Senate committee amends HB1566 into study on kratom regulation, backs amended bill

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to change House Bill 15 66 into a study of kratom regulation and then recommended a do-pass on the bill as amended. Representative Dan Johnson presented the measure and witnesses from state agencies described competing estimates for administrative resources and revenue projections.

Representative Dan Johnson said the bill grew out of earlier efforts to consider scheduling kratom and that stakeholders—including distributors and users—favored a regulatory framework rather than a ban. "It seemed unwarranted to schedule the drug," Johnson said, arguing regulation would address adulteration and protect consumers.

The bill as drafted initially included an administrative structure and a fiscal note. Committee testimony described differing agency estimates: the Department of Health initially estimated eight FTEs and a larger appropriation, while the Department of Agriculture recommended two FTEs and lower costs. The bill also included proposed licensing and registration fees in draft language—examples noted in testimony were a $50 kratom product retail license and a $25 product registration fee—and the fiscal note referenced an $80,000 revenue estimate against substantially larger startup costs shown on the note.

The Department of Agriculture representative told the committee that registration and licensing are intended to let regulators identify manufacturers, monitor labels and remove bad actors. The Agriculture witness said two staff would be needed to cover statewide inspections, registrations and labeling compliance; the commissioner also said existing inspection staff are busy and additional resources would be required to cover the new workload.

Agency testimony and committee discussion also addressed public-safety and public-health evidence. Witnesses noted the Food and Drug Administration does not currently schedule kratom and that federal analyses have not supported scheduling; committee witnesses said some adverse outcomes attributed to kratom involved multiple substances and complex circumstances. Representative Johnson referenced other states' approaches to kratom regulation and said users and distributors had asked for a regulatory model to ensure product purity and labeling.

Several senators expressed concern about committing to startup costs before further study. Senator Davison and others voiced support for converting the bill to a study to gather implementation details, revenue estimates and whether Agriculture or Health is the appropriate regulator. Committee members ultimately adopted language to convert the bill into a study and then moved a do-pass recommendation on HB1566 as amended; the committee called the roll and recorded a 5-0 vote in favor of the amended bill.

Ending: The committee approved moving the amended HB1566 to the next stage with a do-pass recommendation after converting it to a study; members said further work on fees, staffing and agency assignment should be informed by the study and fiscal analysis.