The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food told the Rules Review and General Government Oversight Committee on Sept. 25 that it has adopted rules limiting kava content in registered kratom products to 125 milligrams of kavalactones per serving and a 250‑milligram daily ceiling for some formulations, citing toxicology concerns and the department’s mission to protect consumers.

Amber Brown, deputy commissioner for UDAF, and Dr. Brandon Forsyth, director of the department’s specialized products division, told lawmakers the department relied on available toxicology literature and regulatory advisories when drafting the limit. Forsyth said both kratom and kava have been associated in the literature with liver toxicity and that, because both are metabolized by the same liver enzymes, combining them “slows down metabolism of each other” and raises risk. Forsyth noted a lack of robust studies on the combined effect and said regulators must apply a precautionary approach.

The department said the Kratom Consumer Protection Act and the Utah Wholesome Food Act give it authority to set standards for registered kratom products, including limits on additives that could render a product “injurious to the consumer.” Brown said the agency used emergency rulemaking earlier in September to ensure continuity of registrations while it made the new rules effective.

Industry representatives pushed back. Jonathan Emerd, representing the Global Kratom Coalition, told the committee the department relied on dated foreign guidance and that Australia had withdrawn the 125‑mg kava limit in 2021 after reviewing newer studies. Emerd said independent toxicologist reviews show liver effects occur at higher daily doses and warned the department’s approach could be subject to legal challenge on administrative‑law grounds. The department said it is open to legislative guidance and further scientific input.

Several lawmakers asked whether a warning label or clearer consumer notice could achieve the department’s safety goals without restricting products; department officials said they had considered labeling but opted for a numeric limit because combined use carries uncertain risks and the department’s statutory mandate allows them to act to protect public health.

Ending: UDAF and industry representatives agreed to continue discussions and to supply additional scientific materials; lawmakers asked staff to consider statutory options to clarify the department’s authority and to track any legal challenges.