A California bill that would have imposed regulations on kratom products was quietly shelved Thursday following a standoff between advocacy groups focused on the burgeoning industry.
Kratom products are derived from the leaves of a tree that grows in Southeast Asia, where kratom has long been chewed and brewed into infusions. As it has gained more popularity around the world, greenish capsules, powders, and extracts have appeared in vape and tobacco shops in California.
Scientists are still learning about its complex effects, which can range from stimulant to sedative and derive from chemical compounds called alkaloids. The Food and Drug Administration has warned against using kratom for medical treatments, saying it is “not appropriate for use as a dietary supplement.” Reported side effects include seizures, vomiting and heart problems. Kratom has also been involved in a small proportion of overdose deaths, though most involved other drugs as well, according to analyses.
A bill proposed by Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) would have required kratom products to be registered with the state and carry mandatory labels and warnings. It would also have banned sales to anyone under 21.
Additionally, Assembly Bill 2365 would have banned products containing synthesized versions of kratom alkaloids and those in which a specific chemical makes up more than 1% of their alkaloid content.
That chemical compound is 7-hydroxymitragynine, also known as 7-OH. It is typically found in dried kratom leaves in very low concentrations, although a more common alkaloid in the plant, mitragynine, breaks down in the human body to create 7-OH as well.
Scientists have expressed concern about its effects: a study published in the Journal of Medical Toxicology states that 7-OH “is likely to be a major factor contributing to the addictive potential of kratom.” Another paper published in Addiction Biology states that 7-OH “should be considered a component of kratom with a high abuse potential.”
Kirsten Smith, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, said that because 7-OH occurs naturally in very low levels in the kratom leaf, products with much higher levels of 7-OH are “easily identifiable as manipulated and man-made.”
“It's no longer the botanical product as it's been used in nature,” Smith said, adding that he did not consider synthesized 7-OH products to be kratom at all.
Kratom advocacy groups were divided on the California bill. The bill was supported by the Global Kratom Coalition, whose executive director, Matthew Lowe, argued that kratom products should have alkaloid content similar to the natural plant that has long been used. The coalition was joined by law enforcement groups in backing AB 2365.
On the opposing side were the American Kratom Association, which has fought against nationwide bans on kratom products and supported other state regulations, and the Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust, which wants to see 7-OH explored as an alternative to opioids for pain relief.
The American Kratom Association argued that the regulatory structure required by the California bill would be so costly that few businesses could afford the necessary fees. State officials estimated that regulating kratom under the bill could cost more than $4 million annually.
AB 2365 “is being pushed by a company that stands to benefit from the burdensome provisions … to the detriment of small and mid-sized kratom manufacturers,” said Mac Haddow, its senior public policy fellow. He argued that Botanic Tonics, a beverage company listed as a supporter of the Global Kratom Coalition, had enough of a market presence that the registration fees would not be prohibitive for them.
The Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust argued for a higher limit on 7-OH, saying California should avoid being so restrictive that products lose their therapeutic benefits.
Lowe said the level they were pushing for — 2% of dry weight instead of 1% of alkaloid content — was much higher and would threaten consumer safety. As for concerns about tariffs, Lowe said the focus should be on “how the bill’s provisions inform and protect consumers, rather than the cost to industry.”
“The Global Kratom Coalition is not looking to endorse any particular vendor. We are looking to ensure that kratom products are safe,” Lowe said. He added that the bill envisions a tiered system of fees tied to annual sales in California, which would allow for lower fees for smaller businesses.
AB 2365 stalled in the state Senate’s appropriations committee as lawmakers dumped hundreds of bills on the so-called suspense docket. The process allows legislative leaders to quietly halt bills that would have significant costs or pose challenging political dynamics, avoiding the need for many lawmakers to weigh in.
Haney said that “Californians are not safer if we leave kratom completely unregulated in our state,” calling it “total freedom.” The lawmaker said he plans to reach out to the California Department of Public Health to assess next steps and hopes the FDA will take action, rather than leaving the matter up to the states.
“I have no interest in benefiting any particular player” in the kratom industry, but opted to lean toward lower potency, much to the chagrin of “people who want to sell much stronger versions of kratom,” Haney said. He said that if discussions continue, he would like the Department of Public Health to help define what is “synthetic.”
The public health department, which would have been in charge of product registration under the bill, said it has not conducted any scientific assessment of the safety risks of 7-OH in kratom products.
The Global Kratom Coalition spent $15,000 on lobbying related to the bill, according to financial reports available through Thursday. It also contributed $5,500 in political donations to Haney, who introduced AB 2365, and $36,400 to Attorney General Rob Bonta, who supported it, according to state records.
Botanic Tonics, meanwhile, reported spending $90,000 on lobbying activities during this legislative session, including $30,000 during a period when it championed AB 2365. The company said other expenditures were for “advice and counsel on the specific regulatory and legislative landscape in California.”
Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust reported spending $18,000 on lobbying for AB 2365. The American Kratom Association said it had not hired a lobbyist as of late July and would report its spending after that date.
The bill also drew interest from kratom company MIT45 Inc., which reported spending $60,000 on lobbying. A company official did not immediately clarify its position on the bill.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse says “much remains unknown about kratom’s related chemicals,” its health impacts and potential therapeutic uses, complicating discussions among regulators in California and across the country.
The Global Kratom Coalition has funded kratom research at the University of Florida’s College of Pharmacy, where researcher Christopher McCurdy and others have raised concerns about “semi-synthetic and isolated” alkaloids. Lowe said his group provided a total of $500,000 this year. Advancing kratom research is part of its mission and “ensures that regulations are guided by evolving science,” he said.
McCurdy said the coalition and “many independent kratom vendors” had helped fund research there, but “no one who donates has any influence on the studies we conduct” and “everyone understands that we will publish our findings without their review or consent.”
Smith said he had consulted for the Global Kratom Coalition in the past, but that his research was funded by NIDA, not the coalition or any other group associated with the kratom industry.
“We are in the early stages of research” on kratom, he said.
