FLORIDA BILL AIMS TO ADD RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS TO EXISTING KRATOM CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Conversations around kratom have shifted toward the best ways to regulate it instead of attempts to ban or limit access to the plant. 

But for the states who holding onto lingering reservations about kratom, that means it’s becoming harder to target the legal kratom industry. 

Florida is trying to take that challenge head-on. 

A proposed law in Florida aims to expand the existing Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) in the state. That bill has drawn negative feedback from local kratom advocates and industry workers, particularly from kava bars that serve kratom, as was on full display in the only hearing that has taken place for the bill. 

Despite a public comment period that heavily favored opposition to the bill, the proposed law was reported favorably out of its first subcommittee. The anxiety among advocates was on display among a variety of small business owners, and the message was clear: Restrictive regulation could cause kratom consumers to lose access to “good actors” in the local kratom community. 

Rep. Michael Owen introduced HB 1489 in an attempt to fill in the gaps of the KCPA that was passed in 2023. Despite carrying the same title as more robust regulatory structures, Florida’s version of the regulation was limited to an age restriction and establishing a legal definition of a kratom product. 

Restoring Regulatory Measures

Owen’s bill would add similar regulatory structures as other states that have passed kratom laws. Those stipulations include a limit on the concentration of 7-hydroxymitrogynine (7-OH) and a ban on adulterants and synthetic alkaloids. The regulations included in this bill are similar to those that were removed from the KCPA that passed in 2023 when a substitute was passed that simply added an age requirement for purchasing kratom. 

“It is addictive, packaged poorly and it needs to be regulated,” Owen said. “What we’re after here are the synthetics, particularly 7-OH… it’s the Wild West.” 

What Owen left out in his introduction of the bill was the increased layers of regulation that go far beyond any state that has regulated kratom. The original version of the bill called for increased financial burdens on businesses that sell kratom through a variety of mechanisms, including increased testing requirements, Florida-specific warnings and logos on the labels and wording that would target establishments that serve kratom tea. 

At the subcommittee hearing for the bill, Owen addressed those concerns during his introduction. 

“I have heard from a lot of stakeholders as it relates to kava bars… I’ve even visited a few of them,” Owen said. 

Although he wasn’t personally impressed with kratom, Owen said he had spoken with scientists and other stakeholders about it and that something needed to be done to bolster the regulations in the state. That need to protect consumers from synthetic alkaloids and increased potency of 7-OH was echoed by one of the preeminent names in kratom research in the United States.  

Dr. Christopher McCurdy is a researcher at the University of Florida and led a groundbreaking dose-finding study on kratom last year. McCurdy has presented the dangers of specific kratom alkaloids to the United States Congress and lent his expertise to his home state’s legislative body. 

“(7-hydroxymitragynine) is a natural decomposition product of the major component of the leaf material,” McCurdy said. “That component is highly selective for opioid receptors, and it’s one of the most selective compounds I’ve seen, and I’ve studied opioid chemistry for over 30 years.”

Small Businesses Push Back

For the most part, even those who opposed the bill spoke out against 7-OH and other “dirty” kratom products. What was not supported by the vast majority of public commenters were the extra layers of regulation in HB 1489. 

Among those who spoke out against the bill were a coalition of business owners and industry workers who thought the regulations went too far. Many either owned or worked at a kava bar that served kratom products and made it clear that specific parts of the bill would decimate kava bars and other businesses that serve kratom in the state. 

“If the revision goes through, it will fundamentally change our entire industry’s tax model,” said a man named Michael, who said he owns a kava bar. “Tax implications will be placed on us that will lead to multiple forced business closures.” 

Others speaking out against the bill included retailers that sold kratom products, consumers and other kratom stakeholders that warned about overly burdensome regulations. One man said his businesses employed 71 workers and the Florida-specific label requirements alone would threaten the profitability of his businesses. Another was a man who used to work in the FDA, and he warned that 7-OH is not a natural product: It’s an additive that should not be considered the same supplement as pure kratom leaf.

Even though a majority of public commenters spoke against the bill, it was reported favorably out of the subcommittee by a vote of 16-2. An updated version of the bill was assigned to a new subcommittee and the Commerce Committee on April 3 but has not been added to an agenda for another discussion. 

It is unclear how the new bill would address the concerns raised at the first hearing, but a comment from that session clearly showed what was at stake in the discussions. Amanda Ward is a general manager at a pair of kratom bars and reminded the committee to think about the impact any new kratom regulation would have on a significant local industry. 

“Each kava bar pays around $4,000 a month in sales tax,” Ward said. “If there are roughly 400 kava/kratom bars in Florida, that is $1.6 million per month and $19 million lost in sales tax revenue for the state each year.”