Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kratom Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances kratom regulation after heated testimony over potency caps and enforcement
Summary
Lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 72 to appropriations after contentious testimony from bereaved family members, public‑health advocates, small kratom businesses and industry groups over new labeling, registration and a 2% cap on 7‑hydroxymitragynine (7‑OH) in products.
The House Finance Committee voted to send Senate Bill 72 — a proposal to tighten state regulation of kratom products — to appropriations after lengthy and emotional testimony from supporters and opponents.
The bill would create a product registry and labeling standards, set a 2% cap on the alkaloid 7‑hydroxymitragynine (7‑OH) in products sold as kratom, ban adulterated or synthesized kratom alkaloids, require age restrictions and set testing and disclosure requirements. Sponsors said the changes respond to new, high‑potency products that have been linked to overdose deaths and that registration and labeling will protect consumers while avoiding a wholesale ban.
Supporters included family members of people who died after consuming high‑potency kratom products and public‑health groups who urged stronger controls. David Breger, who testified that his son died after using kratom mixed with diphenhydramine, asked legislators to treat synthetic high‑potency products as drugs rather than dietary supplements. Experts on the Kratom Consumer Advisory Council said the bill’s provisions match consensus recommendations from clinicians and researchers.
Opponents included small Colorado kratom businesses and industry groups that urged scaled fees and warned that a blanket 2% cap on 7‑OH could be scientifically problematic. Dr. Philip Gao and other scientists testifying for industry said natural alkaloid chemistry and metabolic conversion make a hard 2% limit difficult to interpret. Several small producers warned the proposed flat per‑SKU registration fee would disproportionately burden small local businesses; they asked for revenue‑scaled tiers or exemptions.
The Department of Revenue told the committee the enforcement mechanism in the bill (a registry) lacks licensing and seizure authority; DOR asked for additional enforcement provisions or a licensing model that would allow seizure of illegal or unregistered products and retailer‑level penalties. Sponsors and several members said the bill is a stopgap: it increases consumer protections now and can be followed later by a fuller licensing framework if fiscal resources allow.
The committee adopted sponsor amendments, including minor technical fixes and a short title change honoring a family whose son died; the measure passed the committee 8–5 and moves to appropriations.
