The New 7-OH Crackdown Isn't About Public Health
Here is how Washington influence can work: The founder of a kratom company and entities associated with his business make major political contributions, secure access to senior officials, and lobby the government to prohibit a competing class of products. Months later, the DEA begins doing precisely that.
That’s the fight underway between the kratom leaf industry and the kratom alkaloid known as 7-OH.
As revealed in the New York Times, Jerry Ross, founder of Botanic Tonics, the maker of a widely sold kratom extract known as Feel Free, has mounted a successful influence campaign in Washington to amplify the dangers of 7-OH products while exempting other kratom products. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who oversees the DEA, even owns shares in the company.
Earlier this month, the DEA issued two notices of intent to use its expedited emergency authority to temporarily place concentrated 7‑OH and three related substances in Schedule I, bypassing the ordinary formal scheduling process. Kratom went untouched.
These are all byproducts or derivatives of the kratom plant found across Southeast Asia, traditionally used for pain relief, anxiety, and as an alternative to opioids. But only leaf kratom has escaped scrutiny in the lobby wars of the nation’s capital.
Consumers who say they rely on these products have until July 31 to submit data about the proposed potency cutoff. They cannot challenge the scheduling decision itself, and no public hearing is planned before the DEA can impose temporary Schedule I controls.
The differences between leaf kratom, kratom alkaloids like 7-OH, and synthetic kratom derivatives like MGM‑15 and MGM‑16 are both real and complex, warranting scientific study. Schedule I, the strictest classification the federal government has, would make research practically illegal.
No matter your view on kratom products, prohibition is neither a serious nor effective way to regulate a product used by millions of Americans, especially those struggling for an alternative to opioids. The DEA learned this when it attempted a similar scheduling of kratom in 2016, only to face a swarm of negative comments from tens of thousands of Americans who used the product.
On 7-OH, the data we have now do not justify the moral panic concocted by its market competitors.
There have been some 2 billion servings consumed over the past three years, with fewer than 100 adverse-event reports at the FDA. There have been precisely zero confirmed deaths from 7-OH alone.
Every attempt to tie 7-OH to a drug overdose in popular media has glossed over the toxicological presence of other substances, usually alcohol, benzodiazepines, or opioids. The narrative about 7-OH’s unique danger has not arisen from science but from politics. This matters.
7-OH isn’t harmless, and there are bad actors who sell it. But recognizing risk is an argument for rules, not full-on prohibition.
Not more than three months ago, President Trump was calling on his health officials to “legalize natural 7-OH,” a far cry from what his own agencies are doing now. Those around the president should ask why his DEA is doing the opposite.
The alternative is how we approach every other substance or drug we want to control and regulate. There should be age limits, potency testing, marketing restrictions, and robust standards on what can be sold. We do it with alcohol and nicotine products, while respecting the autonomy of adults who want to use these products responsibly.
Kratom itself survived a scheduling attempt in 2016 because consumers rallied and the government backed off. It would be ironic for an industry saved by an open process to win its next battle by a closed, insider strategy.
Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.
Published in RealClear Health (archive #1, #2)