Idaho should learn from Utah’s kratom mistake | Opinion
As lawmakers, we are often asked to make decisions in areas where the science is still developing and the consequences are not fully understood. When that happens, we rely on the best information available and act in good faith. But when new data emerges, we also have a responsibility to reassess and, when necessary, admit we got it wrong.
That is exactly where Utah now finds itself on kratom.
In 2019, Utah passed the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. At the time, it was presented as a balanced approach, something short of a ban but strong enough to protect consumers. I was serving in the Utah House of Representatives then, and I voted in favor of that legislation. Looking back, that vote was a mistake.
The data is now clear.
Since the passage of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, Utah has experienced a steady and troubling increase in kratom-related deaths, rising 43% over a relatively short period of time. Utah’s experience should serve as a warning.
Idaho lawmakers are now considering legislation that would effectively codify the same Kratom Consumer Protection Act model. If Utah’s experience is any indication, that approach does not stabilize the market or reduce harm. It does the opposite. It creates a system that allows the industry to expand while giving the appearance of oversight without delivering meaningful protection.
In Utah, we also learned just how difficult this industry is to regulate in practice. Products vary widely in potency, composition, and labeling. The Commissioner of the Utah Department of Agriculture, the agency responsible for oversight, testified in support of a full ban on kratom. That testimony reflected firsthand experience with the realities of trying to regulate an industry that does not behave like a conventional consumer product market.
What Idaho is now considering would go even further in the wrong direction. The proposed framework would allow the industry to largely test and certify its own products, effectively reducing independent oversight. Given the difficulties Utah encountered even with regulatory authority in place, this approach would open the door to years of avoidable problems.
The issue is not just regulatory, it is also scientific. There is a growing body of research showing that mitragynine, the primary compound in kratom, is metabolized in the human body into 7-hydroxymitragynine, a far more potent opioid receptor agonist. This metabolite is responsible for much of kratom’s opioid-like effects. As doses increase, so does the body’s production of 7-hydroxymitragynine, amplifying both the intensity of the effect and the risk. At the same time, the industry has moved aggressively toward concentrated extracts and enhanced products that significantly increase exposure to these compounds.
This is no longer a discussion about a traditional plant in its natural form. It is about a modern, commercialized product that has been engineered to be stronger, faster acting, and more addictive.
The American Kratom Association often presents itself as a consumer protection organization, but it promotes vendors that manufacture and sell these enhanced products. This is not an industry that cares about public health and safety. Time and again, the industry has pushed more dangerous products while downplaying the serious, life-threatening risks.
Federal regulators and the broader medical community have issued clear warnings. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved kratom as safe or effective for any use and has repeatedly raised concerns about its safety profile. Despite this, the industry continues to push for legalization and protection at the state level.
Utah has now taken steps to correct course. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 45, which repeals the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. That decision came after years of data and growing concern from both law enforcement and medical professionals, not to mention nearly 200 kratom-related deaths over the past five years. The bill received overwhelming support and will take effect on May 6.
Idaho has an opportunity to take a different path than Utah. We learned the hard way that good intentions are not enough. Regulation that looks reasonable on paper can fail in practice, especially when dealing with a rapidly evolving and difficult to control industry.
Idaho now stands at a crossroads. You can follow the same path Utah once took, or you can learn from our experience.
I would urge Idaho lawmakers to choose the latter. Opening the door to this model will almost certainly lead to increased deaths and significant regulatory burdens. Choosing a path that aligns with the science and protects the public is not only prudent, it is necessary.
McKell is a Utah state senator and graduate of the University of Idaho Law School.