The American Kratom Association and its team are working to bend science to fit their own narrative then allowing facts to guide policy.

There is strong evidence that the American Kratom Association (AKA) selectively interprets scientific evidence to support its pro-kratom stance while downplaying or dismissing research highlighting risks.

For example:

1. Selective use of Science: AKA frequently cites studies suggesting potential benefits of kratom while ignoring or discrediting research linking mitragynine to toxicity, addiction, and fatalities.

* For example, they emphasize 2019 and 2020 studies suggesting kratom has lower overdose potential than opioids but downplay studies from toxicology reports confirming mitragynine-related deaths (CDC and FDA reports). The FDA has warned about kratom’s risks, linking it to seizures, liver damage, and death. The AKA dismisses these warnings as “anti-kratom propaganda” rather than addressing the data.

* CDC found kratom in over 90 overdose deaths (2016-2017), and in another report, kratom was the only substance found in 7% of those cases. The AKA has claimed these deaths were caused by other substances, despite toxicology confirming otherwise.

2. Industry -Funded Advocacy & Conflicts of Interest

* The AKA receives funding from kratom vendors, raising concerns about biased advocacy.

* They lobby against bans and regulations awhile presenting kratom as “completely safe,” ignoring the fact that kratom products are unregulated and vary widely in potency, purity, and contamination risks (e.g. salmonella outbreaks).

* They promoted their own “Kratom Consumer Protection Act” -a bill that benefits vendors while doing little to protect consumers from unsafe products.

3. Discrediting Opposing Research & Experts

* The AKA has attacked researchers and public health officials who present concerns about kratom.

* When the National Institute on drug Ause (NIDA) recognized kratom’s protentional for dependence and withdrawal, the AKA dismissed it as “flawed science.”

* They frequently accuse medical professionals and government agencies of bias rather than engaging with actual data.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that the AKA manipulates data, selectively presents research, and actively lobbies against regulations based on scientific findings. Their Fianacial ties to the to the kratom industry further raise concerns about their credibility. In the past, kratom vendors have publicly stated they donate to AKA to help fight bans and promote kratom-friendly legislation.

Some vendors promote their financial support for AKA on their websites or social media, thanking the organization for its lobbying efforts.

In 2017, the AKA faced internal disputes regarding financial records. The organization accused its founder and former chair of financial improprieties, highlighting challenges in financial transparency.

Wendy