The KKRA's Call for Science-Based Policy

The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that not all kratom and kava products present the same risk profile. Traditional preparations used appropriately have demonstrated favorable safety profiles through both historical use and modern research, while highly concentrated extracts and synthetic analogues present different and potentially greater risks.

Research from institutions including Johns Hopkins University, University of Florida, University of Melbourne, and Yale University increasingly supports regulatory approaches that differentiate between these preparations rather than treating all products containing these botanicals as equivalent.

As public health researchers from Columbia University concluded in a recent analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health: "Regulatory frameworks that fail to distinguish between traditional botanical preparations and concentrated extracts risk both restricting access to potentially beneficial products with favorable safety profiles and inadequately addressing genuine risks from novel, highly concentrated products.

Policymakers have both an opportunity and responsibility to develop nuanced, evidence-based regulations that protect consumers from adulterated and hazardous products while preserving access to traditional preparations with established safety profiles when used appropriately.