Ohio Senate General Government Committee - 3-24-2026

Good afternoon. This meeting of the Senate General Government Committee will now come to order. I'd like to welcome all of those of you here today in the audience, those of you watching online, welcome. As we do with every committee meeting, I start by honoring God and country with the prayer and the pledge. So if you'd please join me. I say, Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus, you're an awesome and a mighty God, and we just, we give you honor and glory and praise. We thank you that your mercies are new every morning. Thank you, Father, that you know every tear that we've cried every hair in our head, Father, and you can call us by name. Lord, I ask a prayer for our nation. I pray for revival across this great country. I pray for the committee members here today that you would give us wisdom and discernment as we consider all that you've placed before us. I pray for everyone gathered in this room today, for their families back home, that you would keep a hedge of protection about them as well. And I pray this all in your precious name, Jesus. Amen. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I thank you. And with that, I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Vice Chair Gowen. Here.

Senator Moraw. Here.

I wasn't here. He got it. He got you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, folks. My name is Andrew Toops. I'm 52 years old, and I'm a permanently disabled SSDI recipient. I'm going to read you the list of what I've got. I've got degenerative scoliosis, chronic anterior wedging, T7-T9, severe multi-level discogenic disease, foraminal narrowing, thoracic herniated discs, enterolesthesis and spondylolisthesis, L4 on L5, degenerative disc of the lumbar spine, left and right foraminal stenosis, multiple osteophyte complexes, chronic sciatica, actually something called alternating sciatica, so it can go from one leg to the other leg back and forth. It's not fun. And paresthesia, radiculopathy, I think you get the picture at this point. On top of this I have something called factor V Leiden That a hereditary blood clotting disorder and that means that I cannot have surgery Or if I do more than likely that it For years, I've safely used natural kratom leaf to manage the symptoms of all these things I mentioned and maintained what limited daily function I have. And I don't have any adverse side effects. from 2012 to 2017, they had me on synthetic opioids up to 360 milligrams a day. Now, I pulled myself off of that. However, they also tell me I've got the arthritis of an 80-year-old. So, oh yeah, it just gets better. so about 2018 about a year I discovered kratom and it was game-changing for me and I'm talking about the leaf powder so I was doing well 2019 I fell down a flight of stairs and it undid all my therapy and everything that I had worked for. Since then, Kratom has been the tool that helps reduce my pain enough that I can stand and walk short distances, usually depending on where the parking is. Since then, it has been something that has been necessary. In 2025 in September, Aaron had open heart surgery and they had to replace a piece of his aorta and so with that if it wasn't for Kratom I wouldn't have been able to be at hospital and be able to help him. I'm here in support of Bill 299 because Ohio needs a clear, strong Kratom consumer protection framework that protects adults who rely on natural kratom while firmly targeting synthetic and dangerous altered products. Senate Bill 299 would regulate sales of kratom products in Ohio rather than treat responsible adult consumers like criminals. Now, I am totally against the synthetic stuff that they've been making, because when it came out, I tried it, of course. I'm like, well, this might be good. It was not good because after you take that towards the end of it, it just feels like you drop off a cliff and that does not happen with natural kratom leaf because standing before you right now, I have that natural leaf inside of my body and so I'm not high and I'm not sedated. I'm right here present with all of you, and I know that you can feel that presence. Ohio does not need to reinvent the wheel. A workable model already exists to regulate the market, require accountability to protect consumers, and target the genuinely dangerous products without criminalizing natural leaf. and if you criminalize that leaf or if they try to without this bill, I would have to go back on those synthetic opioids. And if you've never been on those, you don't want it because it is no fun. I respectfully ask this committee to support Senate Bill 299 and ensure that Ohio adopts a strong protection framework that requires age restrictions testing labeling and vendor accountability that explicitly bans synthetic kratom derivatives, adulterants, and high-potency anti-log style products and preserves legal access for adults for natural kratom leaf and the traditional simple preparations under a regulated framework. Don't cut Ohioans off who have the kind of pain that I deal with. From this plant, that's the only thing standing between the function that I have and complete incapacitation. So Senate Bill 299 truly is the better path for regulation, consumer protection, accountability, and common sense. So I thank you for your time and for considering both my experience and the broader actual evidence for natural kratom leaf as you deliberate Senate Bill 299. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Gavron, Ranking Member Blackshear, and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jessica Gerding. I live in Medina County. I'm a manufacturing consultant, and I own and operate an ingredient manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania and a supplement manufacturing facility in Florida. My work focuses on botanical standardization, regulatory compliance, and safety evaluation. I work directly with how these products are made, tested, and evaluated for safety. You've received and hopefully had time to review my written testimony, so I'll focus on what I believe is most relevant from a safety standpoint. The core issue is not whether Kratom has risk. Every bioactive compound carries risk at some dose. The issue is whether exposure is defined and controlled. That's where the new dietary ingredient framework comes in. An NDI is not approval. It is pre-market safety notification that requires identity verification, manufacturing disclosure, contaminant limits, toxicology, exposure modeling, and defined intake limits. The legal standard is a reasonable expectation of safety under defined conditions of use. In simple terms, dose matters. We engaged that process. We conducted a 90-day toxicology study through an accredited third-party lab. We established no observed adverse effect level. We calculated margins of exposure and defined intake parameters based on how the compound behaves in the body. That is how exposure is evaluated, not assumed. I also want to briefly address extracts, because that's often where concern is focused. Raw kratom is an agricultural material. Like any agricultural or botanical item, it slightly varies in potency depending on the season how it is harvested and handling A properly standardized extract reduces that variability It allows defined serving sizes consistent active levels and more predictable exposure This isn't unique to Kratom. In the supplement industry, we use both green tea and standardized green tea extract. The extract is standardized to key markers, but still reflects the plant. It's not an isolated or altered compound. Our extract is manufactured in the United States using food-grade green solvents. It is solvent-free in its finished form, mass-balanced to reflect the natural plant profile, and supported by toxicology data. It does not introduce synthetic compounds or unknown impurities. When properly standardized and evaluated, extracts are not inherently more dangerous. In many cases, they improve consistency and reduce consumer risk. So from a safety perspective, the goal should be to encourage products that are defined, tested, and transparent. Clearly defining natural kratom leaf and standardized leaf extracts also creates a clear boundary between dietary supplements and synthetic or semi-synthetic products that isolate or materially alter individual alkaloids beyond what occurs in the natural plant. If you want a safer market, you encourage regulatory engagement, not push it out. I appreciate your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks for meeting today. I want to apologize for my appearance. I had a wardrobe malfunction, although it's not as majestic as Janet Jackson's, but here I am. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you folks here today. My name is Matthew Stewart. My wife and I have owned and operated an urban tea shop in Bedford for over 20 years. Fifteen years ago, we started importing pure kratom leaf directly from Indonesia, sourcing it from a GMP-compliant farm and processing facility. From the beginning, our commitment has always been simple, provide a natural product, responsibly sourced, transparently and responsibly sold to our customers. When used responsibly, pure kratom leaf has been safe for the vast majority of adults who choose to use it. I know this not only as a retailer, but personally. For over a decade, I've used Kratom to manage neurological pain from multiple sclerosis. It allows me to avoid more dangerous, highly addictive pharmaceuticals. And for me and all the other Ohioans, it means stability, clarity, and dignity. Our store was one of the first in Northeast Ohio to offer pure, natural Kratom leaf. During the height of the opioid pandemic between 2015 and 2020, many individuals came to us seeking an alternative, people trying to step away from prescription opioids and others who have turned to dangerous street opioids when prescriptions were no longer available. For many of them, kratom was a bridge away from something far more destructive. For what we're facing today is not the same plant we've responsibly sold for over 15 years. In recent years, gas stations and smoke shops have been again selling synthetic and lab-created products, highly concentrated extracts that were made from synthetic products, pills and gummies marketed for convenience and intensity. These are not traditional kratom leaf products. They're engineered derivatives and synthetic formulations often sold without education, oversight, or responsible guidance. If any harm is occurring, I urge you to recognize where they're coming from. Lumping responsibly sourced natural kratom leaf together with synthetic or semi-synthetic products is not a measured solution. It's a dangerous one. It risks taking away a natural alternative for many Ohioans rely on, while failing to address the true source of the problem, unregulated synthetic convenience store products. I respectfully ask this board to distinguish between natural kratom leaf and synthetic derivatives. regulate responsibly, enforce quality standards, protect consumers, but please do not ban the natural plant that has already helped so many in our Ohio community. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Check. Thank you for having me. I'm Robert Hernandez. People who love me and know me, got to know me to love me. People who love me call me scars. I earned my name. I've had rheumatoid arthritis since I was four. It's been very aggressive, despite my rheumatologist telling me I'd be in remission by the time I was 18. I had my hips replaced at 16. I had them redone. Sometime in my 30s, had my knees done. Shoulders can't be operated on. Long story short, every part of my body hurts. All of my cartilage is gone. My joints don't move bone on bone. It's an old story. It's young. Young to have it, but it's an old story. It's advanced arthritis. The doctors put me on opioids. Opioids have problems. as we know. I ran into those problems. The problems cost me two marriages, and they stopped my breathing multiple times. My mom made me promise that I wouldn't kill myself because of the pain until after my dad was dead. So I've been keeping that. She died from cancer. Sorry. Kind of important. My dad's on his way out. I am also running out of options. Kratom is what helps me. It helps me just barely, just a little bit. I've been consuming it for eight or nine years. Every day, I've cut down most of my prescription medicines. NSAIDs were killing my liver, so they made me stop those. Tylenol, liver. Calcium is fine. But the stuff that controls the symptoms, opioids, no go. Kratom works enough. It's not perfect, but it works enough, and it's safe. Please don't get rid of it. Keep it regulated. Keep it safe. I don't have many other options left, so please let me keep this one. I appreciate you. Take care.

Thank you to the committee for the vice chair for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 299 which would regulate the natural botanical kratom and band synthetic drugs like 7 My name is Sheldon Bradshaw, and I do represent Botanicals for Better Health and Wellness. I am an FDA regulatory attorney and previously served as the chief counsel of the United States Food and Drug Administration and have worked on FDA's regulation of botanicals for 20-plus years. Botanics for Better Health and Wellness advocates for evidence-based regulation of plant-derived products. As a result, we support SB299's effort to ban chemically manipulated synthetic drugs that masquerade as botanicals, such as 7-OH. With respect to Kratom, we support the common-sense regulations that are contained in SB299. that would impose age-gating, testing, and labeling requirements, but would not outright ban the plant. Kratom is a botanical in the coffee family that has been safely used for centuries in Southeast Asia. It contains at least 50 unique alkaloids, the most predominant of which is mitragynine. To achieve the twin goals of banning 7-OH and regulating kratom, SB 299 aligns the state of Ohio with FDA's science-based efforts in this space. Those efforts have resulted in the FDA calling for the scheduling of 7OH, which it has identified as illegal, addictive, and dangerous, while simultaneously allowing access to the botanical kratom. When FDA took steps in July of last year to initiate the scheduling of the synthetic drug 7-OH, the agency took great pains to explicitly note that its actions were not focused on natural kratom leaf products. Similarly, when FDA Commissioner Marty Macri recently warned consumers about products containing 7-OH, he specifically stated that they bear no resemblance to the botanical kratom that people have consumed for centuries. Of note, FDA is actively studying the botanical. FDA's first study, which was completed in 2024, showed that Kratom was well-tolerated in study subjects, even at high doses. The ascending dose study was in an adult population and used up to 140 milligrams of mitragynine, which is seven times the amount of mitragynine in a typical serving of a commercial Kratom product. And yet they found that that high dose, serving dose, was safe. Importantly, SB299 rightly recognizes that synthetic and semi-synthetic 7-0H is not a natural botanical and is not kratom. Importantly, the two products can be easily distinguished. First, the misconception that 7-OH and kratom are the same thing is something that was perpetuated by the 7-OH industry, which often uses vignettes of kratom leaves on their packaging, along with false claims that their products were natural or contained kratom. And the purpose of this canard was threefold. One, to mislead consumers who thought they were using a natural botanical with a long history of safe use. second to falsely suggest they have the same safety profile and three to shift the blame for adverse events from 70H to kratom second it's important to understand that when kratom leaves are first harvested they do not contain 70H post trace amounts of mitragynine convert to 7 due to oxidation. Realizing this, entrepreneurial chemists that I often call bathtub chemists began extracting mitragynine from the kratom leaf and then exposing that mitragynine to toxic oxidizing chemicals found in everyday cleaning agents. Think of the chemicals in products like pool shock, Drano, bleach. They're exposing mitragynine to these toxic chemicals and are creating a new chemical synthetic opioid called 7-OH. A simple analogy nicely illustrates why synthetic 7-OH is not kratom. Imagine if a chemist isolated the primary alkaloid in coffee. The primary alkaloid in coffee is caffeine. And then exposed the caffeine to toxic, harsh, oxidizing chemicals and converted the caffeine into a new chemical entity. No one would point to that new chemical entity and call it coffee it's it's not coffee it's not even caffeine anymore at that point and that's what's going on with kratom bad actors are exposing and one of the 50 alkaloids and kratom to harsh toxic agents and creating 7-oh it's not creative it's not natural it's not a plant it's a synthetic drug today kratom is used by 20 million Americans to increase focus and energy to provide a mild boost in mood and relief for minor aches and pains associated with physical activity creative has become a focus of veterans groups to help with pain management without the euphoria or drowsiness of rx pain medications according to the National Institute of drug abuse creative may be useful in managing drug withdrawal symptoms and cravings pain fatigue and mental health problems and should not be banned numerous studies under the DEA's eight-factor analysis to determine whether or not a product should be scheduled have found that 708 should be scheduled and that kratom does not meet the standard researchers from numerous academic institutions including Johns Hopkins Columbia researchers at here at Ohio State and the University of Florida have found that Kratom has beneficial effects with a relatively low potential for harm. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you might have.

Studies suggest that it has the same addictive properties as, say, coffee. And, of course, kratom is in that family. So, yes, just as you could become addicted to caffeine or have a caffeine addiction, you could have something similar to that with kratom. But it's a weak addiction compared to an addiction to, say, opioids.

It is. The kratom plant is in the coffee family.

Well, I think some people may take it for that. I will say that the FDA has not approved Kratom for use as a drug. So the FDA regulates a lot of products in different buckets. It regulates drugs. Those are compounds intended to treat, cure, prevent, or mitigate a disease. but it also regulates botanicals as dietary supplements. Back in 1994, Congress passed a law called DASHA, the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act, where Congress decided that the FDA would regulate botanicals more like food and less like drugs. So botanicals are in a different bucket than drugs. 7-OH is a drug. It's designed to treat, cure, prevent, or mitigate disease states. It's a synthetic opioid. Kratom is a natural botanical. It's regulated as a supplement. You often hear people say, well, FDA has never approved kratom. Well, yes, they've never approved it because based on the regime Congress set up in 1994, the FDA approves drugs. It doesn't approve botanicals. Botanicals, as one of the previous speakers noted, the manufacturers have to have reasonable evidence of safety, and they have to comply with all the other associated FDA rules and regulations related to labeling, good manufacturing practices, testing, all sorts of various labeling requirements. But botanicals are not approved by the FDA like drugs are.

Senator DeMora. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a quick question. Is Kratom an opioid?

Senator Huffman? So does kratom naturally contain 7-OH, or more correctly, does it have a chemical that your own liver turns into 7-OH in your system?

No, you're fine. You did.

Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify today in support of SB 299. My name is Walker Gallman, and I'm the legislative director for the Global Kratom Coalition, an alliance of consumers, scientific experts, and industry leaders seeking to enact regulations on natural leaf kratom to ensure that the products being sold on the market are safe and unadulterated and consumed appropriately. What I'd like to address here, I've already submitted written comments, and I won't retread on a lot of what's been covered here today, but there are a few key points I'd like to cover. And the issue that this bill isn't trying to solve for is kratom. What it's trying to solve for is how to keep these adulterated and dangerous products out of the market. Because the issue you run into right now in Ohio is if you are a consumer, and particularly if you're a consumer looking to try kratom for the first time, and you walk into a store and you have no base knowledge, you might end up with natural leaf kratom, or you might end up with a synthetic compound like 7-OH. Part of this confusion comes when you look at how 7-OH products are marketed. They'll always say 70H somewhere on the pocket because they want people to know that that's what that is, if that's someone who's seeking that kind of product. But at the same time, they're trying to drive sales, so they will always tie it back to kratom by calling it something like kratom-derived or enhanced kratom alkaloids or something to that effect, always tying it back. So if you're a consumer and you're just looking to have normal natural leaf kratom and you walk into a store and you don't know much, there's a good chance you're going to grab one of these other packages that just has the word kratom on it. and it causes a lot of confusion. So what this bill really does is it creates a set of guardrails around what can and can't be in a Kratom product, and this ensures that consumers are armed with the information they need to walk into and in-store and make an informed purchase decision when buying a Kratom product. It also keeps out things like these concentrated isolated 7-OH products by setting a 2% limit on the amount of 7-OH that can be in a product. Now, as was covered earlier, 7-OH doesn't exist in the Kratom leaf when it's plucked from the tree. That becomes apparent upon drying and the oxidation process, and it presents at about 0.04% of the entire plant on a dried weight basis. When you look at how other states have addressed this, states like Florida and Kentucky, for example, have done emergency schedulings of concentrated synthetic 7-OH. And in both those instances, they've tied that limit to 400 parts per million on a dried weight basis. Again, that lines up with the 0.04% that exists on a dried weight basis. So the idea is you want to keep that limit in line with what is found in the natural plant. And the reason for that being is in a perfect world, there would be some kind of test you could run on a product that says, yes, this is synthetic, or no, this is not synthetic. Unfortunately, that test doesn't exist. So the only way you can distinguish these synthetic products from those in a chemical sense is to look at how much 7-OH is actually there. And once you start to get above that 2% of the alkaloid content or 400 parts per million on a dry weight basis, you begin to realize that these products have been adulterated and chemically manipulated Importantly as was brought up earlier FDA has taken an interest in this issue particularly on the 7-OH side, and this isn't the first time this has happened. Back in 2016, VEA actually looked at scheduling all Kratom, and in the scheduling process, they're required to do what's called an eight-factor analysis. Effectively, this determines if a product or if a substance is eligible or subject to be scheduled. After going through that eight-factor analysis on kratom, they were unable to provide any evidence that kratom was harmful. And then after overwhelming opposition from public advocates and members of Congress, they abandoned that effort to schedule kratom and moved on from it. We fast-forward to July of last year, and FDA picks this issue back up, but not because of kratom, but because of what people have done with kratom through these concentrated, isolated 7-OH products. And they've made clear in their scheduling referral that they are not targeting natural leaf kratom, and even went as far as to bring out a natural leaf kratom advocate to talk about how the botanical has benefited her and her concerns around these concentrated, isolated synthetic 7-OH products. Some important background, too, is it was said earlier by one of the members of the committee that they only just heard about kratom this summer. And there's an important reason that this issue is now such a hot topic, whereas years ago no one had ever heard of kratom, and that's because of the emergence of these synthetics. Kratom has been marketed and sold in the U.S. for over 50 years. It was brought back from Asia when you had soldiers serving over in Vietnam who began consuming the plant in-country there, liked it, and brought it back to the United States with them and began importing, marketing, and selling and consuming it here. And so for the majority of the time that kratom has been available in the United States, it's been available as the natural leaf. And it's only in the last few years that these synthetic derivatives have started to hit the market. And that's when the conversation has become such a hot topic for legislatures because before there were no problems. And the problems are only becoming apparent because of these synthetic derivatives. That's why SB299 correctly and rightfully sets meaningful guardrails around the Kratom products that are sold legally and lawfully and puts in guardrails to ensure that these concentrated synthetics aren't allowed on the market. So ultimately, again, we are very supportive of SB299. One thing I'd also like to address, the question came up earlier about does mitragynine convert to 7-OH in the body? And there's an important context I'd like to provide there. As Mr. Bradshaw explained, yes, it does convert at very low amounts and not in any way that's pharmacologically meaningful. And that's because when you eat kratom, 40% of the plant is fiber,

Any questions for the witness? Seeing none. Go ahead.

A mitragyne. It's a mouthful. Yes. But that then is converted into 7-OH in the body in a small amount, right? Yes. And we're talking about the natural kratom.

Well, I like to preface this with I'm not a scientist, but as I stated before, there are over 50 alkaloids that make up kratom along with the fiber and antioxidants in the plant, and those all work together in harmony to give the plant its effects. So I don't know that you can point to one specific alkaloid in the plant and say this is what's causing the pain management. But I think what's important to note here is that kratom isn't a drug. Kratom is not something that's being marketed and sold as a pain management substance. Like most dietary supplements, they're sold for whatever reason. There's a dietary supplement called ashwagandha. A lot of people will take it for anxiety, but it's not an anxiety medication. people will find success through these through anecdotal evidence and I can't say for sure that Kratom is something that's good for helping with pain but I do know that a lot of people have found success and it knocks out a lot of the risks and side effects you get with opioids and I would be very hesitant to take something away that's known to be safe that's not concerning if people are finding benefit from it even though that's not the primary purpose or reason that Kratom is sold for

Again, I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to it specifically, But I would say, again, I can't point to a specific alkaloid within creatinium and say this is what's giving people this pain management and analgesic qualities. I would imagine that mitragynine being the most abundant probably plays a role in that. The 7-OH might have some impact, but very minimally because, again, it's the minimum amount that's found in leaf products. So the interaction between those 50 alkaloids in some way or another creates this analgesic quality that people have found success with. Okay.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you to... I guess members of the committee at this point. My name is Natalie DeVere. I am the Director of Operations at Miracle Kratom, an Ohio small business that my husband and I have operated for the past nine years. We were the first in Ohio to open a Kratom-only brick-and-mortar business focused on presenting Kratom responsibly rather than in a smoke shop environment. We do not sell enhanced extracts, concentrated alkaloids, or synthetic products. We sell plain leaf Kratom powder. I'm here in strong support of SB 299 because Ohio is long overdue for clear, consistent, science-based regulations on natural kratom products. For years, kratom has existed in a regulatory vacuum in Ohio. Since around 2018, the Ohio Department of Agriculture has taken the position that kratom may be sold but not labeled for human consumption. That means businesses are discouraged from including warning labels or serving information for a product that is clearly being consumed by adults. As a business owner, that puts us in an impossible position. We believe responsible labeling, consumer education are essential for informed consumption. Yet under current interpretations, providing that information can put a business at risk of embargo. That is not sound public health policy. SB 299 corrects that. It establishes labeling standards, age restrictions, and product safety requirements. It brings transparency to a marketplace that has operated an uncertainty. Our neighboring state, Kentucky, where we also operate, has implemented similar regulations since July of 2024. I also want to address the issue that has increasingly shaped the narrative around Kratom, concentrated or synthetic 7OH. 7OH is one of the naturally occurring alkaloids found in Kratom, but only in trace amounts. However, in the past few years, high-potency, synthetic, or manipulated alkaloid products have entered the marketplace and erroneously have been advertised and sold as Kratom. These products are fundamentally different from natural kratom products and should be prohibited. When data is presented on isolated 7-OH or concentrated extracts, it is often used to represent kratom as a whole. That is scientifically inaccurate. SB 299 recognizes this distinction by capping 7-OH levels and prohibiting concentrated synthetic alkaloids. That is exactly where regulatory focus should be. I also want to briefly address federal oversight. In August of 2024, our company was visited by the FDA following a reported death in Ohio. According to the autopsy, this was due to acute combined drug effects involving toxic levels of gabapentin, as well as benzodiazepines, Benadryl, and Mitragyny found in a system. The FDA conducted a full review of our operations. We provided certificates of analysis, labeling, and documentations of our entire practice. No enforcement action was taken. I share this to demonstrate that responsible operators exist and that oversight works when it is applied appropriately. Kratom is not FDA-approved as a drug and cannot be marketed with medical claims. Currently, it exists in the dietary supplement or food category federally. That ambiguity has continued to contribute to lack of clarity at the state level. SB 299 gives Ohio the opportunity to create clarity rather than confusion. On a personal level, I would not have dedicated nearly a decade of my life to this industry if I believed it was harming communities. I have seen firsthand the role natural kratom has played for responsible adults, including within my own family. Like many families, mine has been impacted by addiction. I am not naive to risk, but nearly everything carries a level of risk. Policy should be based on proportionate, evidence-based regulations, not stigma or selective interpretation of data. We are not abdicating for the absence of regulations. Rather we are asking for clear enforceable standards that protect consumers while allowing responsible businesses to operate SB 299 does exactly that I respectfully urge the committee to support this bill and move Ohio from regulatory ambiguity to a clear balanced framework Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Chair Rogner and Ranking Member Blackshear, members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. Senate Bill 90 adopts a universal regulatory sandbox to help Ohio businesses and regulators work together to bring products to market safely and with fewer bureaucratic hurdles. Expanding upon what the legislature has already passed with a financial sandbox, and I believe Senator Wilson had sponsored maybe a couple of General Assemblies back, this would open up the door to additional types of products as well as services to operate in the sandbox. Instead of going through and just reading this, although there's a number of links that are embedded in the testimony, including to previous research that some colleagues of mine have done on sandboxes. I'll mention that Utah was one of the first states that expanded this to a universal sandbox. And the idea is really that you get to sort of play around in the sandbox. The goal of this is to create a framework where individuals or entities can work with regulators to find out what sort of situation they may need. It's sort of like you get to play in the sandbox. There are some disclosure requirements that are available to consumers that might engage with the product or service, and there are clear disclosure requirements in this legislation to make it clear to the consumers that they're dealing with a product that hasn't been fully regulated or fully licensed or things like that at that point. But it gives a chance for the innovators to interact with various regulators, and it also gives them a chance to talk with them, find out what sort of existing administrative rules or potentially statutory changes might need to be made that would deal specifically with their sort of service or product. Probably a lot of this may be tech-based, AI-based, things like that. That's reasonable to conclude, although the sandbox is tech-agnostic. It doesn't necessarily have to be that. It can be other sorts of things as well. But I think in a lot of other states we've seen a lot of financial service-oriented type things that have gone into these sandboxes. So the key thing is kind of guiding things. One thing that we were very careful about at the Buckeye Institute is we were kind of talking with Senator Lang, and actually there's a companion bill in the House that has cleared the House committee, and I'm not sure if it's going to get on the floor tomorrow or not, but it has cleared committee. It had a few changes which we could talk about if anybody interested to it but it moving forward over there in the House But we wanted a process where it was iterative and it was a chance to really have dialogue and really help people who may not know how to interact with government regulatory agencies I think that's something that is a real challenge. You know, if you're a big company and you do a lot of work in this space, and maybe you've done a lot of different products that may be in a similar wheelhouse but are somewhat distinct, you may already have some knowledge of how to deal with things. You may know, or your lawyers may know, or your compliance officers might know what to do in terms of what agency to contact and how to manage that. But if you're somebody who's completely new to all of this and you're just playing around, whether it's the proverbial Bill Gates in the garage or somebody like that, you might not even know what you don't know. You don't even know what to ask. So one of the things that the Sandbox tries to do with the advisory committee that's created in here and in working together comprehensively with some of the various agencies is to make sure that they are available so that the innovators can have that dialogue. And the ultimate goal is that you would graduate out of the sandbox and that you would have worked collaboratively to find out what a structure of regulation would be when you get out and you go fully out into the marketplace without any of those parameters around sort of the four corners of the sandbox. We think this is an innovative way that doesn't just let things jump out and do anything and everything, there's still a built-in framework. There's still oversight. There's still work that's being done. And I think, again, I stress the word collaborative because I think that's something that really needs to happen when we're dealing with this stuff. And in this technology era, even though, again, it doesn't have to be AI-based or anything like that, but I think we have a lot of exciting things that are happening that even blow my mind away a lot of times. Sometimes scares me, sometimes excites me, a little bit of everything, right? But that's why we want to make sure that we do this with as light a touch, but still having some sort of a framework for folks to operate in. So it's about making sure that we're right-sizing everything when folks are able to move out of the sandbox. So again, happy to answer any questions that members of the committee might have.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So my first question, as you kind of pointed out, You said that there are disclosure requirements. There's no – what if substantive protections exist for consumers who may be exposed to untested, lately regulated products or services? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, as a follow, what types of laws and regulations can be waived or modified? Are there clear statutory limits to prevent stuff related to health, safety, or things like that that can't be waived when you're in the sandbox stuff? I mean, that's the kind of stuff that's concerning to me is, and again, you say AI is exciting. I'm scared to death of a lot of it. So maybe the same, the other side of the spectrum there. But what can't we waive on this stuff? Because I'm worried about some still consumer protections.

Thank you, Jim. Quick question. How long can an entity stay in the sandbox before it has to graduate? So

In the current version, it would be, I believe, an initial five years. Let me double-check that because it was changed in the House version, so I have the two numbers kind of in my head. So it was five years with an ability to get up to three 12-month extensions. So it could be, which was a very long one, and frankly, it's probably longer than I would envision most people ever doing this. it's hard to see that but we thought it was good to have a long glide path so that there can be some time involved in this as people are putting something brand new together I know that the version that has cleared committee in the house modified it to I believe an initial two-year with up to five one year extensions but then when you do the extension you do have to go and get

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Rogner and members of the General Government Committee. Thank you for your opportunity to present proponent testimony in Senate Bill 268. My name, again, is Tony Long, General Counsel and Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Ohio Chamber. This legislation aims to add greater transparency in public oversight and the methods used by the Ohio State agencies to develop administrative rules. Senate Bill 268 does not prohibit the use of off-the-shelf regulatory language developed by national regulatory-focused non-government organizations known as RFNGOs. It simply puts guardrails around the process to give stakeholders, the legislature and others, notice of the practices and a chance for the public to weigh in during a public hearing. Examples of such organizations are the American Law Institute, the Uniform Law Commission, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officers, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, among others. While many national organizations have model rules in various areas of practice, such national models might not fit the specific legal and regulatory landscape of Ohio. Ohioans should be aware of the practice of using national model language and be foreto the opportunity to comment at a public hearing. Senate Bill 268 adds disclosure requirements with the Ohio Ethics Commission in an annual report. These reports become public records contained on a public accessible website. Senate Bill 268 also requires a state agency subject to the abbreviated rulemaking procedure when adopting or amending a rule using language that's based on model language by an RF NGO to comply with the following at least 60 days before the filing of the rule provide public notice of the agency intent to adopt or amend a rule based on that model language Not earlier than 30 days after providing the notice, conduct a public hearing at which any person affected by the new or amended rule may appear and be heard in public. And convene an advisory committee to prepare a written report evaluating the new or amended rule's effect on stakeholders and submit it to the agency. While all of these steps may appear cumbersome at first and delay adoption of rules, emergency rules are exempt from this legislation. The benefit of transparency, disclosure, and public input outweigh adoption of rules formed by such national organizations with input by stakeholders and the public in general. Once rules are in place, they become very difficult to expel. and I've added an exhibit to the testimony the 2024 Administrative Rulemaking Members Brief prepared by LSC for those here or staff that would like to delve deeper in the wonky world of administrative law. In closing, the Ohio Chamber supports Senate Bill 268 and its aims to add transparency to the rulemaking process in Ohio. We look forward to working with this chamber and the Senate on moving it forward. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Senator DeMora. Thank you, Madam Chair. So how will agencies determine whether rules based on RFNGO models and does this create ambiguity or potential for litigation over the attribution of something that's not attributed to an RFNGO or not an RFNGO?

Follow-up. So in response to that, how do you respond to concerns that these disclosure requirements may discourage agencies from engaging with subject matter experts who operate through national release organizations?

So maybe my definition of these are different for yours. So what are some of these groups? Is NCSL and NFGO, is ALEC, is nickel Gs? I mean, what constitutes these or doesn't constitute these?

Seeing none, thank you for being here and for your testimony today. Next, I'd like to call up Doug Kellogg from Americans for Tax Reform.

Are there any questions? No, thank you for your testimony today. Are there any questions? Senator DeMora.

Yeah, well, I think those are potentially some. I think the two, the Uniform Law Commission, Interstate Insurance Product Regulatory Commission, would be a couple that definitely should apply. I added in our written testimony, we are open to tightening definitions and making sure the target is very clear. The way I read the bill currently is that if a national group is providing regulatory-focused insights and model regulation policy that then a regulator is taking and is inspired by and then implementing in the state, that we're adding additional time for review, additional transparency so that there's public accountability and there's not the opportunity to do policymaking outside the legislature and through the regulatory process. But I think it's a very good question and interested in working more if there are reasons to tighten the definitions.

All right, seeing none, thank you for being here today.

I'd like to also call up those here to offer interested party testimony. And I'll start with Greg Lawson, again, from the Buckeye Institute. Welcome back.

So I'm going to throw you for a loop. You answered one question. So the question I'll ask you is, since emergency rules are exempt, aren't we worried that the emergency rules are the, quote unquote, the most important ones that are going to be of most effect, but they're exempt from what you want to do? So isn't that kind of wouldn't it lead to people just having these rules be emergency?

Thank you.