Hemp is a plant that can be used to make many things. People want to grow more hemp because it has lots of benefits. But there are some rules they need to follow. A new law called the Farm Bill could change these rules and help the hemp industry grow even more. There are 7 important goals for this new law:

1. Make sure CBD and other things from hemp can be used as food or supplements safely.
2. Help make sure hemp products are tested properly by certified labs.
3. Make it easier to grow hemp for grain and fiber.
4. Allow hemp grain to be used in animal feed.
5. Keep the current definition of hemp, but also protect people from bad products.
6. Help former prisoners get a fair chance in the hemp industry and support the environment.
7. Make sure hemp plants are allowed unless they have too much THC (a chemical that can make you feel high). Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and exaggerated; it should have been "Hemp Should Be Deemed Compliant Unless It Exceeds 1% Total THC, One of Many Objectives for New Farm Bill". There are seven objectives mentioned in the article, not just one. This creates a false impression that this is the most important or urgent issue, when in fact it is only one among many. 2. The quote from Jonathan Miller, general counsel of U.S. Hemp Roundtable, is irrelevant and outdated; he stated this in July 2020, almost a year ago. Why is this still being used as a source of authority or legitimacy? It does not reflect the current state of affairs or the latest developments in the hemp industry or the Farm Bill negotiations. 3. The phrase "the remarkable unity within our industry" is vague and subjective; it does not provide any concrete evidence or examples of how or why the industry is united, what are their common goals or interests, or how they are working together to achieve them. It also implies a positive bias in favor of the hemp industry, without acknowledging any potential conflicts, disagreements, or challenges that may exist among different stakeholders or segments of the market. 4. The term "critical objectives" is also vague and subjective; it does not explain why these are critical or what criteria or evidence are used to justify their importance or urgency. It also does not provide any balanced or objective analysis of the pros and cons, costs and benefits, or trade-offs and implications of each objective. It simply presents them as self-evident or obvious, without considering any alternative perspectives or viewpoints. 5. The section on "Billion Dollar Suffering" is emotional and sensationalized; it exaggerates the scale and impact of the challenges faced by the hemp industry, without providing any reliable or verifiable data or sources. It also blames the FDA and the pandemic for the problems in the industry, without acknowledging any other factors or influences that may have contributed to them. It also implies a negative bias against these entities, without considering their roles or responsibilities or the reasons behind their actions or decisions. 6. The article does not provide any clear or coherent structure or organization; it jumps from one topic to another without transitions or connections. It also uses different formats and styles for different sections, such as quotes, statements, bullet points, etc. This creates a confusing and disjointed reading experience,

Neutral

The article discusses seven objectives for a new farm bill related to hemp industry regulations. It presents both sides of the issue, but does not express a strong opinion or bias in favor of any specific objective. Therefore, I would classify the sentiment as neutral.