PROPOSED REGULATIONS IN MICHIGAN HIGHLIGHT EVOLVING KRATOM DEBATE

As the debate around kratom policy has evolved and shifted in favor of oversight instead of prohibition, the opposition has moved from fear-mongering anti-kratom voices to those who oppose reasonable regulations. 

That evolution is on full display in Michigan, where lawmakers are now taking up the kratom question in a whole new light. 

A proposed version of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) was formally introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives and faced stiff opposition at its first committee stop. Instead of pushing back against kratom products, that opposition came in the form of producers and customers looking to keep products legal that have been banned in other states by different versions of the KCPA. 

That back-and-forth makes the ongoing debates in Michigan a crucial example of where kratom regulation is headed, with advocates from both sides continuing to make their case as the proposed law progresses through the legislature.

Rep. Cam Cavitt introduced House Bill 4969 in September, and it came up in committee at the end of October, as advocates for different types of kratom products appeared on both sides of the bill. After being discussed twice by the Committee on Regulatory Reform, a substitute was advanced out of committee with a recommendation and referred to a second reading in the House. 

Arguments Over Alkaloid Content

The first committee meeting to discuss the bill took place on Oct. 30 and featured the primary debate on how kratom regulations in the state should be defined. In the past, the conversation has centered on whether or not kratom should be regulated or banned. This time, the two sides of the debate went head-to-head about which types of kratom products should be legal in the state. 

At the heart of the discussion were products with elevated levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), an alkaloid that occurs in natural kratom leaf but only in trace amounts. In other versions of the KCPA, the amount of 7-OH allowed in products labeled as kratom has been limited to levels that mimic the natural composition of the plant. 

That is why the proposed law in Michigan matched the language found in other versions of kratom laws that limited 7-OH concentration to two percent of the overall alkaloid composition of a product. Despite past instances where opponents of kratom were the loudest voices in opposition to a KCPA, this time it was the clause focusing on alkaloid composition that led to testimony against the proposed bill. 

Advocates from the Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust (HART) submitted an information packet in favor of 7-OH and spoke out against the law due to the limits placed on the alkaloid concentration of 7-OH. Those same talking points were presented by Michigan residents, who objected to the law on the same grounds as HART, including a pair of e-mails that were nearly identical but came from separate individuals. 

The only issue with those talking points is that researchers have used some of the same studies referenced in the materials to make the case against 7-OH. In fact, the available studies on the differences between mitragynine, the primary alkaloid found in the kratom plant, suggest a significant difference from the risks posed by 7-OH. 

Those same studies led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to target 7-OH products earlier this year, while at the same time specifically creating an exception for natural leaf kratom. That position was represented at the hearing by a pair of organizations that advocated for natural leaf kratom, including the American Kratom Association (AKA). 

“The lack of regulations on kratom over the past two decades has created confusion, and up until last year, it was the FDA that was the primary catalyst for a substantial amount of disinformation about kratom,” said Mac Haddow, a senior fellow of policy with the AKA. 

Haddow continued: “That anti-kratom position at the FDA has changed dramatically as the science on the safety of natural kratom leaf products has been conducted, and the identification of the chemically manipulated 7-OH products that pose a significant threat to the safety of consumers has helped to put the focus on where the real danger lies.”

Next Steps on the Bill

Without sufficient time for all the testimony to be heard, the Regulatory Reform Committee addressed the matter at a Nov. 13 meeting. After listening to all sides of the issue, the committee decided to keep the restrictions on 7-OH and match the language of other KCPAs that have passed around the country. 

The only change that came from the committee was a relaxed approach to the need for licensing and oversight from state authorities. Instead, the bill was rewritten to focus on labeling requirements and making it illegal to sell kratom products to anyone under the age of 21. One section that remained in the substitute bill was the requirement of kratom producers to provide a certificate of analysis from a third-party lab to confirm that all products met the requirements of the proposed law. 

Eventually, the substitute passed with 12 yays, a nay and one representative voting to abstain. By advancing out of committee, the bill was referred to a second reading in the House. The current legislative session will resume on Dec. 2 and will be in session for nine more days in 2025.