HB 1597 revises Florida’s hemp and hemp-extract regulatory framework and adds new rules for THC-infused beverages. The bill amends the state hemp program to tighten definitions, require more detailed product testing and labeling, and restrict how hemp extract may be distributed, sold, packaged, and advertised. It also adds new limits on where hemp and hemp-extract businesses may operate, bars unpermitted sales and certain event-based sales, and prohibits products that are attractive to children.
The bill requires hemp extract to be tested by a certified marijuana testing laboratory before sale, with results verified by two employees, and authorizes state sampling, recalls, and stop-sale orders for unsafe or mislabeled products. It also creates a separate regulatory structure for THC-infused beverages, limiting retail sales to licensed alcohol-premises locations and distribution to beverage-law licensees, while banning alcohol-containing THC beverages and restricting distributor-retailer financial arrangements. The bill includes an appropriation of $2 million for testing equipment and takes effect October 1, 2025.
HB 1597 would significantly amend s. 581.217, Florida Statutes, and related provisions in s. 381.988 and s. 500.03, expanding state oversight of hemp extract and THC-infused beverages. It would impose new permitting, testing, packaging, labeling, recordkeeping, recall, and location restrictions on hemp and hemp-extract businesses, and it would subject violations to administrative fines and, for sales to persons under 21, criminal penalties. The bill also directs the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Department of Law Enforcement to implement enforcement and testing procedures, including use of certified marijuana testing laboratories.
The bill’s overall posture appears regulatory and restrictive rather than permissive, reflecting a strong consumer-protection and youth-protection approach to hemp-derived products. Even without recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the text suggests an intent to tighten a market that lawmakers likely view as underregulated, especially for intoxicating hemp products and beverages. The inclusion of a state appropriation for testing equipment also indicates support for enforcement capacity.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the restrictions on hemp businesses and the treatment of THC-infused beverages. Industry stakeholders may object to the testing mandate, the prohibition on attractive-to-children packaging, the 500-foot location restrictions, the ban on street and festival sales, and the limits on advertising and distributor-retailer relationships. Retailers and event organizers may also resist the new compliance burdens, while supporters are likely to emphasize child safety, product integrity, and preventing unregulated intoxicating hemp sales.