US health officials crack down on kratom-related products after complaints from supplement industry
The chemical, known as 7- hydroxymitragynine, is a component of kratom, a plant native to Southeast Asia that has gained popularity in the U.S. as an unapproved treatment for pain, anxiety and drug dependence.
In recent months, dietary supplement companies that sell kratom have been urging the Food and Drug Administration to crack down on the products containing 7-OH, portraying them as dangerously strong, synthetic versions of the original ingredient.
The FDA action 'is not focused on natural kratom leaf products,' according to a statement Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The agency said it was releasing a report to educate about the risks of '7-OH and its distinction from the kratom plant leaf.' Regulators are also recommending that the ingredient be placed on the federal government's most restrictive list of illegal drugs, which also includes LSD and heroin.
'7-OH is an opioid that can be more potent than morphine,' said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. 'We need regulation and public education to prevent another wave of the opioid epidemic.'
The agency's recommendation will be reviewed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which sets federal rules for high-risk drugs including prescription medicines and illicit substances.
Federal regulators have been scrutinizing kratom for about a decade after reports of addiction, injury and overdose. But users and distributors have long opposed efforts to regulate it, saying kratom could be a safer alternative to opioid painkillers that sparked the ongoing drug addiction epidemic.
Last month, the FDA issued warning letters to seven companies selling drinks, gummies and powders infused with the drug. Regulators said the products violated FDA rules because they have not been evaluated for safety and, in some cases, claimed to treat medical conditions, including pain, arthritis and anxiety.
Supplement executives quickly applauded the move.
The FDA 'demonstrated the exact kind of data-driven, proactive regulatory excellence needed to safeguard unwitting consumers across the U.S.,' said Ryan Niddel of Diversified Botanics, a Utah-based company that sells kratom supplements.
An industry group, the American Kratom Association, has lobbied Congress for years against restrictions on the plant. Legislation supported by the group would prohibit the FDA from regulating kratom more strictly than food and dietary supplements
Nearly a decade ago, the federal government came close to a national ban on the substance.
In 2016, the DEA announced plans to add kratom to the government's most restrictive schedule 1 of illegal drugs. But the plan stalled after a flood of public complaints, including a letter signed by more than 60 members of Congress.
The FDA then began studying the ingredient, concluding in 2018 that kratom contains many of the same chemicals as opioids, the addictive class of drugs that includes painkillers like OxyContin as well as heroin and fentanyl.
Since then, FDA regulators have continued to issue warnings about cases of injury, addiction and death with kratom supplements, which are usually sold in capsules or powders.
In recent months, the FDA has also issued warnings on other unapproved drugs sold as supplements or energy drinks, including the antidepressant tianeptine
. Sometimes referred to collectively as 'gas station heroin,' the drugs have been restricted by several states, but they are not scheduled at the federal level.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
31 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, CDC report says
Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new federal report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultraprocessed foods make up a big chunk of the U.S. diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, however, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. The report comes amid growing scrutiny of such foods by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who blames them for causing chronic disease. 'We are poisoning ourselves and it's coming principally from these ultraprocessed foods,' Kennedy told Fox News earlier this year. Overall, about 55% of total calories consumed by Americans age 1 and older came from ultraprocessed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultraprocessed foods made up about 53% of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62%. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultraprocessed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultraprocessed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultraprocessed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56% in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66% for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. But Andrea Deierlein, a nutrition expert at New York University who was not involved in the research, suggested that there may be greater awareness of the potential harms of ultraprocessed foods. 'People are trying, at least in some populations, to decrease their intakes of these foods,' she said. Concern over ultraprocessed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fiber and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultraprocessed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods — such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables — than ultraprocessed foods, even those matched for nutrition components and considered healthy, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, protein bars and shakes. Part of the problem is simply defining ultraprocessed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be 'hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats,' the CDC report said. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. U.S. health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions 'accurately capture' the range of foods that may affect health. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultraprocessed foods for products in the U.S. food supply. In the meantime, Americans should try to reduce ultraprocessed foods in their daily diets, Deierlein said. For instance, instead of instant oatmeal that may contain added sugar, sodium, artificial colors and preservatives, use plain oats sweetened with honey or maple syrup. Read food packages and nutrition information, she suggested. 'I do think that there are less-processed options available for many foods,' she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Winnipeg Free Press
31 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
Global News
5 hours ago
- Global News
The NFL has banned smelling salts. Could Canadian football follow suit?
The National Football League in the United States is banning the use of smelling salts during games, saying the products aren't proven to be safe and also could mask signs of a concussion. Sniffing the ammonia product is thought to give players a short-term mental boost. While the Canadian Football League isn't making the same decision right now — in the middle of the season, it is on their minds. 'The Medical Committee will review the literature and consult with league physicians in the off-season during Medical Meetings in Edmonton next January before determining a course of action,' the CFL said in a memo to Global News. In Edmonton, Elks defensive lineman Jake Ceresna said he started using smelling salts in college and now he, along with many others Elks players, take a whiff from a team bottle before kickoff. Story continues below advertisement It just feels like you kind of wake up, if you're a little tired or if the moment is big and you're a little anxious, it wakes you up and gets you ready to go,' Ceresna said on Wednesday. He hopes players will have a say in whatever direction the CFL goes in. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Ceresna said while smelling salts are part of his pregame ritual, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they were banned — he says it's just something players would have to get used to. 'We're always concerned with player safety and their health, so if there is research that shows that they have negative effects and they can mask concussions, then maybe it's time we look at it in the off-season.' 'Obviously it's something where we have to look at the science and see what's best.' Tweet This Click to share quote on Twitter: "Obviously it's something where we have to look at the science and see what's best." 2:03 Sport-related concussion symptoms still present one year later, researchers find The NFL sent a memo to teams on Tuesday explaining the decision to ban smelling salts and any other ammonia inhalant during pregame activities, games and halftime on the sideline or locker rooms. Story continues below advertisement 'In 2024, the FDA issued a warning to companies that produce commercially available ammonia inhalants (AIs), as well as to consumers about the purchase and use of AIs, regarding the lack of evidence supporting the safety or efficacy of AIs marketed for improving mental alertness or boosting energy,' according to the memo obtained by The Associated Press. 'The FDA noted potential negative effects from AI use. AIs also have the potential to mask certain neurologic signs and symptoms, including some potential signs of concussion. As a result, the NFL Head, Neck, and Spine Committee recommended prohibiting the use of AIs for any purpose during play in the NFL.' San Francisco 49ers tight end George Kittle first disclosed the ban during an interview with NFL Network on Tuesday, adding that he hoped the league would relent and 'figure out a middle ground.' That won't happen, according to the memo, which explicitly prohibits any club personnel from providing or supplying products such as ammonia capsules, inhalers, ammonia in a cup, and any form of 'smelling salts.' Smelling salts and other similar products have been a staple on NFL sidelines for years with many players believing they can provide a sudden jolt of energy or alertness. — With files from Karen Bartko and Sarah Ryan, Global News
