effectively eliminate cannabinoid-oriented hemp cultivation in Oklahoma.
ODAFF is expected to revise its sampling and analytical procedures to measure total tetrahydrocannabinols, including THCA, and to adopt federal guidance identifying similar-effect cannabinoids and excluded substances. Given the new federal structure, ODAFF’s enforcement obligations will become clearer and more expansive, particularly regarding hemp cultivars marketed for smokable flower or cannabinoid extraction.
C. THE OKLAHOMA BUREAU OF NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS CONTROL (OBNDD)
OBNDD maintains jurisdiction over controlled substances under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, 63 O.S. § 2-101 et seq. OBNDD has consistently taken the position that synthetic cannabinoids, including Delta-8 THC, Delta-10 THC, THC-O acetate, HHC, THCP, and similar substances, constitute Schedule I controlled dangerous substances. The new federal statutory language reinforces and broadens OBNDD’s authority because any cannabinoid not naturally occurring in the cannabis plant, or any cannabinoid that is naturally occurring but manufactured or synthesized outside the plant, is excluded from the federal definition of hemp and therefore reverts to Schedule I status under both federal and Oklahoma law.
In practical terms, OBNDD will treat all converted cannabinoids, THCA-dominant hemp products, and any intermediate extract exceeding 0.3 percent total THC as controlled substances. This applies to manufacturers, distributors, online sellers, gas stations, smoke shops, wholesalers, and transporters. Any entity handling such substances must hold an OBNDD registration authorizing the handling of Schedule I controlled substances. Enforcement activity is expected to increase significantly, particularly in the areas of inspections, seizures of excluded cannabinoid products, administrative citations, license revocations, and criminal prosecution.
D. OKLAHOMA CRIMINAL CODE IMPLICATIONS
Oklahoma’s criminal statutes define marijuana and controlled dangerous substances more broadly than the 2018 Farm Bill. Under 63 O.S. § 2-101, marijuana includes all parts of the cannabis plant other than mature stalks and certain exempted materials. Synthetic cannabinoids are categorically classified as Schedule I substances under 63 O.S. § 2-204. Law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma have already made arrests relating to Delta-8 and other synthetic cannabinoid products, relying on state scheduling laws as well as OBNDD administrative interpretations.
The new federal statute strengthens probable cause determinations, prosecution theories, and evidentiary standards because it eliminates reliance on the “Farm Bill loophole.” Retailers and processors can no longer argue that intoxicating hemp products fall within the definition of hemp. Prosecutors may now rely on federal exclusion language to establish that such products constitute illegal controlled substances under state law. This increases the likelihood of charges for (1) possession with intent to distribute, (2) distribution of controlled substances, and (3) unlawful manufacture which could lead to trafficking.
E. OKLAHOMA RISK ASSESSMENT
Under the new federal framework, operators in Oklahoma face materially different levels of legal exposure. Activities involving converted cannabinoids, THCA-dominant material, or intermediate extracts exceeding 0.3 percent total THC present the highest risk and are likely to trigger both administrative and criminal enforcement. Activities involving cannabidiol products, topicals, and industrial hemp fiber or grain production present lower but not negligible risk, particularly where contamination or mislabeling occurs. The overall risk environment has shifted decisively against hemp-derived intoxicating products, and the margin for error in handling such materials has narrowed considerably.
F. OKLAHOMA PRACTICE ADVISORY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Retailers, processors, growers, transporters, OMMA licensees, and OBNDD-registered entities should take immediate steps to bring their operations into alignment with the new federal definitions and with existing Oklahoma law. Retail establishments should discontinue the sale or storage of any cannabinoid product that no longer qualifies as hemp. Processors should cease all cannabinoid conversion activities and should avoid handling any intermediate material exceeding 0.3 percent total THC unless operating entirely within the OMMA-regulated marijuana supply chain. Growers should restrict operations to compliant industrial hemp (fiber, grain, research plants, and microgreens) and should maintain rigorous documentation of seed genetics and THC compliance. Transporters should ensure adherence to ODAFF-mandated movement permits and should avoid the transport of any product that risks classification as a controlled substance. OMMA and OBNDD licensees should update internal testing protocols to reflect total THC and should prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny. The combined effect of federal redefinition, state regulatory structure, and evolving enforcement policy requires immediate and comprehensive compliance planning.
VII. LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND NATIONAL IMPACT
The statutory amendments must also be understood in light of the broader legislative environment, public reporting, and the national narrative surrounding intoxicating hemp products. Although the definitional language itself is technical in nature, contemporary media coverage and statements from congressional leaders make clear that Congress intended a sweeping contraction of the hemp-derived cannabinoid market rather than a modest regulatory adjustment. Major national outlets, including ABC News, have characterized the provision as a “little-noticed ban” embedded within the federal spending bill that will “upend the THC industry” by prohibiting any product containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. This narrative emphasizes Congress’s goal of closing what has widely been described as the “Farm Bill loophole,” which allowed intoxicating synthetic cannabinoids to proliferate despite the intended limitations of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Statements from key legislators reinforce this interpretation. Senator Mitch McConnell, a senior member of the Senate Agriculture and Appropriations Committees and one of the original architects of federal hemp legalization, publicly denounced industry practices that “exploited” hemp production to create intoxicating substances. Attorneys general from dozens of states likewise urged Congress to intervene, asserting that the underregulated intoxicating-hemp market threatens public health and undermines law enforcement. These statements provide persuasive evidence of congressional intent to substantially restrict, if not eliminate, the commercial availability of hemp-derived intoxicants, including products historically marketed as Delta-8 THC, Delta-10 THC, THC-O, HHC, and THCA “hemp flower.”
Industry groups have projected severe economic consequences. The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has warned that the amendment may eliminate as much as ninety-five percent of the existing hemp market, jeopardize more than 300,000 jobs, and result in an estimated $1.5 billion loss in state tax revenue nationwide. Although such projections are not dispositions of law, they illustrate the magnitude of impact Congress understood and accepted when passing the amendment. Individual stakeholders, including small farmers and processors, have reported that their businesses may require complete wind-down within the next year as a practical matter, despite the absence of a formal federal safe-harbor period.
Taken together, this legislative and public context indicates a significant shift in federal policy. Federal and state regulators are likely to interpret and enforce the statute consistent with this broader narrative, treating the amendment not merely as a definitional clarification but as an affirmative mandate to curtail the intoxicating hemp industry. Such an environment will influence administrative discretion, inspection priorities, prosecutorial decision-making, judicial interpretation, and the conduct of financial institutions and insurers. Operators in Oklahoma should therefore anticipate a regulatory posture that favors aggressive enforcement and rapid realignment of market practices in conformity with congressional intent.
VIII. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS & STRATEGIC PLANNING
In addition to the statutory and regulatory implications described above, several broader legal and operational issues require immediate attention from Oklahoma operators. These matters do not arise directly from the definitional amendments but are unavoidable consequences of the federal shift and will materially affect risk exposure, business continuity, contractual relationships, and long-term compliance posture.
A. TRANSITION TIMING, EXISTING INVENTORY, AND IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD
The statutory amendments create an immediate divergence between current market practices and forthcoming federal requirements. The period between enactment and publication of FDA’s mandatory cannabinoid lists will generate uncertainty regarding which compounds constitute “similar-effect cannabinoids” and whether specific formulations remain lawful. Operators must therefore adopt a conservative approach to inventory, including clear documentation of the date on which production, possession, and distribution of newly excluded cannabinoid materials ceased. Failure to establish a defensible timeline may complicate future enforcement actions, inspections, or civil litigation. Businesses holding large quantities of intermediate extracts, distillates, or THCA-dominant flower must evaluate whether destruction, quarantine, or rapid sell-through (if still permissible under state law) is appropriate. Contractual obligations concerning pending shipments require particular attention, as transport of excluded cannabinoids following enactment may constitute a federal felony.
B. CONTRACTUAL AND FINANCING IMPLICATIONS
The new federal framework is likely to trigger disputes under existing commercial agreements, particularly where supply contracts, white-label manufacturing agreements, or distribution arrangements are premised on the continued legality of Delta-8, THCA flower, or similar intoxicating hemp products. Many such agreements contain compliance-with-law covenants, change-in-law provisions, material adverse effect provisions, or force-majeure clauses that may be invoked. Lenders and investors frequently require continuous compliance with applicable law as a condition of financing; an operator’s possession or sale of newly illegal cannabinoid materials risks constituting a technical default. Businesses should undertake immediate contract review to determine notification obligations to lenders, members, and investors, and to mitigate potential breach-of-contract claims. Reevaluation of business valuations in in-progress mergers or acquisitions may also be required where hemp-derived intoxicant revenue constituted a substantial portion of projected earnings.
C. CIVIL LIABILITY, CONSUMER CLAIMS, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE
The reclassification of intoxicating hemp products creates significant new avenues of civil liability. Plaintiffs may assert claims under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, negligence theories, and deceptive-trade-practice statutes on the grounds that products now deemed illegal were previously marketed as lawful “hemp.” Retailers and distributors may in turn seek indemnification or contribution from upstream manufacturers for losses tied to product seizures or civil litigation. Insurance carriers are likely to deny coverage for incidents involving federally illegal substances under controlled-substance exclusions or public-policy doctrines, and although some operators may obtain specialty policies (i.e. through Lloyd’s of London or post-COVID self-funded programs), such coverage is limited and prohibitively expensive. Operators manufacturing or selling hemp-derived intoxicants should anticipate potential class-action exposure, particularly where minors or vulnerable consumers are involved, and should maintain thorough documentation of updated compliance procedures to establish good-faith efforts in future litigation.
D. LABORATORY TESTING AND EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS
The statutory requirement to measure total tetrahydrocannabinols and identify similar-effect cannabinoids will substantially affect laboratory operations. Most current COA testing panels do not fully capture THCA conversion or detect a broad spectrum of emerging synthetic cannabinoids. Laboratories may lack validated methodologies for quantifying cannabinoids that will soon fall within FDA-published lists. This deficiency creates risk for operators who rely on COAs for compliance defenses, labeling representations, and supply-chain documentation. Operators should revise procurement standards to require updated testing protocols reflecting total THC calculations and HHS-designated similar-effect cannabinoids. These issues also affect criminal prosecutions and administrative actions, where chain-of-custody and analytical methodology will be scrutinized. Transition planning should include engagement with compliant laboratories, verification of testing methodology, and retention of updated COAs.
E. EMPLOYMENT, HR, AND PROFESSIONAL-LICENSING RAMIFICATIONS
The reclassification of intoxicating hemp materials also affects non-cannabis industries. Employers that previously permitted use or possession of “hemp” products in the workplace may need to revise policies, as those products may now be Schedule I controlled substances. Professional licensees—including healthcare providers, pharmacists, attorneys, and educators—may be exposed to licensing complaints if they recommend, distribute, or facilitate access to newly illegal products. Businesses must consider the employment and licensing consequences of inventory handling, product disposal, and employee-related possession or use of excluded cannabinoids. Updated employee handbooks, training materials, and disciplinary procedures may be warranted.
F. TRIBAL, LOCAL, AND INTERSTATE DYNAMICS
Oklahoma’s cannabis and hemp industries operate within a jurisdictional landscape that includes tribal territories, local governments, and interstate commerce. Enforcement priorities may differ between state and tribal jurisdictions, particularly where tribal entities operate under their own cannabis regulatory frameworks. Transporters moving cannabinoid products across state lines face heightened federal exposure, even where originating and destination states have permissive hemp statutes. Local governments may adopt zoning, nuisance, or permitting restrictions to curtail intoxicating-hemp storefronts or distribution hubs. Operators must evaluate all geographic footprints and transportation routes for federal and local risk points, and should update logistical plans accordingly.
G. INTERACTION WITH FUTURE FEDERAL CANNABIS POLICY
The federal redefinition of hemp occurs against a backdrop of ongoing federal reevaluation of marijuana’s scheduling status. If marijuana is rescheduled or descheduled while hemp-derived synthetics remain excluded from the definition of hemp, a regulatory inversion may occur whereby federally regulated THC products become easier to handle than hemp-derived synthetics, which remain Schedule I. Operators must monitor forthcoming rulemaking closely, as future administrative or congressional action could further reshape the compliance environment. The present amendments should be understood as part of a broader federal realignment of cannabinoid policy.
H. COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION, INTERNAL CONTROLS, AND COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Finally, operators should adopt a comprehensive compliance-documentation strategy. This includes drafting internal memoranda documenting the date on which production, sale, and possession of newly excluded cannabinoid products ceased; updating standard operating procedures, procurement guidelines, and inventory controls; and revising labeling, testing, and chain-of-custody protocols. For corporate governance purposes, members or boards should pass formal resolutions reflecting changes to business activities. Customer-facing notices should be crafted carefully to avoid admissions of prior wrongdoing while communicating compliance with changing law. Thorough documentation of transition efforts will be invaluable in the event of administrative inquiries, civil litigation, or criminal investigations.
