Oh no! Kratom battle exposed as an industry scare campaign
You may have seen the controversy over kratom and its 7-OH compound in the news recently. What you might not know is that the squabble stems from a ginned-up campaign by one politically connected market segment trying to extinguish an innovative sector of the market. And ironically, the established kratom companies are using the same scare tactics that they only recently had to defend against.
First, the basics. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, consumers use these products “to alleviate pain, to address symptoms of mental health conditions like anxiety and depression, to help stop or reduce opioid or other substance use and to manage withdrawal symptoms and cravings related to opioids and other drugs.”
NIDA and other divisions of the National Institutes of Health are funding and conducting research to evaluate potential medicinal uses. While the federal government has not yet recognized them as safe or effective for any purpose, it acknowledges that they have been used in traditional medicine in many countries and that animal models support what human users have been reporting: that their benefits include antidepressant and pain-relieving qualities.
When strong consumer sentiment and preliminary science outpace regulation as they have here, all sorts of fascinating, predictable, but troubling things tend to happen at both the state and federal levels.
On June 23, after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier expanded last year’s emergency ban to cover additional 7-OH products in the state, Florida Politics distilled the story with clarity: “For months, the fight over 7-OH has been framed as a simple public health debate. But major investigations from The New York Times and WIRED have pulled back the curtain on something far more troubling: an entrenched segment of the kratom industry has been working to protect its own market position by pushing restrictions on competitors, while leaving many other more dangerous kratom products, including mixed beverages, shots and powders, on the shelves.”
The New York Times was among the first to expose this in a June 15 report finding that the kratom leaf industry feared a competitive threat from companies selling 7-OH, a natural derivative of the leaf, which is more potent and therefore more attractive to consumers seeking stronger effects than the older leaf products.
To address the threat, the New York Times reported that kratom leaf industry insider Jerry W. Ross and his allies “launched an opaque company to position natural kratom products as safer than” the more potent natural 7-OH. To execute his competitive attack on 7-OH, Ross exploited his Oklahoma ties to former Oklahoma senator and current Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. And according to the New York Times, “In the weeks around the inauguration, Mr. Ross donated nearly $162,000 to Mr. Kennedy’s defunct presidential campaign.” Now the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. joined Mullin in Ross’s battles, not only defending the kratom leaf products Ross’s company sells, but joining his industry-led attack on 7-OH.
The report continues: “Having powerful people in Mr. Trump’s cabinet vouching for kratom was not enough for Mr. Ross. He actively joined the effort to kneecap his competition.”
The New York Times reported that “They gave the company a name, Stop Gas Station Heroin,” which made their 7-OH competitors “sound especially dangerous.”
Ross had earlier been an energy executive until he pleaded guilty to a financial crime. The New York Times maps his role as “a leading player in the influence campaign that was devised to benefit kratom at the expense of its rivals in the marketplace,” and reports that Ross hired MAGA-affiliated lobbyist Ches McDowell, whose firm “used donations to secure a private audience with (Vice President) Vance to lobby him about the benefits of kratom and to urge the ban on 7-OH.”
It wasn’t long ago that some activists were trying to ban the kratom leaf itself, a campaign which the industry, backed by motivated consumers, largely defeated. Wired recently exposed the irony: Ross, who successfully defended his own glass house, then enlisted Secretaries Mullin and Kennedy to throw stones at his 7-OH competitors after making significant political contributions.
Fortunately, even the hardly pro-Trump New York Times acknowledged that while some less astute administration officials got caught up in the politically connected intraindustry fight, President Donald Trump was not fooled. The New York Times noted that Trump stated in a May press conference that “We’re looking very seriously at natural 7-OH and getting that approved.”
On everything from electronic cigarettes to marijuana, the president has made it clear he supports the mainstream public health approach known as harm reduction. You don’t have to want children to vape, everyone to use marijuana, or claim 7-OH is without risk to see the benefits of a science-based regulatory approach that mitigates risk while allowing emerging products to replace harmful alternatives.
The White House told the New York Times, “The only guiding factor behind the Trump administration’s health care policymaking is gold standard science,” adding that the administration was focused on getting “this critical matter correct and ensure the health and safety of Americans.”
When the New York Times, Wired, and the Trump administration all see through the manipulation campaign, it’s time to put the controversy behind us and develop the science-based, harm-reduction-focused approach the White House is promising.
Jeff Stier is an adviser to the Heartland Institute.