Kratom regulation bill receives amendments after hours of testimony

BOISE — In an hours-long hearing Wednesday afternoon the Senate Health and Welfare Committee heard from dozens of individuals including medical professionals, business owners, law enforcement and kratom users who provided split testimony as to whether kratom should be regulated in the state of Idaho — or banned outright.

The Idaho Kratom consumer Protection and Safety Act, sponsored by Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, seeks to establish the first regulatory framework for kratom in Idaho after increased scrutiny of the supplement from states across the country that have either established similar consumer protection legislation or banned the it.

Kratom acts on the same receptors as opioids and comes from the leaves of a tropical south Asian tree. While it lacks any official uses designated by regulatory bodies in the United States, it is sold for a variety of purposes including pain relief, anxiety and opioid withdrawal, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

If passed into law, the bill would limit kratom sales to adults ages 21 years and older and restrict kratom sold in the state to natural leaf products. The bill would ban the sale of “unsafe, adulterated, or synthetic products,” which typically contain concentrated levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine, known as 7-OH.

Though this alkaloid is present in the natural kratom plant, the bill will only limit kratom products with a greater than 2% concentration of 7-OH, a limitation that has been adopted by other states, including Utah.

The bill also seeks to establish labeling requirements and provides Kratom retailers and distributors with limited liability protections for inaccurate fraudulent information when a kratom processor wrongfully certifies a product as being un adulterated.

Unlike a prior regulation bill introduced by Nichols this session, the new bill allows for private causes of action, or individual lawsuits, to be filed for violations relating to consumer protection or product liability laws in Idaho.

The testimony provided Wednesday largely mirrored what was heard by the House Health and Welfare Committee last week in testimony on legislation seeking to ban kratom in the state. In that meeting, members of the public testified to kratom as an alternative to opioids for ailments like rheumatoid arthritis while others underscored the substance was prone to dependency, overdose and, in some cases, led to death.

Caleb Matlock, the father of 23-year-old Kielee Rustici testified against the regulatory effort after their daughter died from acute intoxication from kratom’s primary active component last year, a death the Bannock County found to have been the result of consumption of natural leaf kratom.

Tia Rustici, Kielee’s mother, previously spoke to finding out her daughter’s kratom use was over a two-year period to cope with pain from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), a genetic disorder affecting joints, skin and connective tissue.

“We watched her change,” Matlock said. “She lost her spark. She went from working, going to college, living her life, to not working, withdrawing, becoming trapped in a cycle of addiction.”

Matlock highlighted the bill’s “good faith clause” protecting retailers from legal action when they are misled about a kratom product’s contents.

“What that really means is this,” Matlock said, “when harm happens, when families like mine lose someone, the people selling these products can walk away without accountability — families are left with the loss.”

Christopher Deoudes, founder of the kratom company Happy Hippo, said there were valid concerns about 7-OH and other synthetic kratom derivatives that are “exponentially stronger” than the natural kratom he sells but remain available to consumers.

“There are no clear rules to prevent this — that is a huge problem in Idaho,” Deoudes said. You can sell synthetic opioids to whoever you like and (Senate Bill 1418) fixes this loophole.”

Meridian Police Chief Tracy Basterrechea, speaking on behalf of the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, opposed the regulatory bill on the grounds it would be a detriment to public safety and strain law enforcement resources.

“The bill itself has written in it that these products are not safe and not evaluated by the FDA,” Basterrechea said. “Yet they are allowed to market them as s safe products to manage pain and other things. “

He added the bill as written would impose added costs on law enforcement to ensure compliance with the law.

Under a provision of the consumer protection framework, the Idaho State Police are given authority to enter property where kratom is “processed, produced, sold, stored, or handled” to ensure products are in compliance with the bill’s various regulations.

Basterrechea said Idaho State Police anticipated the regulations would cost the agency’s lab $350,000 in startup costs to determine whether kratom products in Idaho were in compliance with the law, with an additional $35,000 in annual ongoing costs.

Medical professionals who testified were divided on whether a ban of kratom was preferable to regulation.

Dr. Norman Litchfield, an addiction medicine specialist based in McCall, spoke on behalf of the Idaho Society of Addiction Medicine. He described the bill as “an important first step” in the state to regulate the substance and, in turn, make known the risks for addiction, as kratom acts as an opioid with pain-relieving properties.

“Most of the people who come to me seeking treatment for kratom addiction tell me they never would have started kratom if they had known the risk that it posed to their health and livelihood,” Litchfield said.

Though highlighting these potential consequences from kratom use, Litchfield said a full ban would itself have significant consequences. He noted poison control centers have found Idaho had the highest kratom exposure in the U.S., which means the number of Idahoans currently dependent on kratom is “significant.” Given this exposure, a ban would force many dependent on the supplement into withdrawal.

“We know from experience with the opioid epidemic, this would lead to an increase in demand for illicit opioids and overdoses,” Litchfield said. “For this reason, we do not support a full ban.”

Dr. Cate Heil, a Treasure Valley family medicine and addiction medicine physician, said there were “serious concerns” about kratom and 7-OH. In conversations with Idaho physicians in medical providers, Heil said the negative health effects of kratom and 7-OH include “withdrawal, interaction with medications and medical conditions, addiction, (and) overdose.”

Like Litchfield, Heil was concerned a full ban would put current users into opioid withdrawals, which can either push some to seek medical help or turn to more dangerous substances. Regulation, on the other hand, could help avoid this outcome and help make known kratom’s potential for abuse.

“The most common thing I hear from my patients is that if they had known kratom could be addictive, they would not have picked it up,” Heil said. “I hope that a warming a warning label will help others. We feel that this is a good first step towards helping Idahoans stay safe.”

Susie Keller, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association, said the group did not have a position on the regulatory bill but previously expressed support for the legislation that sought to designate Kratom as a Schedule I substance and effectively ban its consumption and sale in the state.

Though willing to support regulation, Keller said the association remained concerned the proposed regulations failed to go far enough to stop kratom from being used in a harmful way.

“Obviously it wouldn’t be great scenarios for no action to be taken this year but it could open up an opportunity for a middle ground between a ban and very light regulation that legitimizes a product that is killing people,” Keller said.

Following over two hours of testimony, the bill was brought before the Senate Thursday, which approved two amendments. The first amendment brings more robust labeling including the name and business adddres of th eprocessor or retailer, a batch number, a list of ingredients and directions for use.

An additional statement with several medical warnings is required to include that kratom has not received FDA evaluation, should only be used after consulting with a health care provider, should be kept out of reach to children, may be habit forming and may interact with medications, drugs or other controlled substances.

The second amendment shifted the effective date of the bill from July 1 to January 1, 2027.

Members of the House Health and Welfare Committee — which has held off on making a decision on a bill banning the use of kratom in the state — indicated Wednesday their vote hinged on whether the consumer protection bill passed out of the Senate.

The Senate is expected to vote on the consumer protection bill with the adopted amendments in the coming days.