The figure
On this page11
Where it appears
In the pending amendment to 7 U.S.C. 1639o, inside the definition of hemp-derived cannabinoid product, in an exclusion at (iv) for final products.
The limb itself
As the text is shown: "(III) greater than 0.4 milligrams combined total per container of-- (aa) total tetrahydrocannabinols (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid)", followed by a further limb reaching other cannabinoids with similar effects.
That further limb is not quoted here
Because the only rendering obtained was truncated, and a half-quoted statutory limb is worse than a described one. This property describes it and does not reproduce it.
The effective-date note, verbatim
"the amendment made by section 781(1) and (2) is effective 365 days after the enactment of Pub. L. 119-37, which was approved Nov. 12, 2025."
So it is pending, and dated by reference
Which means the operative date is calculated from an enactment rather than printed. That is worth noticing before relying on any summary of it.
And it is an exclusion, not a prohibition
A product over the figure falls outside a definition. What follows from being outside that definition is a separate question this property does not answer.
Which is the distinction people collapse
An exclusion from a defined term reads like a ban when it is quoted on its own. The reloading property makes the mirror-image point: an exemption from a licensing scheme is not a statement that something is safe.
It concerns hemp-derived cannabinoid products
Not state-licensed cannabis, which is governed by state programs this property does not describe. Two different regimes and one plant.
So read it for the mechanism
A federal limit measured per container is a genuinely unusual construction and it is the reason this property exists. What governs your product is something you establish elsewhere.
And check the current text
This is a fast-moving area and the figure above comes from a pending amendment. Everything on this page is sourced so you can go and look.