Federal Move to Schedule Synthetic Kratom Extracts

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced plans to temporarily place several synthetically concentrated kratom compounds—7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI), MGM-15 and MGM-16—into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued supporting recommendations on how to determine which concentrations merit the Schedule I classification. The action targets only the concentrated extracts; the natural herbal form of kratom, sold over the counter in most states, remains unaffected.

The Hill

Kratom has been commercially available in the United States for decades. Nine states have fully banned the herb, more than 30 states impose caps on 7-OH concentrations, and over a dozen states treat kratom as a legal gray area. The rise of synthetic extracts, first appearing around 2010, has prompted federal attention because they can be sold in gas stations and tobacco shops despite their heightened potency.

The Hill

Products containing synthetic extracts have been linked to opioid-like effects, binding the same receptors as prescription opioids. Two deceased University of Mississippi students were found near a blend of these compounds, though investigators have not determined a cause of death. Oliver Grundmann, a clinical professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Florida, noted an increase in kratom-related calls to poison-control centers coinciding with higher 7-OH sales. Nationwide, more than 5 million people have tried kratom at least once, with the highest usage among adults aged 21-34, and a strong association with cannabis use.

The Hill

Grundmann argued that Schedule I placement is appropriate because the synthetic extracts have no accepted medical use and manufacturers are unlikely to pursue Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval. He cautioned that the classification could impede future research on potential therapeutic benefits. Ty Schepis, a psychology professor at Texas State University, emphasized that the herbal leaf is generally low-risk but warned consumers often cannot tell whether they are purchasing the leaf or a potent synthetic derivative. He also highlighted the lack of robust evidence supporting kratom as a medical treatment and drew parallels to the regulatory challenges faced by cannabis.

The Hill

• “It probably is in many cases illicit lab setups, or certainly gray area lab setups, that are… concentrating the psychoactive components of kratom,” — Ty Schepis, professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas State University

The Hill

• “This is definitely not done in any kind of pharmaceutical company, very carefully done lab setup,” — Ty Schepis, professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas State University

The Hill

• “I hope we will learn a little bit from our experience as a nation with cannabis, where there is some sometimes contradictory evidence that cannabis might help certain conditions,” — Ty Schepis, professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas State University

The Hill

• “I think that even the leaf is not something I would recommend people try, even if the harms are probably generally minor and relatively low frequency,” — Ty Schepis, professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas State University

The Hill