Kansas committee hears competing evidence on scheduling kratom compounds in SB 497

The Kansas Senate Public Health and Welfare committee on July 29 held a hearing on Senate Bill 497, which would add mitragynine and 7‑hydroxymitragynine (7‑OH) to Schedule I of the Kansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act and adjust a criminal‑code definition tied to fentanyl‑related substances. Jenna provided the bill brief, and proponents and opponents then presented extensive testimony.

Proponents, including sponsor Senator Jeff Clint, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) and public‑health officials, said 7‑OH behaves like an opioid, carries high abuse potential and has been tied to overdoses. Sarah Hortenstine, executive director of the State Child Death Review Board and division chief of youth services in the Kansas attorney general’s office, told the committee kratom and 7‑OH act on opioid receptors and that higher doses can cause respiratory depression, dependence and death. KBI forensic witnesses and a clinical laboratory director said some forensic testing now detects 7‑OH and related compounds; Dr. David Koontz said his lab’s targeted testing shows about 1 percent positivity among donors and described 7‑OH as more potent than mitragynine.

“7‑OH has high abuse potential and no medical use,” Senator Jeff Clint said, urging a favorable report from committee members.

Committee members asked technical questions about metabolism and overdose response. Patrick Perebski, a KBI forensic chemist, explained that mitragynine can be metabolized in the liver into 7‑OH but that chemically synthesized 7‑OH bypasses that conversion and can be delivered at higher potency. On whether naloxone (Narcan) can reverse 7‑OH overdoses, Dr. Koontz said naloxone displaces 7‑OH at the mu receptor and can restore breathing.

Opponents included consumer advocates, industry representatives and kratom users who said whole‑leaf kratom provides pain relief or harm‑reduction benefits for some people and urged the committee to target synthetic 7‑OH rather than ban natural kratom. Inga Selders, policy director for CBD American Shaman, referenced the eight‑factor analysis required under KSA 65‑4102 and warned federal and international agencies have declined to broadly schedule kratom because of mixed evidence and possible public‑health consequences of a ban.

Several witnesses described differences between whole‑leaf kratom and synthesized 7‑OH, saying product testing and labeling can and should distinguish the two; industry witnesses recommended protections modeled on state Kratom Consumer Protection Acts that include testing and child‑resistant packaging. Consumer speakers described personal benefits from whole‑leaf kratom and urged that legislation not eliminate access for adults who say they rely on it for pain management or recovery.

The hearing record contains multiple caveats: KBI and KDHE presenters noted many detections involve polysubstance use and that deaths attributed to kratom‑related chemicals may not be solely caused by kratom. Opponents cited federal HHS and WHO findings that called for careful consideration rather than immediate scheduling.

The committee concluded the hearing without a recorded committee vote on SB 497. The bill brief noted an effective date of July 1, 2025, if enacted. The committee took no final action on SB 497 at the meeting; members moved on to other agenda items.

What’s next: SB 497 will remain in committee until members decide whether to report it favorably, amend it, or take no action. Further committee materials referenced in testimony (including an eight‑factor analysis and SUDORS data) were offered to committee members for review.