Cannabis data firm New Frontier buys Hemp Business Journal

New Frontier Data, a market-analysis firm that caters to the marijuana industry, is expanding its focus to hemp with the purchase of Hemp Business Journal.

Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed.

New Frontier is headquartered in Washington DC but has a Denver office. Hemp Business Journal is based in Denver.

New Frontier CEO Giadha Aguirre de Carcer said in a statement that adding hemp analysis to the company’s portfolio opens the door for new business opportunities, not just for analysis of the plant itself but for its industrial uses, from bioplastics to personal-care products.

“The activation of hemp markets in the U.S. and around the world represents an opportunity for tremendous economic impact,” Aguirre de Carcer said.

Sean Murphy, founder of Hemp Business Journal, said New Frontier’s expansion into hemp will “help investors, entrepreneurs and governments better understand the opportunities created by this unique plant.”

Subscribe to our Newsletter

3 comments on “Cannabis data firm New Frontier buys Hemp Business Journal
  1. Lawrence Goodwin on

    Thank you, Marijuana Business Daily, for letting us know more about the exceptionally talented Ms. Aguirre de Carcer and her leadership of New Frontier. 🙂

    I posted comments about this same story on The Cannabist website, and they bear repeating due to the wider implications for the “legal” industry nationwide:

    It’s driving me crazy how politicians and the media, in general, keep botching the definitions of “dioecious” cannabis plants. Everyone should reflect upon that specific botanical term.

    “Hemp” = nothing more than pollinating male and female flowers of cannabis grown in close proximity, so that the females will be pollinated and bear seeds. That’s why hemp is famously known as a “fiber,” “pulp” or “seed” crop.

    The 2014 federal Farm Bill has resulted in so many people forgetting that basic definition. Now all cannabis plants containing less than “0.3 percent THC” are erroneously called “hemp.”

    Yet “marihuana” (the actual federal and state spelling) = ALL seedless female flowers, regardless of the microscopic “cannabinoids” found inside them. According to a Vermont farmer I spoke to last month, cannabis growers cannot extract any “CBD” from true hemp crops (defined above). Just like “THC,” it only can be extracted from seedless female flowers. Any pollination from male cannabis flowers (located in, say, nearby hemp fields) ruins both CBD and THC crops.

    The bottom line is that politicians will NEVER have the right to dictate to us which cannabis compounds are “legal” and which are not. In truly free cannabis markets, it’s none of their damned business.

    Reply
    • Randy Perretta on

      So I downloaded the entire bill (357 pages)

      There was no occurrence of the word “marihuana.”
      The only occurrences of the word “marijuana” were in section 4005 below.
      The only occurrences of the word “hemp” were in section 7606 below.

      Apparently it’s 0.3% – period. But… It can only be grown by “only institutions of higher education and State departments of agriculture are used to grow or cultivate industrial hemp”

      SEC. 4005. EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM EXCESS MEDICAL EXPENSE DEDUCTION. Section 5(e)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

      ‘‘(C) EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.—The Secretary shall promulgate rules to ensure that medical marijuana is not treated as a medical expense for purposes of this paragraph.’’.

      SEC. 7606. LEGITIMACY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP RESEARCH.

      (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), chapter 81 of title 41, United States Code, or any other Federal law, an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) or a State department of agriculture may grow or cultivate industrial hemp if—

      (1) the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research; and

      (2) the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is allowed under the laws of the State in which such institution of higher education or State department of agriculture is located and such research occurs.

      (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

      (1) AGRICULTURAL PILOT PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘agricultural pilot program’’ means a pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp—

      (A) in States that permit the growth or cultivation of industrial hemp under the laws of the State; and

      (B) in a manner that—

      (i) ensures that only institutions of higher education and State departments of agriculture are used to grow or cultivate industrial hemp;
      (ii) requires that sites used for growing or cultivating industrial hemp in a State be certified by, and registered with, the State department of agriculture; and
      (iii) authorizes State departments of agriculture to promulgate regulations to carry out the pilot program in the States in accordance with the purposes of this section.

      (2) INDUSTRIAL HEMP.—The term ‘‘industrial hemp’’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

      (3) STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.—The term ‘‘State department of agriculture’’ means the agency, commission, or department of a State government responsible for agriculture within the State.

      Reply
      • Lawrence Goodwin on

        Thank you, Randy, for the text precisely proves my point.

        Please also download the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, or the 1970 Controlled Substances Act and its Schedule I classification of “marihuana.” Those fraudulent laws were passed first by the U.S. Congress. Or, take a look at the pathetic, repressive, cannabis-hating policy of my home state of New York, called the 2014 Compassionate Care Act, whose summary reads as follows:

        “Relates to the medical use of marihuana; legalizes the possession, manufacture, use, delivery, transport or administration of medical marihuana by a designated caregiver for a certified medical use; prescribes procedures for such possession, acquisition, etc. including certification of patients by their practitioner, and that, in the practitioner’s professional judgment, the patient would receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from use of medical marihuana.”

        The whole point, Randy, is that no such word belongs in ANY United States law (please re-read my ending comment in the first post). It was an illegitimate legal definition on Day 1 (April 1937). The federal government has been lying outright to the American public for over 80 years, using an idiotically spelled Mexican Spanish slang word—”marihuana,” a word that nuestros amigos al sur created as merely a nickname for the seedless, female flowers of “cañamo,” la palabra para cannabis. La otra palabra importante es “sinsemilla,” literally translated to “without seed.”

        The feds are using every single law they pass as cover (you noted the severe restrictions on who can actually grow hemp, as define above), so that state and local police agencies can continue waging more absolute, anti-“marihuana” tyranny nationwide. And they are.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *