Reps. Odioso and Lorenz introduce Kratom Consumer Protection Act to target synthetic high‑potency products

Representative Odioso and Representative Lorenz spoke to the Ohio House Agriculture Committee in favor of House Bill 587, the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, arguing it would protect consumers from synthetic, high‑potency kratom products while preserving access to traditional kratom. "The Wild West has to stop on Kratom," Representative Odioso said during sponsor testimony.

The bill, as described by sponsors, would prohibit concentrated synthetic derivatives and charge the Ohio Department of Agriculture with regulatory oversight, including rules on manufacturing, distribution, labeling, licensing or registration of manufacturers, processors and retailers, product standards (including allowable alkaloid concentrations), laboratory testing, inspections and enforcement authority. Representative Lorenz said the measure "strikes a careful balance between preserving consumer access to natural products while taking decisive action against synthetic compounds that pose a legitimate public safety risk."

Sponsors cited recent executive and regulatory action as immediate context. Odioso said that "in December 2025, Governor DeWine directed the Ohio Board of Pharmacy to restrict kratom, leading to an emergency rule, effective date Dec. 12, that banned synthetic and derived kratom related products," and that the board subsequently proposed classifying mitragynine as a Schedule I substance. Testimony warned about a synthetic alkaloid referred to in the hearing as "7‑OH," which Odioso characterized as a concentrated or synthetic form with higher opioid‑receptor binding and potential for abuse; during testimony he cited industry claims that 7‑OH can be "14 to 22 times greater than morphine," presenting that as the witnesses’ characterization rather than an independently verified fact.

Committee members asked how oversight would work in practice, whether kratom is cultivated domestically and whether potency can increase through processing. Vice Chair Newman asked whether kratom is being grown in the U.S. and whether cultivation could lead to increased potency; sponsors said they were not aware of widespread domestic cultivation but warned that chemical methods can intensify potency and that the marketplace presents evolving synthetic threats. Ranking member Miller compared the issue to past problems with altered hemp products and pressed sponsors on how responsibilities would be split among the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and the Board of Pharmacy.

Sponsors told the committee they expect more witnesses — including experts with differing views — to testify in future hearings and said penalties would be established in implementing regulations; Odioso said civil penalties exist in the regulatory framework and that he would check whether criminal penalties apply.

The committee completed the bill's first hearing with sponsors agreeing to call additional expert testimony in future sessions. No votes were taken.