Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kratom Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears wide‑ranging testimony on kratom regulation; health department opposes current draft
Summary
The Human Services Committee heard extensive testimony on HB1566, a bill to regulate kratom, with industry groups asking for a Kratom Consumer Protection Act approach and the Department of Health urging revisions and caution about FDA standards.
The House Human Services Committee on Tuesday heard extensive testimony for and against House Bill 1566, a proposed regulatory framework for kratom products. Witnesses representing industry, consumer coalitions and the American Kratom Association urged regulation rather than prohibition; the Department of Health and Human Services opposed the bill as currently drafted and urged significant changes.
Sponsor Representative Dan Johnston said HB1566 was drafted after committee members concluded an outright scheduling ban was not the right approach. "One of the things we learned ... is that there's no regulatory framework in place. And so that's the impetus for 1566," Johnston said.
Industry and consumer witnesses asked the legislature to adopt a consumer‑protection model used in other states rather than treating kratom as a drug or food. Mac Haddow of the American Kratom Association testified that "we would advocate for the framework that's provided" and urged limits on adulterated or spiked products; he also said federal attempts to ban kratom had failed and cited research supporting harm‑reduction applications.
Matthew Lowe of the Global Kratom Coalition and other trade witnesses supported most provisions of HB1566 but requested two technical amendments: (1) remove a clause that would categorically ban combining kratom with many common ingredients (for example caffeine or citrus) and (2) add a federally required label disclaimer stating the product has not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Lowe said similar language appears in other states' Kratom Consumer Protection Acts.
By contrast, Jason Wall of the Department of Health and Human Services told the committee the bill should not call kratom a food or dietary supplement because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers kratom adulterated if marketed that way. He urged removing references to "food, dietary supplement and beverage" in the bill and recommended an age limit of 21 rather than 18. The department also asked the committee to codify testing laboratory accreditation standards, include monitoring and inspection language, and authorize administrative fines and license suspensions for noncompliance; DHHS provided a preliminary fiscal estimate tied to licensing and monitoring duties.
Committee members asked whether a federal scheduling decision would preempt state regulation; industry witnesses said federal scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act would preempt state law but argued the current evidence does not meet federal scheduling criteria.
No vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing and will consider technical amendments that proponents and the department agreed to work on together.
