Oregon Welcomes Chinese Hemp Researchers: That’s Good and Bad for International Hemp Business

Home | Canna Law Blog | Oregon Welcomes Chinese Hemp Researchers: That’s Good and Bad for International Hemp Business If you are an eccentric person like me and follow the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) on Twitter and have a deep interest in international business (especially the trade war with China), you will have noticed that ODA recently (and proudly) posted something that I see as both positive and negative for the hemp industry: ODA's #Cannabis Policy Coordinator, Sunny Summers & @OSUAgSci meet with researchers from China's Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences Institute of Industrial Crops to talk about how Oregon can ship #hemp to #China! #WhatWeDo #AgIsCool #TuesdayThoughts #trade #agriculture When I saw this, I cringed a bit, even though the benefits to Oregon and the U.S. are clear: Oregon marijuana farmers who recently produced a 2x surplus of marijuana can switch to growing hemp for export markets, as long as Oregon hemp farmers can grow hemp strains that fit the definition of hemp under the newly released USDA interim final rules; other U.S. states with hemp surpluses will be able to piggyback on Oregon’s engagement with international export markets because the coveted “grown in U.S.A.” brand strategy applies to Washington, California, and Kentucky hemp just as much as it applies to Oregon; disenfranchised farmers, especially those who have seen the demand for their tobacco crops diminish, can stay on the farm and keep the U.S. heartland throbbing with crops and cash (see here); exporting hemp means that the U.S. moves closer toward addressing our trade imbalance with the rest of the world, including China (the U.S. became a consistent net exporter of LNG (liquid natural gas) in 2018); and the U.S. can export its culture of quality and innovation in hemp to the rest of the world, which will continue to provide positive external benefits across many international industries and in our recently flagging international relations. But there are potentially negative aspects of Oregon’s Department of Agriculture engaging with Chinese researchers. I raised my eyebrows at the ODA post because in addition to this blog, our firm publishes a sister blog, the China Law Blog, where we write on international business (especially China) and frequently warn our readers to protect their intellectual property all costs, whether you are at home or abroad. If you follow our blog or keep up with international news, you know that researchers with Chinese ties who work in the U.S. are being scrutinized more closely. In the past, they have often been heavily involved in graduate programs where a lot of U.S. R&D occurs, and U.S. academic institutions are constantly wrestling with the dynamics of: potentially losing tuition dollars from fewer mainland Chinese students enrolling in the U.S.; losing grant dollars (both from the U.S. and Chinese governments, for very different reasons); losing prestige in the U.S. for engaging too much with China; losing prestige internationally for failing to hire capable researchers who publish influential scholarly works; monetizing R&D projects; and protecting intellectual property stemming from R&D projects. Chinese academics’ largely unfettered, unmonitored, and unprecedented access to U.S. educational institutions has provided fertile ground for Chinese economic espionage. In short, whenever China is involved, you (I’m looking at you, ODA) need to keep your eyes open. China has a publicly acknowledged program of acquiring U.S. intellectual property any way it can (at least it is publicly acknowledged and documented by U.S. authorities – see here and here), and that includes by making relationship inroads with government contacts, trade groups, educational institutions, and directly with hemp farmers and businesses. The geopolitical ramifications of engaging in international hemp business relationships are really inescapable, whether you are a hemp farmer who “only” sells to the local market, the ODA trying to promote Oregon hemp and hemp products, a hemp trade group, or a multinational corporation engaging in a sustained and well-planned M&A program to enhance your market share in the global hemp marketplace. China and the U.S. continue to be at loggerheads over many aspects of bilateral and international trade, but even with the trade war raging at the national level, U.S. and China subnational groups continue to engage with each other, working to establish and enhance relationships that can outlast or at least mitigate the effects of the trade war. Ultimately, Oregon is simply doing what Utah did earlier this year when Utah welcomed over 85 Chinese government officials to discuss Utah-China business relations. With ODA, our advice remains unchanged: be on your guard where China is involved. Use whatever applicable cliché you have: trust but verify; speak softly and carry a big stick; keep your friends close and your enemies closer; or tread lightly on thin ice. And make sure that you clearly understand all of the potential angles your Chinese counterparts may be working. We will work to keep you in the know as U.S. businesses try to engage further with the international hemp community. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Canna Law Blog The Canna Law Blog is a forum for discussing the practical aspects of cannabis law and its impacts on the cannabis industry. We provide insight into how cannabis businesspeople can use the law to their advantage and in plain language we tell you what works and what does not. We aim to help you strategize how to wield the law as both a shield and a sword. Harris Sliwoski Blog Read more posts [email protected] Read More Hemp/CBD, International Cannabis Law, Oregon Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply