Addiction Journal: Kratom Consumer Protection Acts Fail to Reduce Health Harms — Only Bans Work

Why it matters

With dozens of states debating kratom laws in 2026, new evidence published in a leading addiction journal shows that the most common industry-endorsed regulatory approach — the Kratom Consumer Protection Act — provides no public health benefit over having no regulation at all.

The big picture

As kratom harms escalate nationally, the policy debate has centered on two approaches: outright bans or the industry-backed Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), which sets age limits and labeling rules while preserving access. New comparative state-level data provide the clearest evidence yet on which approach actually reduces harm — and the answer challenges the KCPA model advocated by the kratom industry.

Key findings

• States adopting the KCPA show no statistically significant difference in severe kratom health outcomes compared to unregulated states
• States with outright kratom bans have substantially lower rates of adverse outcomes
• Kratom-related harms were rising significantly before high-potency 7-OH products entered the market in 2023
• Policies targeting only 7-OH are therefore unlikely to address the underlying public health problem
• The commentary draws explicit parallels to how early opioid crisis warning signs were dismissed, warning of similar mistakes with kratom

What they say

"Kratom availability is associated with increased serious public health harms, including death. Regulatory approaches that preserve access, such as the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, do not reduce adverse outcomes. Policymakers should apply lessons from the opioid crisis, reject industry narratives and limit availability to prevent rising morbidity and mortality." — Andrew Kolodny, MD, Brandeis University, writing in Addiction

Bottom line

A Brandeis University addiction expert, publishing in Addiction journal, presents evidence that the Kratom Consumer Protection Act provides no measurable public health benefit — and that only outright bans have been associated with reduced serious harms.