Hemp’s reemergence in the United States’ economy presents an opportunity for a new category of sustainable product choice for consumers. This study fills a gap in knowledge about which consumers are currently aware of or choosing hemp products using the theory of choice alternatives and a statistically representative survey from a top ten hemp producing US state. Findings reveal high levels of consumer awareness and consideration of hemp products in general and a smaller evoked/choice set. Cannabidiol products appear most often in our sample’s choice set; we examined these specifically. Other hemp products also appear, including clothing and textile, personal care, building material, and food products. Bivariate logistic regression results show that older respondents are more likely to be in the unaware set for hemp products in general and for cannabidiol products. Politically liberal respondents are more likely to be in the evoked/choice set for hemp products in general and for cannabidiol products. No demographic variables are significantly associated with being in the consideration set for hemp products in general. Younger and more educated respondents are more likely to consider cannabidiol products. As hemp represents a nascent but growing market, this study provides a baseline from which to build understanding of consumer choice alternatives.

Background: The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp (< 0.3% THC by dry weight) into the US agricultural sector has been complex and remains confounded by its association with cannabis (> 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill’s reintroduction. Methods: A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed. Results: Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe. Conclusions: Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.