Yuyun Lusiyani
A prominent scientist, advocating against the criminalization of kratom—a substance linked to a growing number of deaths and addiction cases globally—has consistently failed to reveal significant, long-standing financial connections to the American Kratom Association (AKA), the industry’s most influential lobbying organization. This revelation, brought to light by an investigation from ProPublica, raises serious questions about scientific objectivity and transparency in the ongoing, contentious debate over kratom’s legal status.
Christopher McCurdy, a distinguished professor at the University of Florida, has reportedly accepted various forms of financial support from the AKA. These include reimbursements for travel, substantial donations directed to his university’s foundation, and funding allocated for an annual symposium dedicated to research on the leaf’s potential medicinal properties. Crucially, none of these financial ties have been disclosed in his official conflict of interest statements or within the scientific papers he has authored and published, undermining the perception of his neutrality in a highly sensitive public health discussion.
The Escalating Kratom Controversy and Public Health Concerns
The battle to maintain kratom’s legality across the United States has gained critical urgency as more potent derivatives of the substance have proliferated on store shelves nationwide. Simultaneously, a mounting body of evidence underscores the significant health risks associated with its use. According to grim statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a staggering 5,200 individuals in the United States succumbed to drug overdoses involving kratom between 2020 and 2024. This alarming figure represents a fraction of the broader impact, as calls to poison control centers across the country concerning kratom have surged by an astonishing 1,200% over the past decade, signaling a rapid increase in adverse events and emergency situations related to the substance.
Kratom, derived from a tree native to Southeast Asia (Mitragyna speciosa), is widely available in various forms, including powders, capsules, tablets, and even liquid shots marketed similarly to energy drinks. Its pharmacological profile is complex and dose-dependent: in smaller quantities, it acts as a stimulant, enhancing mood and energy. However, at higher doses, it exhibits opioid-like effects, leading to pain relief, sedation, and a high potential for dependency. Despite the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explicitly prohibiting its marketing as a dietary supplement or use as a food ingredient, kratom is frequently advertised by vendors as a natural mood and energy enhancer, a potent painkiller, and a purported alternative to traditional opioids, often appealing to individuals seeking to manage chronic pain or opioid withdrawal symptoms.
The AKA’s Lobbying Prowess and McCurdy’s Strategic Role
The American Kratom Association, which positions itself as a fierce advocate for kratom consumers, has deployed significant resources in a vigorous lobbying campaign across state legislatures and within the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. Its primary objective is to ensure kratom products remain widely accessible in various retail outlets, from gas stations and smoke shops to convenience stores. Documents obtained through public records requests highlight the AKA’s consistent reliance on Professor McCurdy to bolster its arguments and persuade lawmakers that kratom is sufficiently safe for continued legal status. He has been strategically deployed to key states grappling with legislative decisions, including those considering outright bans on the leaf or contemplating the repeal of existing prohibitions. His perceived success in influencing federal regulators earned him a distinguished place in the AKA’s "Legacy Advocate Hall of Fame," a testament to his pivotal role in the industry’s lobbying efforts. The group’s lobbying endeavors, though ostensibly representing consumers, are financially underpinned by manufacturers and vendors, with annual lobbying expenditures estimated at approximately $2.5 million.
A Chronology of Influence and Undisclosed Ties
Professor McCurdy’s active opposition to the criminalization of kratom dates back to at least 2018. In that pivotal year, he joined forces with a coalition of scientists, notably including the AKA’s lead science consultant, to successfully lobby the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Their collective goal was to prevent kratom from being classified as a Schedule I narcotic, a designation reserved for substances deemed to have no accepted medical purpose and a high potential for abuse, which would effectively render kratom illegal. In a letter to federal regulators, the scientists argued that such a classification would not only severely hinder ongoing research into kratom’s potential therapeutic applications but also dissuade vital funders from supporting future studies. This concerted effort proved successful, as the move to schedule kratom was ultimately halted during the first Trump administration.
Following this federal victory, the AKA intensified its state-level advocacy, working to persuade lawmakers to enact explicit legislation regulating kratom sales, thereby cementing its legal status. Emails obtained by ProPublica via public records requests to the University of Florida reveal McCurdy’s increasing and instrumental involvement in these state-level battles.
His engagement extended to international forums. In 2023, at the direct request of the AKA, McCurdy provided a remote briefing to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, an influential body that regularly reviews and considers regulations for various substances, including kratom. While his 2023 appearance was virtual, he undertook an in-person trip to Vienna in 2025 to brief delegates, with email correspondence explicitly indicating that the lobbying group covered the costs of his hotel accommodation.
The year 2024 saw McCurdy frequently traveling on behalf of the association. An August trip to Indonesia, a major source country then contemplating a complete ban on the leaf, was planned with the AKA paying an estimated $8,700 for a first-class plane ticket. Although McCurdy ultimately canceled this trip, email exchanges indicate he retained the flight credit for future AKA-related travel. He was soon back on the road, traveling to Washington, D.C., in September to engage with and brief members of Congress and their staff during a dinner event. There, he carefully stated that he could not declare kratom "entirely safe" but reiterated his stance that it should remain publicly available as research continues, proclaiming, "I want it to be accessible to everybody. Always have."
The following month, the AKA arranged McCurdy’s travel to Little Rock, Arkansas, where state lawmakers were debating whether to reverse a 2016 kratom ban. During his testimony, he controversially likened kratom dependence to caffeine dependence, characterizing withdrawal symptoms as being "akin to those caused by missing a morning cup of coffee." This statement stands in stark contrast to numerous accounts from kratom users describing severe, debilitating withdrawal symptoms, and McCurdy’s own deposition where he acknowledged some users’ inability to cease taking the substance. Despite his efforts, the lobbying in Arkansas proved unsuccessful.
However, a few months later, the organization achieved a significant victory in overturning a state ban, largely attributed to McCurdy’s assistance. Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee had initially vetoed a bill to legalize kratom, citing concerns from top public health officials. The AKA subsequently orchestrated travel for McCurdy and other scientists to Providence to brief these same health officials. When the legislature reconvened in 2025, the AKA’s bill passed, and Governor McKee signed it into law, notably with the state health officials remaining silent this time.
This outcome deeply frustrated Rep. Michelle McGaw, a Democrat and pharmacist who opposed legalization due to public health risks. She lamented the difficulty in convincing her legislative colleagues of the data on kratom’s dangers, stating, "It 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."
Conflicting Narratives: Public Advocacy vs. Published Research
ProPublica’s comprehensive review of McCurdy’s public appearances over recent years reveals a consistent pattern: he has emphasized kratom’s therapeutic potential while concurrently downplaying its inherent risks. This public messaging stands in stark contradiction to findings from his own published research, which has documented severe withdrawal symptoms in newborns exposed to kratom in utero, as well as dependency and even fatalities among users. When confronted about these hazards, McCurdy has often dismissed concerns by employing analogies, famously noting that even water can be fatal if consumed in excessive quantities. While advocating for accessibility, McCurdy does support better manufacturing standards, clear labeling, and age restrictions for kratom products.
Other scientists who collaborate with and conduct research for the American Kratom Association routinely disclose their relationships with the organization. McCurdy, however, has maintained silence on these ties, thereby cultivating a public image as an impartial arbiter in the highly emotional and polarized debate between individuals struggling with life-altering kratom addiction and those who claim to use it safely to manage opioid withdrawal or chronic pain.
Adding another layer of complexity, McCurdy’s research endeavors are notably focused on developing kratom’s dominant chemical compound into a pharmaceutical treatment for addiction. This research has garnered substantial federal backing, with the government allocating an estimated $100 million in grants to support his work. The potential criminalization of kratom could severely jeopardize this significant federal funding, creating a powerful incentive for McCurdy to advocate against such measures.
Official Responses and Ethical Questions
In response to ProPublica’s inquiries, Professor McCurdy stated that he accepts invitations to speak to policymakers because "decisions about kratom should be informed by the best available science." He maintained that reimbursed travel expenses do not influence the "substance" of his presentations or his "scientific conclusions." He further asserted, "My views on kratom are based on more than two decades of scientific research. They are my own and are not dictated by the American Kratom Association or any other outside organization."
However, advocates for stricter kratom regulations argue that McCurdy’s relationship with the industry should be explicitly disclosed whenever he testifies, publishes research, or provides public information. Jennifer Brandt, a Virginia pharmacist and staunch proponent of a complete ban on kratom sales, was instrumental in initiating the investigation by filing public records requests with the University of Florida for McCurdy’s correspondence. She has subsequently urged a medical journal to append corrections to his published papers, detailing his ties to the lobbying group. Brandt expressed her profound confusion, stating, "I’m really confused on where science ends and lobbying begins," concerning McCurdy’s activities.
Mac Haddow, the AKA’s lead lobbyist, defended the organization’s reliance on McCurdy and other scientists to provide accurate information, asserting that the AKA has "no control" over what they communicate to policymakers. He stated, "We think that science should dictate what the public policies are." Regarding McCurdy’s non-disclosure of AKA-funded travel, Haddow contended that beneficiaries are not typically mandated to disclose travel-related payments, and emphasized that the association has never commissioned a specific study from McCurdy that would necessitate such disclosure.
Instead, the AKA has channeled its support through donations to the University of Florida’s foundation and has helped underwrite McCurdy’s annual kratom symposium, an event attended by approximately 100 scientists, aimed at fostering research into kratom’s therapeutic potential. The AKA, through its nonprofit arm, the Center for Plant Science and Health, has donated more than $100,000 to the university. Speaking to Georgia lawmakers this past summer, McCurdy himself estimated that his research has been supported by $1 million from industry donations to the foundation.
Until Brandt’s intervention in 2025, McCurdy had not disclosed any industry ties in his published papers. Brandt provided one publisher with email correspondence obtained under public records laws, which exposed McCurdy’s connections to the association. The publication then mandated McCurdy to append a correction to the paper, disclosing his work as an expert witness in court cases for both kratom companies and families pursuing wrongful death claims. Notably, this correction did not include mention of his extensive work with kratom industry lobbyists.
Disclosure rules vary across scientific journals, but the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, a body that recommends publishing standards, explicitly requires reimbursed travel to be disclosed for research submissions. Ivan Oransky, executive director of the Center for Scientific Integrity, highlighted the critical importance of such information for assessing the validity and credibility of research. "It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust anything that’s funded by industry," Oransky explained, "It’s part of knowing the whole picture." He further likened the practice of donating to a university foundation rather than directly funding research to a business utilizing a shell company to obscure its true ownership. Oransky concluded that such funding mechanisms, while "technically legitimate," are "not intellectually honest" and effectively "obscuring what’s really happening."
McCurdy’s conflict of interest statements, as required by the University of Florida, did not list any travel. The university’s policy mandates disclosure if travel expenses exceed $5,000 in a calendar year. The precise total value of travel reimbursed by the AKA remains unclear, as neither McCurdy nor the association provided specifics on the amount spent. A university spokesperson stated that a review of McCurdy’s university disclosures "found no indication of non-compliance," but did not respond to inquiries about whether his total travel expenditures fell below the $5,000 threshold. In an email to a university colleague, McCurdy rationalized his engagement with policymakers for the AKA as "part of my work related expertise and education of the public and policy makers," which, in his view, does not require disclosure.
The Evolving Landscape of Kratom and its Derivatives
While advocating for "botanical kratom," the AKA has taken a firm stance against the sale of certain potent, novel kratom derivatives. Recently, McCurdy has vocalized concerns regarding compounds such as MGM-15 (dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine), MGM-16 (9-fluorodihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine), and MP (mitragynine pseudoindoxyl), which the AKA is actively seeking to ban. This strategy involves drawing a clear distinction between "whole-leaf kratom"—which generally encompasses the products sold by the vendors funding the association—and these new derivatives, some of which have been described as significantly more potent than morphine.
This past summer, McCurdy informed a committee of Georgia lawmakers that these derivative products carry a high potential for abuse and are directly contributing to deaths within his state. "These are the things that are really scary to me," he stated. "These synthetics are far from kratom, they are derived from kratom, but they are not kratom at all." The DEA has, in fact, cited McCurdy’s research in its recent notices proposing the temporary classification of some derivatives as Schedule I drugs, explicitly stating that this classification does not extend to "botanical kratom products," precisely the type McCurdy has consistently sought to protect from scheduling.
However, the distinction becomes blurred by McCurdy’s own research, which indicates that even whole-leaf kratom—the natural product and its extracts—has been linked to dependency and fatalities. In a 2022 co-authored review of medical literature, he highlighted cardiovascular, neurological, and psychiatric adverse events associated with kratom use, emphasizing an "urgent" concern about neonates experiencing withdrawal symptoms after in-utero exposure. Furthermore, in 2025, he co-wrote a paper analyzing kratom-related deaths in Florida between 2020 and 2021, a period well before the more dangerous derivatives entered the market. This paper concluded that dozens of individuals "died of kratom (mitragynine) exposures alone." Yet, when addressing policymakers, McCurdy largely omits these critical findings.
McCurdy reiterated to ProPublica that he does not contend kratom "is without risk" and that his findings on its dangers "should be taken seriously." He maintained, "At the same time, the existence of risk does not by itself answer the policy question of whether a substance should be prohibited." He concluded, "My scientific assessment has led me to support appropriate regulation, including manufacturing and labeling standards, age restrictions, and safeguards addressing products that present materially different risks." When pressed by lawmakers on the dangers, he consistently defaults to the argument that any substance can be hazardous at a sufficient dose, citing caffeine and even water as examples. "There is such a thing as water intoxication that can cause death, and does cause deaths every year," he told an Arkansas lawmaker in 2024. "But we don’t ever think about banning water or making it illegal. It’s an essential part of life."
Broader Implications for Scientific Integrity and Public Policy
The revelations surrounding Professor McCurdy’s undisclosed financial ties to the kratom industry carry profound implications for scientific integrity, public health policy, and consumer safety. The practice of scientists, particularly those presenting themselves as neutral experts, receiving substantial, undeclared funding from industry lobbying groups erodes public trust in scientific research and its application in policy-making. When crucial data, even from a scientist’s own publications, appears to be selectively presented or downplayed in public advocacy, it creates an environment of distrust and confusion that complicates efforts to establish evidence-based regulations.
The ongoing debate over kratom highlights a critical tension: the desire for potential therapeutic applications versus the imperative to protect public health from documented risks. The federal government’s significant investment in research aimed at developing kratom-derived pharmaceuticals underscores the scientific community’s interest in its potential, yet this very interest can create conflicts when the substance’s legal status is under threat. The case of Christopher McCurdy serves as a stark reminder of the essential role of transparency in research and advocacy, underscoring the need for rigorous disclosure standards across academic institutions, scientific journals, and legislative bodies to ensure that public policy decisions are genuinely informed by objective science, free from undisclosed commercial influence.
Joko Widodo
Jia Lissa
Pevita Pearce
admin