Kratom comes from a tree native to Southeast Asia and is sold as a powder or in capsules, tablets or shots like energy drinks. In small amounts, it acts as a stimulant. In larger amounts, it acts like an opioid. Although the Food and Drug Administration prohibits marketing it as a supplement or using it as a food ingredient, it\u2019s advertised as a mood and energy enhancer, a painkiller and an alternative to opioids.<\/p>\n
ProPublica\u2019s review of McCurdy\u2019s appearances in recent years shows he has emphasized kratom\u2019s therapeutic potential while downplaying its risks \u2014 despite his own published research finding kratom use can lead to severe withdrawal symptoms in newborns exposed in utero, and to dependency and even death in those who take it. McCurdy has brushed off questions about the hazards by noting that even water can kill if consumed in excessive quantities. McCurdy does, however, argue for better manufacturing standards and labeling, and for putting age restrictions on kratom\u2019s use.<\/p>\n
Other scientists who consult with and do research for the kratom association disclose that relationship. But McCurdy, who does not disclose it, has built a reputation as a neutral arbiter <\/strong>in the emotional debate pitting those with life-altering kratom addiction against those who say they use it without ill effects to combat opioid use or relieve pain.<\/p>\n Indeed, McCurdy\u2019s research focuses on developing kratom\u2019s dominant chemical compound into a pharmaceutical to treat addiction. That work has been funded by the federal government, which has poured an estimated $100 million in grants into the research. Such funding could be disrupted if kratom is declared illegal.<\/p>\n McCurdy told ProPublica that he has accepted invitations to speak to policymakers because \u201cdecisions about kratom should be informed by the best available science.\u201d Reimbursed travel expenses don\u2019t influence the \u201csubstance\u201d of his presentations or his \u201cscientific conclusions,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cMy views on kratom are based on more than two decades of scientific research,\u201d he said. \u201cThey are my own and are not dictated by the American Kratom Association or any other outside organization.\u201d<\/p>\n Those advocating for restrictions on kratom contend that as McCurdy testifies, publishes research or provides public information, he should be more forthright about his relationship with the kratom industry.<\/p>\n Jennifer Brandt, a Virginia pharmacist who advocates for a total ban on kratom sales, was the first to file records requests with the University of Florida for McCurdy\u2019s correspondence. She has subsequently asked a medical journal to append corrections listing his ties to the lobbying group. \u201cI\u2019m really confused on where science ends and lobbying begins,\u201d she said of McCurdy.<\/p>\n McCurdy\u2019s work opposing the criminalization of kratom started as early as 2018. That year, he joined with other scientists \u2014 including the AKA\u2019s lead science consultant \u2014 to convince the Drug Enforcement Administration not to classify kratom as a Schedule I narcotic. The designation, reserved for drugs with no medical purpose and high abuse potential, would make kratom illegal. The scientists said in a letter to federal regulators that it would also \u201cseverely hinder\u201d their research into possible therapeutic uses. In a paper, McCurdy argued that scheduling kratom would erect new regulatory hurdles to studying the leaf and dissuade funders<\/a> from supporting it. The effort to schedule kratom was halted during the first Trump administration.<\/p>\n However, the association\u2019s fight continued as it worked to convince state lawmakers to explicitly legalize kratom by regulating its sale. McCurdy also became a key player in this effort, according to emails obtained by ProPublica through public records requests to the University of Florida.\u00a0<\/p>\n While the group\u2019s membership is made up of kratom users, its lobbying efforts are funded by manufacturers and vendors. It spends about $2.5 million a year on lobbying.<\/p>\n In 2023, at the AKA\u2019s request, McCurdy briefed the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which regularly considers kratom regulation. He conducted the briefing remotely and did not travel to the annual meeting in Vienna that year. In 2025, however, he made the trip to brief delegates in person. Emails indicate his hotel room was paid for by the lobbying group.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In 2024, McCurdy traveled several times for the association. He planned an August trip to Indonesia, which was considering a full ban on the leaf, with the association paying $8,700 for a first-class plane ticket. McCurdy canceled the trip at the last minute, the association said. Email correspondence indicates, however, that he kept the flight credit for future AKA-related travel.\u00a0<\/p>\n But he was soon back on the road. In September, he went to Washington, D.C., to dine with and brief members of Congress and their staffs. There, he told lawmakers that he couldn\u2019t say kratom is \u201centirely safe\u201d but that it should remain available to the public as research continues.<\/p>\n \u201cI want it to be accessible to everybody,\u201d he said. \u201cAlways have.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In a video recording distributed by the American Kratom Association, Christopher McCurdy speaks to members of Congress and their staff during a briefing in 2024. American Kratom Association via YouTube<\/p>\n The following month, the AKA arranged for McCurdy\u2019s travel to Little Rock, Arkansas, where lawmakers were debating whether to lift a kratom ban enacted in 2016. He told them kratom dependence was similar to caffeine dependence, describing withdrawal symptoms as akin to those caused by missing a morning cup of coffee. Kratom users have described dependence, so severe they suffer debilitating withdrawal symptoms and can\u2019t quit the leaf. McCurdy has also said in a deposition that some users have been unable to stop taking it.<\/p>\n The lobbying was unsuccessful in Arkansas. But a few months later, with McCurdy\u2019s help, the organization had its first success overturning a state ban.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rhode Island\u2019s Gov. Dan McKee had vetoed a bill to legalize kratom after weighing the concerns of his top public health officials. The association booked travel for McCurdy and other scientists to Providence to brief those health officials. When the legislature reconvened in 2025, the AKA\u2019s bill passed and McKee signed it. This time, the state health officials stayed silent.<\/p>\n That frustrated Rep. Michelle McGaw, a Democrat who is also a pharmacist. She opposed legalizing kratom, citing the threat to public health, but struggled to get her legislative colleagues to take seriously data showing kratom\u2019s risks. \u201cIt has been a struggle, particularly in light of having kratom lobbyists finding ways with their own research or data to counter that narrative or try to confuse the narrative.\u201d<\/p>\n Mac Haddow, the AKA\u2019s lead lobbyist, said his organization relies on McCurdy and other scientists to provide accurate information but has \u201cno control\u201d over what they tell policymakers. \u201cWe think that science should dictate what the public policies are,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Regarding McCurdy\u2019s lack of disclosure that the association funds his travel, Haddow contends that beneficiaries aren\u2019t typically required to reveal travel-related payments and said the association has never commissioned a study from McCurdy that would require disclosure.<\/p>\n Instead, the group has donated to the University of Florida\u2019s foundation and has helped to underwrite McCurdy\u2019s annual kratom symposium, attended by about 100 scientists, to promote research into kratom\u2019s therapeutic potential. The AKA, through its nonprofit arm, the Center for Plant Science and Health, has donated more than $100,000 to the school.<\/p>\n McCurdy estimated while speaking to lawmakers in Georgia this summer that his research has been supported by $1 million from industry donations to the foundation.<\/p>\n McCurdy had not disclosed any ties to the industry on papers he\u2019s published until Brandt, the Virginia pharmacist, spoke up in 2025. She provided one publisher with email correspondence she had obtained under public records laws revealing McCurdy\u2019s ties to the association. The publication required McCurdy to append a correction to the paper that discloses his work as an expert witness in court cases, which he has done for both kratom companies and families bringing wrongful death claims. The correction<\/a> doesn\u2019t mention his work with kratom industry lobbyists.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rules for disclosure vary depending on the scientific journal. But the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which recommends publishing standards, requires reimbursed travel to be disclosed for research submissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Such information is important to understanding the validity of research, said Ivan Oransky, executive director of the Center for Scientific Integrity.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t mean you shouldn\u2019t trust anything that\u2019s funded by industry,\u201d Oransky said. \u201cIt\u2019s part of knowing the whole picture.\u201d<\/p>\n Oransky said giving to a university foundation instead of directly funding research is similar to a business using a shell company to conceal its true ownership. Such a donation might not trigger disclosure the way sponsoring a specific study would.<\/p>\n \u201cThese things are technically legitimate but not intellectually honest,\u201d Oransky said of McCurdy\u2019s funding sources. \u201cIt\u2019s obscuring what\u2019s really happening.\u201d<\/p>\n McCurdy did not list any travel in his conflict of interest statements required by the University of Florida. The university requires disclosure<\/a> if travel exceeds $5,000 in a calendar year. The total value of the travel reimbursed by the AKA is unclear, and neither McCurdy nor the association responded to questions about how much was spent.\u00a0<\/p>\n A university spokesperson said a review of McCurdy\u2019s university disclosures \u201cfound no indication of non-compliance.\u201d The spokesperson did not reply to a question about whether McCurdy\u2019s travel totaled less than $5,000.<\/p>\n In an email to a university colleague, McCurdy said he sees talking to policymakers for the AKA as \u201cpart of my work related expertise and education of the public and policy makers,\u201d which does not need to be disclosed.<\/p>\n The AKA does not support the sale of all products derived from kratom. More recently, McCurdy has sounded the alarm on new kratom derivatives, such as MGM-15 (dihydro-7- hydroxymitragynine), MGM-16 (9-fluorodihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine), and MP (mitragynine pseudoindoxyl), which the AKA is trying to have banned. This has involved drawing a bright line between whole-leaf kratom \u2014 generally the products sold by the vendors that fund the association \u2014 and its new derivatives, which have been described as more potent than morphine.<\/p>\n This summer, McCurdy told a committee of Georgia lawmakers that such derivative products have a high potential for abuse and are causing deaths in his state. \u201cThese are the things that are really scary to me,\u201d he said. \u201cThese synthetics are far from kratom, they are derived from kratom, but they are not kratom at all.\u201d<\/p>\n The DEA cited McCurdy\u2019s research in its recent notices seeking temporary classification of some derivatives as Schedule I drugs. In a news release, the DEA specified the classification does not apply to \u201cbotanical kratom products,\u201d such as the ones McCurdy has sought to protect from scheduling.<\/p>\n But whole-leaf kratom \u2014 the natural product and its extracts \u2014 has also led to dependence and death, according to McCurdy\u2019s own research.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/20230918_zan_s70_063.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/20230918_zan_s70_074.jpg\")
\nUniversity of Florida professor Christopher McCurdy holds kratom, a drug that he has advocated for keeping legal. Dirk Shadd\/Tampa Bay Times via ZUMA Press <\/p>\n