New York Deserves Science-Based Kratom Policy
Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a tropical tree from Southeast Asia in the coffee family that has been used for centuries to enhance energy, improve focus, and relieve discomfort. Today, an estimated 10 to 16 million Americans use kratom for a variety of benefits, often utilizing it as a natural alternative to pharmaceutical painkillers and synthetic drugs.
As kratom’s popularity has surged, so have concerns about unregulated products and consumer safety. Stories associated with harm from kratom are reminders that public health policy and safety must go hand in hand. The real problems do not stem from the natural botanical kratom but from unregulated, adulterated, and synthetic products masquerading as kratom.
Synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) is a potent mu-opioid receptor agonist with roughly 13 times higher binding affinity than morphine and is often mis-marketed as kratom. In the natural kratom leaf, by contrast, 7-OH occurs only in trace amounts that form during the post-harvest drying process. Treating natural kratom and 7-OH as the same thing confuses consumers and makes thoughtful regulation impossible.
Research supports this differentiation. Scientific studies continue to show that natural kratom, via its primary alkaloid, mitragynine, behaves differently in the body due to its interaction with multiple receptor systems. A 2020 Johns Hopkins survey of nearly 3,000 Americans found that most kratom consumers used it for health-related reasons such as improved mood, focus, or pain relief, and reported few serious adverse effects. In contrast 2024 study in Drug and Alcohol Dependence showed that 7-OH, but not mitragynine, caused respiratory depression in animal models. Naloxone reversed the effects of 7-OH but had no impact on mitragynine, underscoring their fundamentally different pharmacologies.
These studies are not minor details. They are the difference between a botanical supplement and a synthetic narcotic. To regulate kratom as if it were 7-OH is like conflating aspirin with heroin just because they both come from plants.
The issue now facing New York is how to regulate responsibly. Overregulation or poorly written laws can have unintended consequences that close off access to the benefits that kratom offers. If lawmakers treat kratom as a drug, they risk driving it to the illicit market and denying access to the millions of Americans that utilize the botanical for its multiple benefits.
New York can lead smart policymaking and compassion based on scientific evidence. States such as Colorado, Maryland, and Oregon have already passed versions of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. These laws require third-party testing, age-gating, accurate labeling for alkaloid content, and bans on synthetic derivatives like 7-OH. This approach advances transparency, accountability, and harm reduction while preserving safe access for responsible adults.
Governor Hochul and New York legislators now have a chance to strike that same balance. The kratom labeling bill (A5852A) fails to make a clear distinction between natural kratom and synthetic 7-OH. As written, it would mislead consumers, burden responsible manufacturers, and unintentionally drive safe, natural kratom out of the market. Governor Hochul should veto A5852A and direct lawmakers to pursue a more evidence-based, consumer-focused regulatory approach.
Regulation should focus on product safety and integrity, not blanket prohibition.
Kratom deserves regulation that prioritizes both safety and access, because good public health means protecting people while preserving their right to safe, natural options that can improve their quality of life.
Dr. Paloma Lehfeldt, MD, Medical Director, Botanicals for Better Health and Wellness
