In the wake of an investigation into the tragic deaths of two Ole Miss students, voices from the kratom industry are emerging to challenge how the substance has been represented. Court filings reveal that Aidan Hamilton, 18, and Robert Strang, 20, were found deceased on September 21 at different sites.
Initially, reports indicated that “packaged kratom” or “synthetic kratom” was located near both individuals. However, a statement from investigators on September 30 clarified that only “packaging associated with kratom-related products” was available at the scenes. Lafayette County Metro Narcotics stated that during their investigation, they recovered this packaging from both locations, but toxicology results are still awaited.
According to court documents, the packaging mentioned the name Modus, and contained tablets listed as Smax Pseudo-DHM, including ingredients such as pseudoindoxyl and MGM-15(DHM), particularly near Hamilton. Mac Haddow, a senior fellow on public policy at the American Kratom Association, expressed his concerns regarding the way the initial reports characterized the products found. He stated that it’s statistically improbable for a natural kratom product to independently cause two deaths in such a short time frame.
Haddow criticized the Oxford police for not providing more clarity on the matter, prompting the association to hold a press conference seeking further information about the use of the term “packaged kratom.” He explained that the products discovered were “chemically manipulated opioids,” rather than kratom itself. Haddow expressed gratitude for this clarification, emphasizing that these substances are controlled under federal law and should not have been available in those areas.
In Mississippi, the Kratom Consumer Protection Act was established to regulate the sale of kratom, rather than impose an outright ban. The act aims to set standards for sellers, specify which products are acceptable, and enforce proper labeling to prevent certain high-potency and adulterated products from reaching consumers.
Natural vs synthetic
Haddow mentioned that natural kratom leaves, used for centuries in Southeast Asia, have not been associated with reported deaths from traditional use, although some adverse effects have been noted in medical literature. He suggested that kratom gained popularity in the U.S. post-Vietnam War due to returning soldiers and immigrants. However, this claim lacks solid proof in published studies.
As he looks into the past, Haddow points to the rise of “amateur chemists” who manipulated the natural plant, bringing kratom to the attention of health authorities. He pointed out that the FDA had previously issued an import alert for kratom in 2012 and attempted to classify its major alkaloids as Schedule I substances in 2016, a move that was later withdrawn.
Recently, the FDA and DEA have voiced concerns about concentrated versions of kratom, particularly those modified chemically. Haddow criticized these alterations, asserting that they fundamentally change the nature of the kratom plant. In his view, these altered products, which deliver potent effects similar to opioids, should not be labeled as kratom.
Calls for stronger enforcement
The American Kratom Association’s present agenda includes a push to ban synthetic kratom products and ensure the protection of the natural leaf. Haddow underlined the importance of preventing the misattribution of adverse events to natural kratom when they should be tied to synthetic opioids. He compared it to blaming coffee for caffeine overdoses resulting from extracting and concentrating caffeine, suggesting that natural forms of the plant should not be held accountable for the actions of others.
Haddow also clarified that products like 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) should not be categorized as kratom, as they are indeed synthetic opioids. He emphasized that these products require enforcement from both federal and local law enforcement agencies while advocating for proper definitions distinguishing them from beneficial natural kratom, which could improve health outcomes.
Regulation over prohibition
The association supports the establishment of regulations rather than outright bans. Haddow pushed for measures that would ensure product safety, proper labeling, and age restrictions, advocating that only individuals 21 and older should access these products. He asserts that efforts will continue to ensure these regulations are enacted and effective.
The FDA has reiterated that kratom is not approved for medical use and has raised alarms about various risks regarding its use. Research continues into the properties and effects of kratom and its components.
