Meh…we agree that genetics is necessary, and also that it is not sufficient.
Try crystallizing CBD on an industrial scale from a plant with no CBD synthase. Or from engineered yeast that makes CBD, but doesn’t have the genetics to make most of the other secondary metabolites you’re trying to remove. One of those will be considerably easier to achieve. Both are conceptually possible based on published data.
I said “If it makes less than 0.3% THC, many states will call it hemp and make your life easier.” which is not the same as me calling low THC cannabis “hemp”.
“Hemp” vs “Cannabis” a bullshit dichotomy, and IMO that needs stating repeatedly if we are to move forward.
If we must split, I prefer the model where Cannabis means grown for cannabinoids & Hemp means grown for fiber…and maybe jet fighters if @Shadownaught has their way 