Feds Warns CBD Marketers Again

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has warned three companies that sell cannabidiol (CBD) oils, tinctures, edibles and other products to stop making claims that CBD can be used to treat pain and other chronic illnesses.

In letters to the companies, which the FTC is not identifying, the agency warned that it is illegal to advertise that a product can prevent, treat or cure illnesses without scientific evidence to support such claims.

One company’s website claims CBD “works like magic” to relieve “even the most agonizing pain.” Another company advertises CBD as a “miracle pain remedy” for both acute and chronic pain, including pain from cancer treatment and arthritis.

The FTC said the third company’s website promotes CBD gummies as highly effective at treating “the root cause of most major degenerative diseases, including arthritis, heart disease, fibromyalgia, cancer, asthma, and a wide spectrum of autoimmune disorders.” The company also claims its CBD creams and oils can relieve arthritis and fibromyalgia pain.

“In the letters, the FTC urges the companies to review all claims made for their products, including consumer testimonials, to ensure they are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence,” the agency said in a statement.

The letters also warn that selling CBD products without substantiation could violate the FTC Act and may result in legal action. The companies were given 15 days to respond.

In March 2019, the FTC and Food and Drug Administration sent similar warning letters to three companies -- Nutra Pure, PotNetwork Holdings, and Advanced Spine and Pain — for making false and unsubstantiated health claims about a variety of CBD products.

shield-707769_640.png

Nutra Pure, which makes a line of hemp oil, now has a lengthy disclaimer on its website stating that its products “have not been evaluated” by the FDA and that they “are not intended to diagnose, prevent, treat, or cure any disease.”

But when we posed as a customer in an online chat with “Kristen,” a NutraPure representative, we were assured that hemp oil can treat pain.  

Customer: “Do your products help treat pain?”

Kristen: “There are numerous studies showing CBD has the ability to provide therapeutic benefits in the treatment of various conditions, including chronic pain, arthritis, anxiety/depression, nausea, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, glaucoma and many other ailments.”

Customer: “Which one of your products helps treat fibromyalgia?”

Kristen: “We recommend starting with our 300 or 600 mg bottle.”

Customer: “Will that help joint pain?”

Kristen: “They are like an all in one type product.”

Customer: “What does that mean?”

Kristen: “One product helps with all types of conditions.”

Customer: “Including pain?”

Kristen: “Yes.”

CBD is a non-psychoactive chemical compound derived from the cannabis plant. Much of it comes from hemp – a less potent strain of marijuana – that was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. There are literally thousands of CBD products on the market being sold online and over-the-counter without a prescription, often with dubious claims about their health benefits.

FDA and FTC enforcement actions against CBD marketers are sporadic and have usually only targeted small companies. But an FDA warning letter in July to Curaleaf, a Massachusetts company that sells CBD products nationwide, had an immediate impact on one large retailer. CVS Pharmacy pulled most Curaleaf products from its stores.

FDA Warns Curaleaf About Marketing of CBD Products

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning a large cannabis company to stop making unsubstantiated claims that its products can treat chronic pain, cancer, opioid withdrawal and other medical conditions.

An FDA warning letter was sent to Curaleaf, a Massachusetts-based company that sells cannabidiol (CBD) products online and in stores, and operates dispensaries in a dozen states. CVS Health responded to the FDA letter by pulling some Curaleaf products off its store shelves.

“Selling unapproved products with unsubstantiated therapeutic claims — such as claims that CBD products can treat serious diseases and conditions — can put patients and consumers at risk by leading them to put off important medical care. Additionally, there are many unanswered questions about the science, safety, effectiveness and quality of unapproved products containing CBD,” acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, MD, said in a statement. “Consumers should beware of purchasing or using any such products.”

Curaleaf, which claims to be the largest cannabis operator in the United States, makes an extensive line of CBD lotions, creams, oils and skin patches.

It recently began marketing a line of CBD products for pets to treat pain, spasms, anxiety and inflammation in animals.

The FDA’s warning letter to Curaleaf cited a number of unapproved marketing claims made by the company online and in social media, including:

https---s3.amazonaws.com-leafly-s3-logos-gCB8yK6zT5qU90DIF3iL_Curaleaf_AllProducts_smaller%25201.jpg
  • “CBD was effective in killing human breast cancer cells.”

  • “CBD has been linked to the effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease…”

  • “CBD is being adopted more and more as a natural alternative to pharmaceutical-grade treatments for depression and anxiety.”

  • “CBD can also be used in conjunction with opioid medications, and a number of studies have demonstrated that CBD can in fact reduce the severity of opioid-related withdrawal and lessen the buildup of tolerance.”

  • “CBD oil is becoming a popular, all-natural source of relief used to address the symptoms of many common conditions, such as chronic pain, anxiety … ADHD.”

The FDA gave Curaleaf 15 working days to respond. Failure to correct the violations could result in legal action, including seizure of the company’s products.

“Curaleaf is committed to the highest standards of quality and compliance, and will work collaboratively with the FDA to resolve all issues addressed in the agency's letter,” the company said in a statement.

“Compliance is a top priority for Curaleaf and the Company is fully committed to complying with FDA requirements for all of the products that it markets. We can affirm that nothing in the letter raises any issues concerning the quality and consistency of any Curaleaf product or calls into question the high safety standards of the Company's cultivation and manufacturing processes.”

CBD Products Loosely Regulated

Unlike prescription drugs approved by the FDA, the manufacturing process for CBD products is not subject to FDA review, and there has been no FDA evaluation of their effectiveness, proper dosage, how they could interact with drugs, or whether they have side effects.

Despite the lack of regulatory oversight, there has been explosive growth for CBD companies and their products are starting to appear in mainstream stores. In March, CVS Pharmacy and Walgreens started selling CBD lotions, tinctures, edibles and lozenges — including some made by Curaleaf.

“The only Curaleaf products we are selling are its CBD lotion and CBD transdermal patches,” CVS said in a statement. “Following the FDA’s warning letter to Curaleaf, we will be removing these items from our CBD offering.”  

The FDA sent similar warning letters to three cannabis operators in April. Until now, the enforcement actions have been sporadic and only targeted small companies.

“We will continue to work to protect the health and safety of American consumers from products that are being marketed in violation of the law through actions like those the FDA is taking today. At the same time, we also recognize the potential opportunities and significant interest in drug and other consumer products containing CBD,” said FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy, MD.

“We understand this is an important national issue with public health impact and of interest to American hemp farmers and many other stakeholders. The agency has a well-established pathway for drug development and drug approvals, and we remain committed to evaluating the agency’s regulatory policies related to other types of CBD products.”

The FDA held a public hearing on the issue in May, and opened a docket for public comments to obtain scientific data about the safety, manufacturing, quality, marketing, labeling and sale of CBD products. Nearly 4,500 comments were received. The agency plans to report on its progress this fall.

This week Curaleaf announced it will acquire GR Companies, a large cannabis retailer, in a cash and stock deal valued at $875 million. Curaleaf said the purchase solidifies it’s position as “the world's largest cannabis company by revenue and the largest in the U.S. across key operating metrics.”

FDA Approves First Generics for Lyrica

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generic versions of Lyrica (pregabalin), a medication widely prescribed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, diabetic neuropathy and other types of chronic pain.

Lyrica has been a blockbuster drug for Pfizer since its approval in 2004, generating revenue of $4.6 billion annually. The recent expiration of Pfizer’s patent on Lyrica opened the door to much cheaper generic competitors.

A one year supply of Lyrica currently costs about $2,800 in the United States, according to Healthcare Bluebook, while a similar dose of pregabalin under the UK’s National Health Service costs about $74.

Lyrica2.jpg

“Today’s approval of the first generics for pregabalin, a widely-used medication, is another example of the FDA’s longstanding commitment to advance patient access to lower cost, high-quality generic medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“The FDA requires that generic drugs meet rigorous scientific and quality standards. Efficiently bringing safe and effective generics to market so patients have more options to treat their conditions is a top priority for the FDA.”

The FDA granted approvals for generic pregabalin to 9 drug makers: Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Alkem Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, MSN Laboratories, Rising Pharmaceuticals, Sciegen Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Pfizer’s patent for Lyrica CR — an extended released version of Lyrica — remains in effect until April, 2021.

Side Effects

The most common side effects for Lyrica are dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, swelling, blurred vision, weight gain and difficulty concentrating. Lyrica’s warning label also cautions users that the drug may cause suicidal thoughts in about 1 in 500 people.

Pregabalin is classified as Schedule V controlled substance in the U.S., which means it has a low potential for abuse. In recent years, however, there is growing concern that pregabalin and its sister drug gabapentin (Neurontin) are being abused and overprescribed. The drugs were recently classified as controlled substances in the UK.

Pregabalin and gabapentin were originally developed to prevent epileptic seizures, but their use has tripled over the past 15 years as more doctors prescribed them off-label as “safer” alternatives to opioids.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal found the drugs increase the risk of suicide, overdose and traffic accidents in younger people. The risks were strongest for those taking pregabalin and were most pronounced among adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24. Patients aged 55 and older taking gabapentinoids were not at greater risk.



Researchers Call Kratom a Public Health Threat

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The herb kratom poses a public health threat and should not be sold as a dietary supplement, according to a team of researchers who say kratom should be regulated like a prescription drug because it has “opioid-like” qualities.

"Although it is not as strong as some other prescription opioids, kratom does still act as an opioid in the body," said William Eggleston, PharmD, a professor of pharmacy practice at Binghamton University in New York. "In larger doses, it can cause slowed breathing and sedation, meaning that patients can develop the same toxicity they would if using another opioid product.

“Our findings suggest kratom is not reasonably expected to be safe and poses a public health threat due to its availability as an herbal supplement.”

Eggleston is lead author of a recent study published in the journal Pharmacotherapy that looked at the growing number of calls about kratom to U.S. Poison Control Centers. In recent years, millions of Americans have discovered kratom and use it to self-treat chronic pain, addiction, anxiety and depression.

Eggleston and his colleagues identified 2,312 kratom exposures in the National Poison Data System (NPDS) from 2011 to 2018, with 935 cases involving kratom as the only substance.

The chief complaint for many of the calls was that kratom caused agitation, tachycardia (rapid heartbeat), drowsiness, vomiting and confusion. Infrequent but serious side effects included seizure, withdrawal, hallucinations, respiratory depression, coma, and cardiac or respiratory arrest.

KRATOM CALLS TO U.S. POISON CONTROL CENTERS

SOURCE: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF POISON CONTROL CENTERS

‘Significant Toxicity’

“Despite kratom’s growing popularity as a safe and natural self-treatment option for patients with OUD, our findings suggest there are concerns for significant toxicity. Reports of kratom exposures to the NPDS are rising and have already been associated with serious opioid toxicities, including seizures, agitation, and death,” researchers reported.

“According to the United States Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, herbal and dietary supplements must contain ingredients that are reasonably expected to be safe. Our findings repudiate the idea that kratom meets this criterion. Kratom’s opioid effects put patients at risk for withdrawal, respiratory depression, and death.”

But critics say calls to poison centers are anecdotal, misleading and a poor choice for research.

“The data drawn from the Poison Control Centers are notoriously unreliable, inasmuch as they are anecdotal reports from the public that are gathered and reported in an unscientific fashion,” said Max Karlin, a spokesman for the Kratom Information & Resource Center. “In the absence of good data, you just end up with a garbage-in, garbage-out situation.”

“All the Eggelston paper shows is that the anti-kratom bias is deeply entrenched in conventional medical, pharmacological and government sectors,” said Jane Babin, PhD, a molecular biologist, patent lawyer and consultant to the American Kratom Association (AKA). “It seems to be more of the same unscientific attack on kratom. I don’t see anything in this that warrants their conclusion.

“AKA now estimates that there are 16 million kratom users in the U.S. based on data from Indonesia on how much kratom is exported to the U.S. annually. 2,312 exposures out of 16 million users is a pretty low percentage of users who have anything to report to poison control.”

The 2,312 calls about kratom over an 8-year period pale in comparison to calls about other substances. In the first six months of this year alone, over 13,400 calls were made to U.S. poison centers about children ingesting hand sanitizers or laundry detergent packets.

Kratom Scheduling

Kratom comes from the leaves of a tree that grows in southeast Asia, where it has been used for centuries as a natural stimulant and pain reliever. As a dietary supplement, kratom is loosely regulated in the United States, although federal agencies are engaged in a protracted public campaign against its use.

bigstock-Supplement-Kratom-Green-Capsul-227871193.jpg

The FDA says kratom is addictive, has opioid-like qualities and is not approved for any medical condition. The agency has also released studies showing salmonella bacteria and heavy metals contaminating a relatively small number of kratom products. 

The CDC recently linked kratom to dozens of fatal overdoses -- although multiple substances were involved in nearly all of those deaths.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended to the DEA that kratom be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance – alongside heroin and marijuana — which would effectively ban it nationwide.

“At some level, we do need to have better control over it,” says study co-author Lewis Nelson, MD, a Professor of Emergency Medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. “We know that (kratom) has two big uses out there. One of them is for people to get high and the other one is to treat opioid withdrawal. Those are the real reasons people use it.

“Whether its an opioid or not an opioid, people use it do things that they would typically do with opioids, like pain, get high, and treat withdrawal. I think empirically we know it has enough of an opioid-like character that it’s being marketed and used that way.”

Lewis said kratom should be scheduled as a controlled substance, but not under Schedule I. He thinks it may be more appropriate to classify kratom as a Schedule II or III drug, where it could still be available by prescription.

“I would like to see that. If they could show this drug has benefits and we could understand and moderate the risk, I don’t see why it couldn’t be used like any other drug,” said Lewis, who is a longtime critic of opioid prescribing.

Let’s create a safe product and let’s get it appropriately scheduled. Have it available by prescription. I don’t have a problem with that.
— Dr. Lewis Nelson

“Prove it works. Let’s create a safe product and let’s get it appropriately scheduled. Have it available by prescription. I don’t have a problem with that.”

But getting kratom approved by the FDA as a prescription drug would require years of clinical studies. Pharmaceutical companies may be reluctant to fund research on a natural substance that they may not be able to patent. And kratom users, long accustomed to buying it online or in smoke shops, dislike the idea of needing a doctor’s prescription.

In a 2016 PNN survey of over 6,400 kratom users, nearly 98 percent said they wanted kratom to remain available as a dietary supplement.  Over 70 percent said pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to produce kratom-based drugs.  And nearly three out of four dispute the notion that it’s possible to get high from kratom.  

Lewis remains skeptical that people are not using kratom recreationally and that it should remain on the market as a dietary supplement.  

“I find it a little disingenuous to say we should leave this potentially unsafe drug on the market unregulated, just because some people already use it,” he told PNN.

Indonesia May Ban Kratom Exports

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A possible ban on the growth and export of kratom in Indonesia is raising alarm among kratom users in the U.S. and around the world.  About 95% of the world’s supply of kratom comes from Indonesia, where the herbal supplement has become a lucrative cash crop.

Kratom leaves are harvested from a tree that grows in southeast Asia, where it has been used for centuries as a natural stimulant and pain reliever. In recent years, millions of Americans have started using kratom to treat pain, addiction, anxiety and depression.

Kratom advocates say the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – which opposes the use of kratom for any medical condition – has been lobbying the Indonesian government to ban kratom farming. Current plans by the Indonesian Ministry of Health call for a 5-year transition period to allow kratom growers to shift to other crops.

“If this ban is allowed to go into effect, it will effectively end consumer access to kratom in the United States, and the FDA won’t have to do anything more to declare victory in the War on Kratom,” said C. M. “Mac” Haddow, a lobbyist for the American Kratom Association (AKA), a group of kratom vendors and consumers.

“Even if some black-market kratom gets into the United States after the Indonesian ban goes into effect, it will be so expensive that only the uber-rich will be able to afford it. And it will likely be extremely dangerous to consume because there will be no standards on growing, harvesting, and shipping.”

800px-Kratom_tree.jpg

FDA Denies Involvement

An FDA spokesman said the agency has “inquired” about kratom in Indonesia, but denied making any effort to have it banned.

“The FDA has inquired to understand the current status of kratom under Indonesian law. However, the FDA has not advocated either formally or informally about a change in law in Indonesia or any other country relative to kratom,” the spokesman said in an email to PNN.

The AKA sent a delegation to Indonesia last month to meet with the Ministry of Health and other government officials. Among the attendees was Duncan Macrae, the founder of Kratom.com and one of the first commercial growers of kratom in Indonesia. Macrae told PNN the initial meeting went well.

“When we left Jakarta we were given the green light that there would always be a legitimate path to export kratom even though the Indonesian government will almost definitely regulate and make kratom illegal for domestic use in Indonesia,” Macrae wrote in an email. “Unfortunately, since there was some (in my opinion) unnecessary outreaching to other departments such as the Agriculture & Quarantine department and also the department of trade, this has stirred up another hornet’s nest.” 

According to the AKA, the Ministry of Agriculture sent a memo in the past week to various agencies in the Indonesian government recommending the ban on kratom be formalized at all levels of government.  

Macrae fears that kratom will also be classified as an illegal controlled substance in Indonesia, which would effectively ban its growth and export.  

Was the FDA involved? For sure yes! Unfortunately, this went through the U.S. embassy in Jakarta as well.
— Duncan Macrae, Kratom Supplier

“This means it has no scientific or medicinal use and will even prevent further research from being done on the plant in Indonesia,” said Macrae. “Was the FDA involved? For sure yes! Unfortunately, this went through the U.S. embassy in Jakarta as well.” 

A leading Indonesian politician called on the government to ignore the “world health mafia” and conduct research on the risks and benefits of kratom before banning it.

"Once again the government does not play a ban without doing deep professional research. It is tantamount to throwing away the nation's own assets. In the end Indonesia will only be an importer of finished products from kratom leaves," Daniel Johan, Deputy Chairperson of the House of Representatives, told a local news agency. "Indonesia must master its downstream products so that it is truly beneficial for the people of Indonesia and the world, so that we do not even enter the format of world health mafia war."

Kratom is already banned for domestic use in Indonesia, although the export of raw kratom product is allowed. In 2016, about 400 tons of kratom were shipped every month from Indonesia’s top growing region -- worth about $130 million annually, according to a report from Agence France-Presse. Most of those exports went to the U.S.

The FDA has linked kratom to dozens of fatal overdoses -- although multiple substances were involved in nearly all of those deaths. The FDA has also found salmonella bacteria and heavy metals in a relatively small number of kratom products. 

Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended to the DEA that kratom be classified as a Schedule I substance – which would effectively ban it nationwide. Currently, the DEA doesn't even list kratom in its annual report on drug threats. 

The AKA is planning to send another delegation to Indonesia this month to lobby against a kratom ban.

The Push for Stem Cell Censorship Has Begun

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

A new study published in journal Stem Cell Reports, entitled “How to Peddle Hope: An Analysis of YouTube Patient Testimonials of Unproven Stem Cell Treatments,” looks at over a hundred videos by stem cell patients posted on YouTube. 

The study appears to have an underlying anti-democratic agenda – to shame YouTube and other internet platforms into removing positive patient testimonials about stem cell therapy (SCT).  Indeed, the use of the pejorative term “peddle” in the article’s title immediately undermines the study’s credibility.

This research epitomizes how propaganda can masquerade as scientific research, and how data can be twisted to meet its masters’ agenda.

The study comes on the heels of a recent federal judge’s decision that the FDA could regulate stem cells made from adipose tissue – a patient’s own fat cells. Although SCT critics generally praised the ruling as a victory for government oversight, outlets like the Washington Post lamented that it would likely not deter clinics from offering the therapy. 

A New York Times article accused the FDA of not acting until patients were harmed, and using enforcement actions that consist only of warning letters without any real teeth.  

bigstock-woman-assistant-in-laboratory--118996760.jpg

STAT News even criticized the National Institutes of Health for allowing stem cell clinics to “co-opt” the nation’s clinical trial database.

Stem cell critics have apparently realized that the three previous stages of their vilification campaign have failed. These stages were:

  1. Vilify the patients:  Promote the condescending narrative that patients are desperate, ignorant and too stupid to research stem cell therapy for themselves and decide whether it is best for them.

  2. Vilify the clinics: Stem cell clinics are run by shady charlatans who engage in duplicitous business practices that take advantage of desperate, ignorant and pitiful Americans by selling them “unproven” products that couldn’t possibly help them.

  3. Vilify the federal government: Federal agencies have not acted quickly or robustly enough to enforce the regulations that govern regenerative medicine, thus tacitly approving the growing “wild west” of clinics offering SCT.

The Push for YouTube Censorship

Critics now appear to be setting their sights on a fourth vilification stage.  In their desperation, they have decided to take a more authoritarian turn towards internet censorship.

The new study’s authors examined 159 YouTube testimonials from patients who had SCT for ALS, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury.  Not surprisingly, they found that most of the videos were published by providers and nearly all discussed the benefits of SCT in improving pain, overall health and quality of life. 

The authors concluded the YouTube testimonials “may be a potent marketing tool” and “are likely to have a wider reach and significant impact on influencing health behavior.” 

The article’s final sentence reveals the authors’ true motive: “Adopting multiple approaches, including patient education, enhancing patient treatment options, and regulatory oversight, are required to make a significant dent in reducing the number of clinics providing unproven SCTs.”

Setting aside the numerous, glaring and egregious methodological shortcomings of the study, the more important issue is one of broader public policy.  These authors appear to be implicitly advocating that YouTube and other internet sites censor videos that are “misleading” or “deceptive” or not published by “reputable organizations.” 

And who or what is to determine whether any particular video meets this criteria?  Wired published an article with the ominous headline “YouTube Testimonials Lure Patients to Shady Stem Cell Clinics,” implicitly calling on YouTube to take action. The notion isn’t farfetched. YouTube has been in the news a lot recently for censoring videos, using nebulous criteria and subjective standards.   

Apparently, SCT critics have jumped on the YouTube censorship bandwagon.  It’s a wagon that seems to claim a new victim every day, and its victims are usually those who threaten the status quo.  Unfortunately, it’s a wagon that travels the pothole-riddled road of authoritarianism.  It’s a road patrolled by people in strange uniforms, with sophisticated and articulate weapons, who dispense a vicious propaganda, and who always claim to have your best interest at heart.

Please make sure to call, email and/or tweet your state and federal legislators to voice your support for the availability and affordability of stem cell therapy.  The people who suffer with pain and disability will not be silenced and will not be censored.  Our democratic voice will be the response to their authoritarianism.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

FDA Warns Kratom Vendors

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued two more warning letters to kratom vendors – Cali Botanicals of Folsom, California and Kratom NC of Wilmington, North Carolina – for making unproven claims that kratom can treat pain, addiction, depression, anxiety and other medical conditions.

Kratom comes from the leaves of a tree that grows in southeast Asia, where it has been used for centuries as a natural stimulant and pain reliever. In recent years millions of Americans have discovered kratom -- including many who have lost access to opioid medication -- and found it to be an effective treatment.   

The FDA, however, considers kratom an unapproved drug that shouldn't be used to treat any medical condition.

“Despite our warnings, companies continue to sell this dangerous product and make deceptive medical claims that are not backed by science or any reliable scientific evidence,” said acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, MD.

“As we work to combat the opioid crisis, we cannot allow unscrupulous vendors to take advantage of consumers by selling products with unsubstantiated claims that they can treat opioid addiction or alleviate other medical conditions.”

bigstock-Supplement-Kratom-Green-Capsul-227871193.jpg

What makes kratom dangerous? Sharpless cited FDA studies that found salmonella bacteria and heavy metals in a relatively small number of kratom products.  Kratom has also been linked to dozens of fatal overdoses -- although multiple substances were involved in nearly all of those deaths.

The FDA said Cali Botanicals and Kratom NC were using websites and social media to make unproven claims about kratom's ability to treat medical conditions. Cali Botanicals, for example, makes these claims about kratom's benefits:

  • “Kratom is able to reduce the pain levels that reach the brain in a way that’s very similar to opioid drugs.”

  • "Kratom is seen as life-saving by former addicts, who found kratom to be the only way they could overcome their addictions."

  • “Consumption of kratom can reduce pain and swelling to an injury.”

  • “Addicts can wean themselves off of their addictions by replacing their drugs with kratom. It has similar effects as opioids, but without the same dependency. Kratom also helps with the withdrawal symptoms.”

  • “Kratom is used for energy, to increase attention/focus, to relax, and also to treat pain and addiction."

  • “Some researchers have even claimed that kratom can protect you against cancer!”

With the exception of that claim about preventing cancer, those are the same benefits that many kratom users report anecdotally.

"For over two years now I have enjoyed drinking my kratom tea a couple of times a day. It helps promote my mood and energy like a cup of coffee would. The tea also relieves my aching joints and muscles, making my chronic fatigue and pain much more bearable," Kim DeMott wrote in a recent PNN column.  

"Kratom does not make me high, nor do I experience side effects. I am now clear minded without the sedation caused by narcotics. And I am devastated that the FDA is working to ban the only thing that has helped me in the past 28 years," fibromyalgia sufferer Mary Ann Dunkel wrote in another guest column.

Kratom has been banned in 6 states and dozens of counties and cities have enacted or are considering their own bans. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended to the DEA that kratom be classified as a Schedule I substance – which would effectively ban it nationwide. Currently, the DEA doesn't even list kratom in its annual report on drug threats.