March 18, 2026 · Agriculture Committee · 15,784 words · 20 speakers · 154 segments
Ag. Committee will come to order. Please stand. Rep. Newman will lead us in an opening prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Representative Miller.
Let's bow for prayer. Father, we bow before you again today, acknowledging, recognizing that you are the Lord God, good, upright, full of grace, compassion, mercy, looking upon us with eyes filled with the knowledge of all that we are and all that we need. And Father, we turn to you now asking for your help, your wisdom, your guidance, as we listen carefully and consider what is right and good for the people of the state of Ohio. So Father, I pray you help us do that with grace, most of all with love for you, but also with love for our neighbor.
I pray in the name of Jesus. Amen.
Amen. 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. Good job, Joe.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Koloffenstein? Here.
Vice Chair Newman? Here.
Ranking Member Miller? Present.
Representative Barhorse? Here.
Representative Brent? is checked in.
Representative Cochley? Here.
Representative Creech? Here.
Representative Heiner? Here.
Representative Moore? Here.
Representative Mullins? Here.
Representative Peterson?
Representative Schmidt? Here.
Representative Sins? Here.
Mr. Chairman, a quorum is present.
With a quorum present, we'll proceed as a full committee.
With no transition plan in place and no one responsible for the animals remaining on the property, the county was forced to step in and respond to the situation. When our dog wardens, humane agents, and members of the sheriff's office arrived on scene, what they encountered was deeply troubling. On this small residential property were over 400 animals, actually, including wolf-dog hybrids, coyotes, foxes, skunks, wild boar, and other exotic and hybrid animals, many in cages and other makeshift structures throughout the property. Many of these animals had clearly been neglected long before the owner's untimely death, and several were already roaming the property when authorities arrived. The situation was especially concerning because this was not a remote location. It was in a residential area surrounded by homes and even businesses and multiple parks just up the road. Had we not responded quickly, there's a very real possibility that many of these animals could have escaped into the surrounding neighborhood, putting many families and residents at risk. Adding to the difficulty of the situation was the fact that this all occurred in the middle of winter during extremely harsh conditions. Just a few weeks prior, our county and much of northeast Ohio experienced nearly four feet of snow over the course of only a few days. When the situation unfolded, there was still deep snow on the ground and frigid temperatures, which made responding to and managing the situation significantly more complex for the individuals that were on the ground trying to get a handle on things. Ultimately, most of the animals had to be humanely euthanized, while a small number were relocated to sanctuaries across the United States. The scope of what responders faced was an enormous task. Under current law, once the owner passed away, it was us the county that was responsible for addressing the situation ensuring the animals were cared for because there was really no one else to step up and take care of it Even basic expenses associated with feeding the animals providing basic welfare and obtaining supplies quickly reached about $20,000 was a total expense for the county. During this time, I personally worked hard to find assistance. I was essentially power dialing organizations across the country, really, making phone calls, sending emails, and reaching out through messages, I probably contacted 20 to 30 different organizations pleading for help in terms of what had become a very dire situation for the county. Fortunately, an organization stepped forward. It was Humane World, and they offered assistance to us. They helped provide veterinarians, medications, euthanasia services, and relocation efforts for the animals so that they could be placed in sanctuaries throughout the country. The value of all that assistance was estimated to be nearly $1 million when the whole operation was said and done. Without their support, the cost to the county probably would have approached hundreds of thousands of dollars to simply address the situation. In a county of our size, we're 97,000 people roughly in Asheville County, we don't have the budget nor the resources to be able to handle this ourselves. So the work of the Humane World helped considerably. We're incredibly grateful for the volunteers, the organizations that stepped forward to help us. Their willingness to step in during such a difficult situation truly prevented an even worse outcome for many of the animals in our community. But experiences like this demonstrate something very clearly, that situations like this should not reach that point in the first place. With that said, I'd like to turn it over to Ashby County Dog Ward and David Britton, who can provide some additional perspective and speak a little bit to the elements in the bill here today. Thank you.
Chief Clafenstein, Vice Chair Newell and ranking member Miller and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address you here today. From the perspective of county government, what we experience highlight the gaps that currently exist when it comes to oversight and enforcement related to the dangerous or exotic animals. In some situations, authorities may have concerns about the conditions on the property but face limitations when attempting to gain access or intervene, particularly when a formal complaint has not yet been filed or the legal thresholds of investigation have not been triggered. that can delay action even when warning signs are present. House Bill 676 would help provide clear oversight and authority, allowing local officials to take more productive or proactive approach in the situation where dangerous animals are being housed. Another trend we are seeing is in increased cases involving hybrid animals and specialized breeds. In my three-year tenure with the county, on the county level, there has been a noticeable increase in these types of situations. Often these animals are obtained when they are young and manageable. However, as they mature and their needs become more complex, some owners find that they simply cannot properly care or contain them. When this happens, many traditional shelters or rescues are unable to accept these animals, leaving very few options. Unfortunately, that sometimes results in animals being abandoned, neglected, or released back into the community, creating public safety concerns and placing the animals themselves in dangerous situations. House Bill 676 would help provide greater oversight clearer standards for housing these animals and better tools for local authorities to ensure conditions are appropriate and humane for these animals From a county perspective, this legislation is about protecting communities, supporting responsible ownership, and ensuring animals are treated humanely. It helps give dog warrants and local officials the ability to identify and address problems earlier before they escalate into these kinds of crisis that our county experienced. In short, House Bill 676 represents a practical and responsible steps forward that will help communities across Ohio prevent situations that threaten public safety, strain local resources, and result in harm to these animals. For those reasons, we respectfully ask the committee to support House Bill 676. Chair Klofstein, Vice Chair Newman, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, thank you again today for the opportunity to testify. We'd be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thanks to both you gentlemen for coming today. Are there any questions from the committee? Representative Sims.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very much for your testimony today. Just out of curiosity, wolf dogs, I keep having this vision in my head, this cartoon, cat dog, cat dog, one in was a cat, but anyway, are they required to have license as some of the dogs are? And is there currently in Ohio a limit? I know we've been talking a lot about puppy mills and some other things. Just wanted to know if there's currently a limit of the number of those type animals.
So right now the wolf dogs are just designated underneath a regular dog designation. They're not dangerous dogs or anything like that. So that doesn't put the stringent regulation for captivity and the signage and the insurance on it. And then limitation-wise, I believe you're directing towards kennel licensing. Yes. What we are seeing are people are individually licensing the dogs as regular canines, not as kennels and not as dangerous dogs.
Follow up?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chair Newman.
Thank you to the chair and through the chair to the witnesses. Thank you for being here today. And we've had testimony in here before, and I don't recall this. You mentioned there's an increased occurrence of these situations in the state of Ohio, and we have laws that allow for that proliferation. Do you guys have any sense of how the numbers we're talking about, how many sites have a collection of animals like this? Any idea? If you don't, it's okay. I'm just curious if you've researched that.
Yes, there has been a steady uptick, and the more we dive into it, the more we are finding of these backyard breeders getting into this market. of hybrid, with it being coy dogs, wolf hybrid dogs, and other combinations, but it is growing.
Follow-up? Any further questions?
Representative Sims. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just really quickly, the example that was given about the 400 really seems a lot extreme, do we know of any other kind of extreme situations in Ohio that we had to address I not exactly sure if that Zanesville one had the wolf dogs involved in that, where they released the animals.
I cannot give you a definite answer.
That's fine. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With no further questions, We thank you for your testimony and appreciate you being here today.
Thank you.
That concludes the second hearing on House Bill 676. I now call House Bill 163 for its fourth hearing. With us today is Jure, and I'll let you pronounce your last name so I don't totally destroy it. Welcome to committee.
Thank you so much. It's Jory, like Lori with a J, Novotny, and I'm pleased to be here, Chair.
Thank you.
Chairman Klopfenstein, Vice Chairman Newman, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the House Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on House Bill 163, the Enact the Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act. The Ohio Association of Food Banks and our statewide Hunger Relief Network urge your swift passage of House Bill 163 because it will spur a common-sense modernization effort that will save taxpayer dollars and protect low-income Ohioans. As I testified to you last May, widespread national benefits theft has been occurring for several years and remains a serious problem, including here in Ohio. SNAP benefits are issued on electronic benefits transfer, or EBT, cards, which currently use magnetic strip technology and are much less secure than more commonly used chip-enabled cards or tap-to-pay cards. Organized criminals have unfortunately taken advantage of outdated technology and defrauded families in Ohio by installing skimming devices that steal payment data through point-of-sale transactions at retailers. Data shows that millions of taxpayer dollars have been stolen. In January, the U.S. Secret Service and federal and state investigators conducted a sting operation at about 500 businesses in Ohio in two days, removing six skimming devices and preventing more than $6 million in benefit theft by criminal fraudsters. From June 2023 to December 2024, we know of at least $17 million in SNAP benefits stolen from more than 34,000 Ohio households. By swiftly passing House Bill 163, the Ohio General Assembly can put an end to this fraudulent activity. Making a relatively small one-time technological upgrade to secure chip technology offers a proven solution. And importantly, if you act now to enact the measure before October 1st, Ohio can draw down one-to-one matching dollars. If enacted after that date, the federal match drops to one to three, costing Ohio much more than if we were to make the investment now. Since I last testified, more states, including Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, have taken the proactive step to upgrade EBT cards. And USDA has a variety of resources to support states and retailers with EBT modernization efforts. We urge the passage of House Bill 163 and thank bill sponsors, representatives Dieter and Rader, as well as Senators Schaefer and Craig, who have introduced companion legislation, Senate Bill 315. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for being here today. Are there any questions from the committee?
Representative Sims. I don't have questions. I just want to say thank you for your testimony today. I've had this happen to numerous people in my district. I know we say we have access to food banks who are already overtaxed. Depending on these resources to daily feed families, when those benefits are gone, sets you several months behind. It's just a horrible situation to be in. And anything we can do to try and safeguard the benefits for our most vulnerable in our community, I really appreciate it. So I just wanted to say thank you.
Through the chair to the representative, thank you. Further questions from the committee? I guess two questions. You spoke of the four states that have since are proactively updating their cards. Are each of those states doing a phase-in as they replace cards, they're updating them, or is it a wholesale where they're changing all the cards at once?
To the chair, you know what, I'll have to get back to you specifically on each of those states' plans. They likely each use a different card vendor and probably are working very closely with their card vendor to determine how best to roll out that change. So I can definitely follow up right away with you on those plans and how they're doing that. I imagine, however, that most of them are trying to take advantage of the one-to-one match and are working with their vendors to move as swiftly as possible on full replacement.
So a follow-up question. If the private sector was using this same system, How many years behind are we as a government in following the leading technology?
Yeah, thank you, Chair. If you can remember, I remember many, many years ago when we were all instructed to be very careful about using any credit cards at the gas pump when our credit cards were still magnetic strip. So it's been many, many years in the making, and EB2 cards are, that magnetic strip has static data stored in it at all times. similarly to a gift card. It's like cash, unlike chip or tap-to-pay, which use a variety of different technology components to protect the data and protect fraud from occurring. I would say at least a decade, and I'll defer to the industry for more elaboration on that.
Thank you, Chair. Okay. Any further questions from the committee? Representative? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Just as a comment, when I was in Congress, we put in place the ability to use some sort of cyber security. In fact, it was a pin at the time that states had to adopt. Clearly, that technology is old. I applaud the sponsors of this bill, and thank you for your testimony.
Through the chair to the representative, I appreciate that. Thank you.
With no further questions, we appreciate your testimony. I would like to draw the attention of the committee to your iPads. There are additional written testimony on there. We ask that you be sure and read that and educate yourself on the additional testimony. This concludes the second hearing on House Bill 163. I would like to now call House Bill 587 for its third hearing Due to the amount of testimony we will be limiting testimony to three minutes However, there is not a limit on questions and responses, but I ask that everyone be respectful of everyone's time. With that being said, first up today is Dan Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs, we appreciate you making an additional trip back here and proceed when you're ready.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple props, so just to let you know. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding House Bill 587. My name is Dan Gibbs. I have lived in Ohio my entire life. My family and my community are here. My son Austin died on December 6, 2023. He was 25 years old. The Montgomery County Coroner's Office under Dr. Kent Harsberger certified the cause of death as intoxication by mitragynine, the primary psychoactive alkaloid in Kratom. Toxicology did not identify fentanyl, heroin, prescription opioids, synthetic adulterants, or any other contributing substances. This involved a Kratom product marketed as natural and sold openly at retail. I brought the three actual packages that my son possessed and was using at the time of his death, along with a recently packaged purchase of the same product to show that this product continues to be presented and sold to consumers today with the same exact labeling, including the same contradictory wording. You can pass this around.
I will.
If not, you can see it later.
Okay.
I did include pictures. These are the bags he took. Importantly, Mr. Sullivan's problem with the test of the A.K.A. label on it. The same as actually the form of that, you can barely read that one. Botanical specimen, offering gestion, but...
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All four labels, state D contents, are only for use as botanical specimen. These products are labeled as containing Mitrogena speciosa leaf presented in a way that signals to ordinary consumers they are intended to be swallowed. At the same time, the labeling describes the product as plant material associated with research, education, or display, rather than a consumable product, and warns that ingestion may be harmful while placing responsibility for adverse effects on the individual who uses it. Some packages include serving guidance, despite the warning language. The newer package also prominently displays an American Kratom Association GMP-qualified logo on the front, conveying an appearance of quality assurance. The result is a troubling contradiction, a psychoactive substance presented in a way that normalizes ingestion in retail settings while the labeling describes it as a botanical specimen or plant material rather than a consumable product. House Bill 587 focuses on limiting certain kratom compounds, yet it would still allow retail sales of products containing metragenene, the substance that took my son's life. Limiting concentrations of compounds such as 708 does not resolve the broader public health question of whether opioid active substances should remain widely available in retail settings while the state formal scientific and regulatory review process addressing these substances is still underway Many individuals who support Kratom describe using it daily for chronic pain or as a replacement for prescription opioids or illicit opioids. Statements like these illustrate that Kratom's active compounds can produce significant pharmacologic effects, effects powerful enough that users rely on them in ways similar to other opioid-acting substances. This underscores why compounds acting on the U opioid receptor warrant careful scientific evaluation. The FDA has raised concerns about Kratom's safety profile, including risk of dependence, withdrawal, addiction potential, and other adverse effects. Research into Kratom's pharmacologic impact is still ongoing, including an ascending-dose clinical study evaluating safety that is not expected to conclude until 2027. The agency has not determined that Kratom is safe. National poison control surveillance continues to document Kratom-related exposure. Reports from the first seven months of 2025 have already exceeded the total number of recorded during all of 2024, indicating that this public health trend is increasing rather than declining. My son is not a statistic. Austin was a wonderful young man with a bright future who encountered a legal retail product containing an opioid active compound. While industry lobbyists often focus on protecting a marketplace, families like mine are left living with the consequences. When substances like this become normalized before the risks are fully understood, those consequences cannot be reversed. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy has completed a scientific review of Kratom's active compounds and has advanced rulemaking that is now moving through the state's administrative process. process. I respectfully urge you to allow that science-based process to be completed before establishing policy that will shape public health in Ohio. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose House Bill 587. We thank you
for your testimony today. Are there questions from the committee? Representative Newman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with your
permission to the witness, thank you, sir, for being here today. And before I ask a question, and I just want to tell you how terribly sorry we are to hear about what has happened to your son. I think probably all of us are likely parents here on the committee. I don't know that, but we are very sorry to hear that, and pray and wish for the best for your family. Thank you for taking action in light of what has happened to your son to come and testify to us and tell us your story, and it's very valuable. We want to hear it, and there's probably more that we'll need to hear beyond today. But I appreciate the detail you put in your testimony, especially the pieces you brought in today.
I've been told in other settings, maybe in testimony as well,
that it may be not possible or there are no accounts of anyone dying as a result of an overdose on Kratom. And I know you're not a lawyer. You're not law enforcement. You don't have all the data. But just if you would give us again your response to that statement that it's not possible to overdose and die from the use of kratom. Mr. Chairman, Representative, again, the coroner's office of Montgomery County, who I know does over 50 percent of the autopsy reports in Ohio.
my son's death was solely from metragyne toxicity no 708 no other adulterants his manner of passing was respiratory depression which the industry also likes to state that that cannot happen 100 happen It in the autopsy report Respiratory depression leading to him ceasing to breathe due to the opioid receptors that the metragyny hit in his head causing respiratory depression, and he passed away. I found him face down in his bedroom floor. And I have multiple other accounts of people who have shown autopsy, had shown toxicology reports. They are 100% there. They are not poly. They're, you know, a lot of them are poly, but there are those that are not. And even if they are, you know, some of those are poly, you know, we don't have the science of how these, it can be poly and say caffeine, mitragyne, nicotine, mitragyne, and they put those in the same category and call those polysubstance. You know, we do not have the science to see how prescription medications work on metraginine. That's why we need to allow the Board of Pharmacy's process to conclude and not put this under a regulatory framework under the Department of Agriculture.
Further questions?
Representative Miller. Again, I echo my colleague's remorse over the loss of your son. A lot of people are going to argue that people die from alcohol and other intoxicating drugs, and we don't make them illegal. We just try to put really good sound guardrails on them. Is there any chance that we could get to that point where we can, in your mind, we can find a solution to informing Ohioans, educating Ohioans, and then putting the guardrails in place so that only adults get their hands on kratom or hybrid synthetic kratom?
Mr. Chairman, Representative, my concern is that this will be put into a regulatory framework before the Board of Pharmacy has concluded their scientifically based evaluation. If they come back and state that that kratom is safe, then absolutely. But you saw these packages. How can you relabel these packages to say, well, we told you they're not for consumption, but if you do decide to consume them, you could have adverse reactions. And if you do, even though we told you not to, if you do, here's the dosing instructions. I mean, how do we guardrail that? And even, you know, we've had hundreds of years to research caffeine, alcohol. We have those regulations in place for those substances. We do not have those scientific. We don't have it. It's still incoming. We don't have those scientific, you know, measures in those studies. I know, you know, once again, the industry, of course, I was here two weeks ago. It's just not true. It's not true. At any time that, and I believe Representative Sims, you questioned one of the AKA representatives about the FDA. And once that happened, they said, it's wrong, it's wrong, it's not correct, and then you said, well, it just updated in, you know, July, September of 25, how is it not correct? So once questioned, you know, then their arguments fall flat on their face because they're just not correct. And what I'm telling you here today is from a grieving father's point of view, I don't have anything in this. other than the fact that I want to go out and let the public know that this is not safe. There are no guardrails that are going to stop the substance from acting on mu opioid receptors in your brain. It causes addiction, dependence, and we can't fix that. And these are, you know, more and more and more every day you see these evolving, coming out in different forms. We need to get rid of this stuff. I mean, we need to get rid of this stuff.
Representative Sims. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for your testimony. I want to say I'm not as influently about Creighton. I didn't quite make the – probably it was not me who made the inquiry. I appreciate the inquiry. I'm learning a lot, and I appreciate it.
But more importantly, I just wanted to say I'm so sorry for the loss of your son.
Mr. Chairman, Representative, thank you.
And I applaud you once again for fact-checking because we don't see that. So any follow-up? I just wanted to make it just a – I didn't ask the inquiry. Some smart person who knows more than I do probably did. I am certainly in the process of learning more about this, and I appreciate your passionate testimony and all of the folks who are coming for us to share their insights. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Representative? Again, sorry about what has happened to your son. This is not acceptable. Do you know what these products that you've passed around, are they natural leaf or are they synthetic?
They are natural leaf kratom that says it right on the packages. And that's one of the largest manufacturers in the state of Ohio. I'm sorry. Go ahead. It has the ingredients on all four of the bags that says Mitrogina speciosa, which is the actual leaf powder. There's no adulterants. There is no synthetics. There's no 7-0-H in any of those. Like I said, that's one of the largest brands in Ohio and in the United States. It's Earth Kratom. And you said it was manufactured here in Ohio? It was not manufactured here, but it is everywhere in Ohio. You can purchase that at smoke shops and also all throughout the country.
Thank you.
Representative Creech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. So sorry for your loss. You know, Kratom is something that has just popped up, I think, for many of us over the last year or so and has become a lot of conversation. I guess this just popped in my head, you know, with Rep Miller's question talking about alcohol, you know, some people, I think, get addicted more than others. than others. Some may have reactions. I don't know how this stuff works. But is it safe to say that maybe Kratom could be safe for some and not others? Could it be a reaction? Could it be chemistry Do you know anything I mean and maybe you the wrong person to ask but this just popped in my head You know could it be that certain people have certain reactions or is it just truly something that an overdose can occur
It's – and I've had two and a half years to – once again, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a chemist, but I've researched this for two and a half years. You know, we've all heard the stories about users, you know, stating that they have, you know, chronic pain. And to me, that should be the major red flag to every representative in here. If you're telling us, if you're sitting for four hours to testify, to tell us that you couldn't work before, but now you can get out of bed and go to work, and you take two or three scoops of natural leaf kratom every day? Really? So I feel like that's such a major red flag to show just how much, and that's the pure leaf kratom, How much that does, you know, impact the mu opioid receptor in your brain just like a true opioid does. To answer your question, Representative, I, once again, I feel like that we have to allow the Board of Pharmacy's process to conclude.
Just yesterday, two days ago, Iowa had a full control substance.
There was lots of amendments. They killed the amendments. Now it's back to a full. Idaho went in with a full regulation. Due to the compelling testimony of the police chiefs and multiple experts, They are now, that bill is tabled. They are now, they have a full ban bill in Idaho. So that just, you know, that's basically who gets to you first. You know, who do you listen to? Who do you believe? And that's the bottom line. Because we all know I was here two weeks ago, and they were all sitting right behind me. And they brought people with them to testify. And I heard them talking about it. So, you know, I'm here to help public, you know, to help, you know, the public impact on safe substances. And they're here to make sure that businesses, you know, stay in business and they continue to line their pockets. And that's the bottom line.
but to answer your question representative
you know I can't say that at some point once all of the scientific studies are concluded that you know if it's a controlled substance that's where it should be it should be a controlled substance this is what we're heading towards let it go there you know let it go to be a controlled substance and let the board of pharmacy which is that's their job that's what they do You know, they conclude whether or not these substances are harmful, and it should not be placed under a regulatory framework. And no matter what they put on these labels, you've seen the brand-new label. I just bought that big package with the third-party testing and the AKA GMP. It says the same exact verbiage on the back. You know, botanical specimen, not for human consumption. But if you do, you may have adverse effects, and we're not responsible for that, even though we told you not to eat it, and you did anyway.
Okay.
We appreciate your testimony, Representative Cochley. Thank you Chair and thank you for your testimony today I want to join my colleagues and say I really sorry for your loss My question is I recently have been working with Amy Chapman on a bill whose brother went missing from the west side of Columbus where I live And she describes it as a large club that you don't want to be part of. And so my question for you is if you find yourself in a similar situation, surrounded by other parents who have lost their children to Kratom, or is this something that it's kind of new and you're experiencing on your own?
Since, Mr. Chairman, Representative, since this happened, I did find a group called Kratom Danger Awareness. It was founded by Wendy Chamberlain. We have 3,000 members. there's a large group that have had the exact same issues as mine. Some of those have been only mitragynine. Some of those have been poly. But even in the poly ones, if they're prescription meds, so their kid took their prescription meds and took Kratom, and the autopsy still says that mitragynine was the sole cause, not the prescription meds. And once again, they'll call those poly. But, you know, but yes, the person sitting beside me right now has lost a child. She'll be testifying. But we do. We have people from all over the country, and all of them have lost kids, and we go out. And the bill in Iowa, some of these bills, we tell them our stories. Sometimes we find somebody who will listen, and we can beat that bill back. And when we do, that's what I want. You know, if if if I can get some kind of gratification that I helped, you know, I helped tell the truth and and it saved people's lives. And I've been told that so many times the last two years. You know, thank you. I did podcasts and different things. You know, thank you so much for, you know, you've saved people's lives from this because, you know, I speak the truth. You know, this is not opinionated. This is factual data. and you have the bags there. You can see what they say and what they have in them. I included the poison control documents on my written testimony so you can see all of that. But yes, we do. And we're gathering more and more and more people that are coming into our group saying my child passed away too. It's becoming more and more and more and more prominent. So you don't want to be in that group. and some of the advocates will state stuff like you're doing this for money. You give me a billion dollars or my son back, you can have your billion dollars because I don't care how much money you gave me. I don't care if it's $50 billion. I'll say here's that money, give me my son back. It's absolutely nothing to do with anything like that.
We thank you for coming back and appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Up next to provide interested party testimony is Dr. Kristen Smith.
Welcome, doctor. Proceed when you're ready. Okay. Honorable Chair Klonfenstein Vice Chair Newman Ranking Member Miller and members of the House Agriculture Committee thank you for the opportunities to speak today My name is Dr Kirsten Smith and I providing testimony as an interested party although I am in opposition to aspects of House Bill 587 which would effectively prohibit 7 or 7 products 7-OH is not the problem. I have studied kratom and opioids since 2017 with my work beginning at the National Institute on Drug Abuse during my postdoc. Physical dependence and addiction related to kratom comprise much of my work, which includes over 90 peer-reviewed publications. My research continued at Johns Hopkins University, where I had two clinical trials on kratom and pilot projects examining 7OH use. I regularly advise clinical groups, boards of pharmacy, and speak about 7OH at academic conferences. I was actually one of the first scientists to raise concerns about 70H and I'm among the few researchers and licensed clinicians that have collected data on it. In 2021, not yet having collected data or having fully reviewed the preclinical literature, I assumed 70H would be a public health concern, and that ultimately has not been validated. This initial panic was similar to a decade ago or even still present day. When kratom extracts began proliferating, I and other scientists voiced concerns. Our fears have in that time largely not been realized. The FDA has unfortunately been not well supported by data. We do have data coming out from FDA this year I'm happy to talk about, but ultimately their talking points on both Kratom and now 7-0-H have not been based on data, and this really confuses policy conversations. I speak with providers regularly and can attest to the fact that Kratom and 7-0-H are not, they are rare among the caseloads. Of the approximately 15 7-OH cases in, I guess, three years, two of which I'm a co-author on, there have not been indicators of respiratory depression or any typical opioid ergic activity. Fourteen of these cases had some substance use disorder for 7-OH involved. These were ambiguous, and again, I can talk about those, but withdrawal symptoms were mild. One time point was moderate. The consumers that I've studied, they essentially describe a desire for regulation, both for Kratom and for 7-OH. This includes things like keeping it legal but with restrictions on venues to 21 up, product testing, wholesome brand names, labels that are not inaccurate and that are clear and would distinguish between Kratom and 7-OH, restrictions on formulations that are not oral, serving size caps, and prohibition of sales near schools. You know, this is not legal morphine. The activity of both Kratom and 7-hydroxymitrygyne is highly atypical and oftentimes has nothing to do with the opioid activity. There's a lot of misleading claims, and it is really a disingenuous premise to say that all molecules are equal, and that 7-OH and metragynine are somehow equally risky. The preponderance of data just do not show clear public health harms. And again, there are many reasons why people consume these products. I really urge you to consider legislation that would keep both kratom and 7-hydroxymetragynine regulated but not prohibited for the Ohio adults that would choose to consume these products. I have a lot more I could say. Obviously, I will shut up now, and respectfully, thank you for your time.
Thank you for your testimonies. Vice Chair Newman.
Thank you to the Chair, and thank you, Dr. Smith, for being here to testify today. It was very helpful. I want to ask you a similar question as the prior witness. And thank you for your research and getting on top of this early before most of us ever knew it existed. in your experience in your research to your understanding is it possible for a person to die of an overdose of 7-oh and part two is it possible a On OH, is it possible with natural kratom?
Yeah, so if you'll bear with me a minute. We don't typically do toxicology studies in humans because that would be unethical to try to induce an overdose, right? So what we have to do is take what we can do based on actual clinical studies in which we're looking at pharmacokinetics, things like that, and then a lot of preclinical work where we're talking about non-human animals. So we can do a lot of things to animals we can't do to humans. And we do see that, like literally any substance, there are going to be no observable effect levels or toxic levels that are dose-dependent. Like, if you take enough water into your system, you will die. And I don't mean that to be cute. I mean, seriously, there is a toxic level for both metryginine and 7-hydroxymetryginine. In humans, though, because we don't do trials that would induce toxicity or respiratory depression, and actually I should note, too, that when we have induced respiratory depression in animals, it has been through an IV rod of administration. That is not what happens in humans. We take seven, I don't take, but people take Kratom and 7-OH orally, and the oral bioavailability and the systemic exposure is dramatically different than an IV rod of administration, which is why this is complicated, because our body of science from animals does not necessarily translate to humans, both with respect to toxicology and behavioral pharmacology related to abuse potential. So in humans, the signals that we have to go on are from epidemiological or poison control center data, things like that, or adverse event reporting systems, or forensic toxicology. The fact is that, and again, I have literally no life. I've been in this space since 2015. The forensic talks, case reports, and data that are out there, and even lawsuits and stuff like that, it is extremely rare. And we have some associations of accounts with respiratory depression described, and I'm talking like three cases in a decade, right? And it's not demonstrated. There's not a mechanism. The very frustrating thing here is that, as was noted, there's a lot of polysubstance use. And more than that, even when there's not co-ingestants, there are invariably some underlying health condition, whether it was like a heart or a seizure disorder that was not previously known. So the mechanism for respiratory depression does not appear to be present for mitragynin or 7-hydroxymitragynin or other alkaloids. And this is kind of difficult because, yes, there's mu-opioid receptor activity that is highly complex and a lot of other activity that's not acting on opioid systems whatsoever. But the beta-arrestin second messenger pathway, which is this part that is recruited when a full opioid, like tradition, like Oxycontin or something like that. If you take that, it's going to activate the analgesic and antinociception, but also potential respiratory depression, GI upset, things like that. We have not seen that in humans. And so ultimately, there is not, and I believe my colleague Dr. Boyer was here a couple weeks ago and was much more eloquent than me. We don't have a toxidrome for kratom, right? Like we don't have a known constellation of symptoms. And again, we have some safety data, but we typically don't do studies that would try to kill people. So I hope that helps.
So I guess my question is, does the natural or synthetic product have a place in our society And if so should it be as a regulated and oversight as a drug?
So I wish that I could stand here and tell you that this is all good or all bad or all black or all white. my life and everyone's life here would be much easier. It's just, it is complex. It's like a legitimately complex pharmacology. I do believe, and I do not say this lightly, you know, I think that there is a risk-benefit profile to both kratom leaf, the natural kratom, and then also for the semi-synthetic derivatives of kratom, the 7-OH products. ultimately I think they have a place not as a controlled substance but as a highly regulated and highly restricted set of products that have a lot of guardrails I do think my study of people who consume Kratom and 7-0-H has led me to this forced, pragmatic kind of realistic world view which is not a political one but it's I think a public health one insofar as a lot of these folks, we might say, well, let's just get rid of Kratom and 7-OH, and they're going to go to their doctor and get pain relief, which, by the way, is mediated via the serotonin system as well as the opioid system with Kratom. So this is not just a mute opioid receptor thing. That if we take this away, they're just going to go to their doctor and they're going to get on a prescription medicine or they'll go to drug treatment or something. a lot of these folks have been kind of cut off from different systems of care. Some of them don't want to go back, even if they could get access. And I don't know what is accounting for that. You know, some people don't want an FDA-approved medication. Some people have been in the illicit drug market, and they don't want to go back. And they are perfectly happy to exist in this sort of middle expanse, which is, I am convinced, not going away. Whether it's a dietary supplement or a research chemical from Russia or China, the folks are like, well, if 7-OH and kratom get banned, I'm just going to go get this thing that I heard about on Reddit. And it's going to be this thing over and over and over and over and over again. As far as I'm concerned, the toothpaste has been out of the tube on kratom and now 7-OH for 20 and 3 years respectively. I mean, 20 years it's been around. And most people, when I say I study kratom, they're like, what is that? And if it's not a household word, I'm not saying that there aren't edge cases or that there aren't risks to safeguard against. But if this is not something most people know what it is, this is not the fourth wave of the opioid epidemic, right? So I think there's a middle ground, but I'm not a lawmaker.
So let me ask this another way. If you were the queen regulator for the day, what's the answer to how do we move forward and prevent deaths and have the product available to those that see a healthy, if we can say, healthy benefit? How would you continue forward with this product?
So I don't know that I have a perfect answer for this. I do think it shouldn't be sold in gas stations or convenience stores, for one. I think there are places in which, so for instance, the Czech Republic, bear with me here, the Czech Republic introduced legislation called like the novel psychomodular substances act something like that And it essentially for substances that aren sugar pills right They have some pharmacological activity but they are not rising this level where you're seeing these public health alarm bells go off. And they need to be regulated. And so they have this sort of risk paradigm, and they use kratom and some sort of cannabis product that I don't know too much about as a starting point for, okay, there needs to be like a brick-and-mortar actual physical address So if you're going to be selling this stuff on the Internet, you still have a physical location or kind of like 21 and up. Like if you're going to come into the store and buy this, you can't be 16 years old or something like that. I think that's a good starting point. I think the rest is, you know, I mean, believe it or not, a lot of the Kratom products are actually very consistent in terms of chemical composition and same with 70H. So I'm not sure that that's the problem. But I do think that there should be testing and, like, you know, I would say audits or, you know, random, like, go out, whatever, whether it's the Board of Health or Agriculture or whoever, and again, I'm not a politician, does, like, random audits and samples from the marketplace and does the testing. I mean, you can't test everything, but you can do a random testing to ensure that the chemical constituents in their product match what the label says. And there should be tighter restrictions on the labels. I mean, what the gentleman before me described, I don't think is very acceptable to be on the label, right? So I think that is part of it as well.
Representative Peterson.
Thank you for your testimony. And this may be outside your wheelhouse. You're a researcher and a doctor. A lot of what you described needs to be done is in this bill. So my question is, does this bill do what you would suggest it should do and what things are missing or what things are inaccurate within this bill, to your knowledge, recognizing that's not your area of expertise.
Yeah, and I don't know if I've seen the latest version of the bill. So just broadly speaking, you know, I think I'm here more because, you know, having studied Kratom and then I'm really one of the only people who has collected data on 7-0-H. And my colleagues at Hopkins and NIDA, we have papers under review right now on this. I have come to the realization that a lot of the people who, not everyone, but a lot of people who consume Kratom have switched to 70H. So we kind of have this population of both of these folks. And what that bill, this current bill does, is essentially keeps Kratom legal and then makes 70H products illegal. I don't think that is scientifically supported, and I think it's disingenuous and not, that's an industry thing. and I think both should be legal. So that's my main contention.
Follow-up?
Representative Sims. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know who came before you, but I want to tell you, I thought your testimony today was very thoughtful, very educational, and I appreciate it greatly. You know, the question before us, I think we've heard in the past and even today, is the regulatory framework versus controlled substance. With all of your research, and it's beautifully done, do you or do you not feel as if the pharmaceuticals review would be helpful to include as we really think through this, or do you think that through your work we collected enough data to say that we have enough to move forward to make the decision Thank you Mr Chairman Thank you And sorry if I not doing the proper chain of command thank yous but thank you to you all So as a scientist I think we always need more data right
So I think no matter what happens, we need to collect more data forever, right? But I do think that we have 20 years of data from the United States, never mind Southeast Asia data. So I believe, again, in a perfect world, everything would just be research, implementation in terms of going into the market, and then surveillance monitoring of the market. But that doesn't happen, right? And in America, this really has been a bottom-up phenomenon. This was not big kratom. I understand there's now a big industry, but early on, this was people Googling green powder from Asia, and there were no labels. It was very much the consumers brought it here because they were kind of desperate. So that cart before the horse thing makes this situation not ideal. I do believe that we have sufficient data. For instance, the FDA single ascending dose study, safety tolerability study that was mentioned, that is going to be coming out. The first papers are going to be coming out this year. I believe that has really been a huge leap forward in terms of establishing acute safety. beyond that you know it's the abuse liability factor which is a lot of how scheduling decisions come about addiction potential things like that this goes back to the fact that any rewarding substance has some potential for or some abuse liability right or gambling or smartphones or social media or what any of that stuff so do we want to get rid of all of that probably not but we do need to recognize it as a risk for some now is it the case that this is you know comparable in risk to like heroin or, you know, methamphetamine? No. And as such, I think ideally what we would do is move forward with what we have. And, you know, I don't, you know, the fact that the FDA did recommend that Kratom get scheduled in like 2014, 2015, and the DEA has not run with that, right, for a lot of reasons. And then more recently in July, the FDA recommended scheduling 7-0-H, and the DEA has still not moved forward with that for a lot of other reasons, too, and we can get into those. But if something is persisting in the market for this long and the federal government has not taken some decisive action based on substantive data, I think that we need to just contain the situation and improve it because the situation's here, and if it gets just criminalized, and I'm not some wacky anti-I'm a moderate person, So I'm not saying this in a political way, but the folks that I've studied, if Kratom and 7OH get prohibited, they are going to go use something else. And I'd rather just keep what we have as safe as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative? Representative? Real quick. Thank you for allowing me to bring me your day. I guess I'm just very naive. why does it take so long to say something should be taken off the shelf and put it under the control a controlled substance or given to a doctor to prescribe I don't quite understand that I don't think any parent who's lost a child is going to understand that my mother lost two sons at one time in 1977 she's never been the same you're never the same and so we can discuss this today but not really feeling what the parents are feeling no
So how do we get from, I mean, it just takes so long.
You've said 20 years. You've said this on other things. Why does the system take so long when it's evident there's problems? So I think I would politely and respectfully push back on saying it's evident there's so many problems.
The fact is that the cases on kratom-related toxicities are rare. If they were the majority, like I said before, this would be a household word. Everyone knows what fentanyl is. Most people don't know what this is. And I don't say that lightly. Like, this is just not common. And if it were common, I do believe it wouldn't have taken 20 years. I don't think we'd even be sitting here today having this conversation. So there can be quicker movement on things.
Have you met the federal government?
No.
I mean, I'm...
Yeah.
I get that. I was at NIH for four years, and let me tell you, some things are just, they do get political, in my opinion.
They do get things wrong, and a lot of people don't want to own up to it. And I think that this is a very irritating and confusing thing because people hear opioid and they freak out, understandably so, because of look what our country has gone through. And it's a dirty word, and that's why a lot of conversations just get shut down. if we were talking about serotonin only or alpha endergic activity only or even cannabis, which, you know, at least people kind of hear but don't freak out as much about. I mean, it's just complicated. And I think because it's complicated, people just want an easy thing. And then you have cases in which there are adverse events that occur. And it is horrible. And you have to respond to that as well. And so I wish I could give you insight into the federal government, but I cannot. And I'm sorry for that.
We appreciate your testimony today, and thank you. Thank you all very much. Next up to provide opponent testimony is John Cleveland. Welcome to committee, and the floor is yours.
Thank you. I'm going to be your least compelling witness so far. Chair Klappenstein and members of the committee, my name is John Cleveland, testifying on behalf of Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust, or HART. HART is a non-profit 501c4 dedicated to ensuring continued, responsible access to Kratom products. We appreciate the opportunity to express our opposition to HB 587, which, as written, constitutes a categorical ban on the sale of the natural Kratom alkaloid 7-hydroxymetragynine, or 7-OH. HART supports sensible regulation for all natural therapeutics derived from mitrogena speciosa, or Kratom. This work must necessarily disregard political exigencies. It should endeavor to balance the ideals of protecting children and the public, while also preserving access for the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans who rely on Kratom and its alkaloids to manage pain and overcome addiction. The broader framework of HB 587, including provisions addressing age restrictions, labeling transparency, and responsible retail practices, represents a constructive step towards regulating Kratom in Ohio. We suggest you go even further as HART supports immediate steps to remove all kratom products from gas stations and limiting them to 21 and up locations. What we do not support is establishing a protectionist carve-out for a particular sector of the kratom industry, which is effectively what this bill does. 70H, it's not a synthetic lab-created chemical. It's a naturally occurring alkaloid. It also what your body converts kratom into So roughly 24 of metragynine in Kratom is converted by your liver into 7 after ingestion So a 35 milligram mitragynine gummy which would be legal under this framework, would convert into about 8 milligrams of 7-OH in your body. Proponents of this bill have likely told you that 7-OH was bad and called for a ban, but if they really thought that, they wouldn't be selling kratom. Here are the facts. More than 1 million people, likely far more now, have consumed nearly 2 billion servings of 7-0-H, yet there are zero documented deaths attributed to 7-0-H alone. According to the FDA's own database, the Federal Adverse Event Reporting System, there are less than 100 adverse events, I think about 88 today, associated with 7-0-H. Many as minor as nausea and dizziness. That's fewer than soap, by the way, and far fewer by an order of magnitude than other Kratom products, even over the same time frame. But bans, of course, do cause harm. They have pushed many consumers back towards substances that are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year. In the week following the emergency ban in Florida, overdose spikes tripled in the central part of the state. That was a very tragic but predictable result that is likely to be repeated again and again if states continue policies of banning comparatively innocuous substances like 70H. 70H has been subjected in recent months to a pretty vast and pervasive propaganda effort. It's honestly impressive, with critics decrying it as the next opioid epidemic, time that has proved that it is not. You know, the FDA held a hearing all the way back in July, and since that time, they said those very words, the fourth wave of the opioid epidemic, no one has died since then. So this all begs the question, why are we hearing so much about this alkaloid? The war on 7-0-H emanates from a discrete segment of the Kratom industry, namely leaf producers upset about losing market share. This bill, with its arbitrary 2% cap designed to protect kratom leaf producers, even though their products contain and are metabolized into 7-OH, it proves that. So let me say as someone who's not trying to weaponize government against market opponents, prohibition of any kratom product is not the right course of action. We ask that you remove the 2% cap on 7-OH concentrations in favor of a higher milligram base limitation and strengthen the bill by removing all kratom products from gas stations. That's the best way to protect consumers. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there questions from the committee? So I'm going to ask you the same question I asked the last presenter. If you were the king of bureaucracy for a day, how would you correct this issue? I agree that the cat is out of the bag.
I think we've seen from real-world experiences that people will turn to other options, other alternatives, many of them street drugs, if these products are taken off the shelves. It'll drive the market underground where there is no regulation. We don't know what's in these products when they're totally unregulated. So I agree they should be regulated, and I really do think it makes sense to remove these products from these high-traffic areas like gas stations. There shouldn't be any psychoactive substances in gas stations, frankly. But I do think that picking and winning and choosing alkaloids within the same plant doesn't really make sense, especially since mitragynine, which would remain legal, turns into 7-OH in the body. So regulation, not prohibition, I think, is the answer. And so this bill almost has it right, in my view.
Any other questions? We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Thank you very much. up next is Tom Beckham to provide opponent testimony welcome to committee proceed when you ready Thank you Chairman vice chair ranking member and members of the committee
My name is Tom Beckham, and I serve on the board of 7 Hope Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to public education, advocacy, and science on 7-0. And I'm involved in both the Kratom and 7-0 industry. The 7 Hope Alliance opposes HB 587 unless amended. We're not here to block regulation. We support it, but as written, this bill goes far beyond its stated purpose in ways that will harm the very Ohioans it seeks to protect. Millions of Americans have built stable, functional lives around 7OH, and they deserve a policy response grounded in evidence rather than fear. 74% of 7OH consumers reported using it for chronic pain, often cited as a safer alternative to prescription opioids. The average consumer is a 41-year-old male, a parent, a veteran, or a health care worker, trying to manage pain and take care of their family. People who are battling chronic pain, debilitating disease, and addiction. People who say, 70H gave me my life back. When government removes a wellness tool that people rely on, the consequences are not abstract. They are real. I want to draw this committee's attention to the testimony of Dr. Ed Boyer, who sat in this room on March 4th. He's a tenured professor at Ohio State and he is as credentialed as any witness that this committee will hear. Dr. Boyer told this committee directly that 7-OH is not synthetic. It forms naturally when metrogenin in kratom leaves is exposed to air and is produced by metabolizing enzymes in the liver. Every person who consumes kratom will have 7-OH in their body within the hour. You cannot separate the two. On safety he was equally clear and I quote, there are no deaths that can be unambiguously attributed to 7OH." And that is across an estimated 1.4 billion servings sold in the United States. On addiction, he told this committee, quote, there's nothing particularly exceptional about the addictive capacity of Kratom or 7OH. Some Kratom industry stakeholders have tried to alarm this committee by claiming that 7OH is not Kratom, that it is dangerous and synthetic. Given Dr. Boyer's testimony and the testimony of of Dr. Kirsten Smith here today, it's clear that these claims are not grounded in science or facts, but they're a rhetorical device offered by the same parties who openly told this committee that 7-0 had hurt their kratom sales at the proponent committee. That is a market protection argument, not a public health one. The overdose data tells its own story. According to the CDC, Ohio overdoses fell 27.88% from October of 2024 to October of 2025, while 7-0 remained available in the regulated market. Prohibition is not a public health strategy. When you remove a lower risk product from a community that still has pain and still has demand, the demand doesn't disappear. It relocates to untested, unregulated, or illicit alternatives where the real dangers live. We support smart regulation. Dr. Boyer proposed a framework for 7-0H from this very podium. Oral only formulations, blister pack packaging, age gating points of sale, school proximity restrictions, and taxation based on active ingredient content. Over 35,000 Americans have documented how 708 has provided relief where other treatments have failed, and they're not asking for a free pass, they're asking for the dignity of a regulated and accessible product. What we can't support are potency caps so low that they function as prohibition, pushing consumers away from compliant, tested products and towards the unregulated or illicit markets. I urge you to amend this bill sensibly to regulate 708 rather than issuing a de facto ban Thank you Thank you for your testimony Thanks for being here Are there questions from the committee I guess just a question 1 billion doses
Who's taking this stuff? I mean, I would guess most of us on this committee never heard of this a year ago. Who's taking it? Where's all this stuff gone?
So a wide variety of people. Consumers range from people who have moved, well, 70 from our own surveys that we've, or from surveys that 7HOPE has enlisted through actually political survey groups. We saw that 74% of consumers were chronic pain patients, and another 20% or so were people who moved, and there's a blend in there, who moved from street opiates or illicit markets over to this product because it doesn't carry the same risk of respiratory depression and death that street opiates do. Thank you.
Representative Newman.
Thank you to the Chair, and thank you to the witness for being here today for your testimony. So I've been in conversation with folks outside of the Capitol about this, and it sounds like there may be some people who have conditions that they read online or some naturopath tells them, you know, your chronic condition, your chronic disease, other than pain. Pain may be associated with it, but there's a chronic disease or chronic condition that's not helped. Crohn's was the particular gentleman I was talking to. Are you aware of organizations, physicians, literature out there that are advising people the traditional help or solutions don't help you, but Kratom is a possible solution for you? Are you aware of such?
So of MDs, no, specifically because the liability policy related to their insurance wouldn't allow them to. You know, I think if a doctor is recommending something to a patient, then they are now essentially taking on the liability for that, and they have a limited scope and window of what they can recommend, to my understanding. However, naturopaths or, you know, other groups, I know there are some addiction groups out there as well who have referred consumers to the Kratom product and have recommended it, although I believe that most of these recommendations are unofficial. in my mind the issue lies with the fact as Dr. Kirsten Smith said that the FDA since over the last 20 years you know there was a potential scheduling attempt of Kratom as a whole in 2016 that they decided not to move forward with but to the today still the federal government has not come out and said here is the pathway for Kratom to exist and here's the pathway for 7-0 to exist in a regulated and safe way it's been 20 years of silence essentially and so as such the industry has acted on its own, and essentially we're here asking, or I'm here asking for regulation that would limit and mitigate all the potential downside factors, access to children, mislabeling of products, lack of clear instructions, lack of warnings, lack of an instruction saying don't mix this with a prescription drug without consulting a physician, but also to enable a regulated, safe adult use market where responsible adults, you know, our average consumer from this survey was a 41-year-old working man with, I think it was 1.4 kids was the survey average, and to access this product because it did give them their life back. Thank you.
Representative Miller.
Thank you, Chair. And your last three sentences were pretty much summarized what I was going to ask and was hoping for an answer on, and that was Can we not make the decision to ban something that has actually been shown to help? Can we put this in a proper packaging, in a proper location, with proper consultations and testing and screening? Can we do that? It's been done with other drugs. Can we do this with Kratom 70H and the forms from there? Could we do this with this product so that people who need this or who want this or that it works for them can have access while we can keep it out of the hands of minors and make sure people are educated enough to know that there could be adverse effects? Absolutely.
And it's been done before with other product categories, and it can absolutely be done again with this product. I mean, looking at 7OH specifically, I think Tylenol has something around 500 deaths a year from abuse and misuse. You know, it's about as well regulated and labeled as a product can get. So there will always be edge cases. And, you know, every piece of my heart and every compassion goes out towards us. But there is a way to structure this that absolutely minimizes any downside potential to it and maximizes the potential benefits to our public society as a whole, general public health.
May I follow up? Thank you, Chair. So with that being said, can we do this in such a way, do you believe we can do this in such a way where we don't pick winners and losers of who can provide this product to Ohioans? And then I'm going to back that with kind of a side question as I'm hearing there's a lot of data on veteran use of this product and successful veteran use. Is there anything that you have to offer on that area as well?
I can get you the information on veteran use. It's part of our survey. And then also we have worked with, I believe it's the Grunt Style Foundation, who, and I'll double check that, but they have engaged on a level where they've found that their veteran community has, with PTSD or any chronic pain issue, has seen massive benefits out of this product, out of 7OH. And they have, I believe, just a full document and piece of literature that we can get your way. And then providing, going back to that first question, of providing a fair commercial competition?
Absolutely.
So, I mean, I think the concerns from a consumer perspective have to come first, and they are point of sale, make sure kids don't get access to it, make sure everything's labeled safely, accurately, the warnings are there, the recommendations are there. So take them out of gas stations, take them out of C-stores, high foot traffic areas, move them to only 21 plus age gated stores, whether that's a quota licensed liquor store or whether that is another venue that you have to show an ID to enter into the premises. And then allow the, you know, I think putting a total cap on kratom alkaloids as a whole rather than this 2% limit that's in the current language. So for example, the current language says that the maximum total 7OH content can be 2% of total alkaloids. And there's no limit to that. That means I could, as a manufacturer, go make a 20 milligram 7OH product, pair it with 980 milligrams of metrogenin per serving, and go sell it. And that's legal. But what I could not do is sell a 20 milligram 7OH product with zero milligrams of metrogenin So the language currently isn structured in a way that is one safe for the consumer and two enables a fair marketplace The ideal language in my mind would be a total milligram or total alkaloid cap per serving of this product. And also, as Dr. Boyer said, removing this nonsense about multi-servings in a single capsule. So, oh, serving size is one-eighth of a tablet or one-eighth of a capsule or one-quarter of a capsule or tablet or one-quarter of a drink. It's not a reasonable thing there. So there's language that can be crafted that create this fair marketplace and ensure consumer safety at the same time.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Hearing no further questions, we thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much. Next up to provide opponent testimony, Mark Schworman Matt, excuse me Welcome to committee and proceed when you're ready
Thank you very much, Chair, members of the committee Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today My name is Matt Schworman My company manufactures both Kratom and 7OH I volunteer on the heart board to help people recover from opiate addictions and probably most importantly, which you haven't heard yet today, I am a consumer of 7-OH myself. I have four herniated discs from a car accident as well as two knee surgeries. I was prescribed oxycodones and obviously was terrified of oxy. So I chose 7-OH instead. It allows me to manage my pain, stay completely functional, run my businesses, be a good husband, be a good father, be a productive member of my community because I have access to 7-OH. Now let me say quickly what 7-OH is. as most of you heard, it's a natural alkaloid. It comes from the kratom plant, but more importantly, it's also your body's natural metabolite. It's not some random street drug. So when you take traditional kratom, your body will actually convert about 25% of that metrogenin into 7-OH. So companies like mine are able to replicate the process that your liver does, standardize the dose, and then test it so adults know exactly what they're taking. All 7-OH produced in the world is derived directly from the kratom plant. It is not a synthetic. The best analogy I would offer is honestly a vitamin C tablet. If you take a vitamin C tablet, we didn't take 100 oranges and squeeze them in. Labs like mine are involved. That doesn't suddenly make vitamin C a dangerous synthetic. So for 25 years, we all watched in horror as opiate overdose deaths in America that killed over a million Americans. In July of 2023, 7OH first became available in the United States. By the beginning of 2024, it was everywhere, including thousands of shops in Ohio. Something amazing happened that year. overdose deaths in America dropped over 30%. That's straight from the CDC. That is not our data after 25 years of growth. Further, in 2024, the only two states that we could find who had a ban on 7-OH and actually enforced their ban were Arizona and Utah. According to the CDC, the only two states in America whose opiate overdose death rate increased were Arizona and Utah. Again, that is strictly from the CDC. That is not our data. And I do understand correlation does not automatically equal causation, and I understand social scientists will be debating it for years. But the statistics are incredible. And also, right here in Ohio, Ohio is one of the largest consumer states of 7OH. If you look in the last two and a half years, again straight from the CDC, Ohio's opiate overdose death rate is now down 51%. That literally means there are tens of thousands of people who are alive today who otherwise would not have been. Now after speaking to other members of the industry HART has been able to determine as you heard approximately 1 billion doses of 7 have been consumed in the United States And while that number sounds crazy if you just think, okay, 2.5 million Americans are taking it, they take even just one dose a day, it only takes a year to hit a billion doses. So even though the number sounds insane, it's actually very reasonable. The FDA database, as mentioned, shows only 86 adverse health events reported, and not one single death has solely attributed to 7-OH. To give you an idea, as sad as it is, over 500 people a year are going to die from Tylenol or acetaminophen. That's how safe this product is. Now, we all know bans don't work, right? We've seen it with Prohibition. We created the mafia. We saw it with marijuana. We funded Mexican drug cartels. A ban doesn't make consumer demand disappear. It just sends it right back to the black market where you're going to have no testing requirements, no age requirements, no packaging requirements. and now instead of the proceeds going to local Ohio businesses, they go to drug cartels. Now, as a business owner, I agree, this should never be a free-for-all. I think there are very reasonable regulations that can be in place. You sell this only in places that are 21 and up, and you don't put it in big bags. You put it in sealed blister packs. I am the survey. I'm a 39-year-old male. I'll be 40 this year. I still have trouble opening these blister packs. That's how you make sure kids don't get a hold of it. You put in restrictions. You make guaranteed labeling. and when you do, you cap something, you use an alkaloid, use the total amount, right? Because as my colleague said, when you go percentages and you say there's 2% language, great, no problem, I'll just throw a thousand milligrams of something else in. That just makes the product dangerous. So total caps make much more sense. You need to have standardized warnings, things that make sense you can regulate the industry. And as someone whose own quality of life depends on this product, and I employ people who make it the right way, I would say choose smart regulation over prohibition. Make sure kids cannot get 70H. But people like me, if you take away my access, my alternative is Percocet, Oxy, or God forbid, fentanyl. And you're going to see millions of people who wind up back on the street buying a black market Percocet. And that's how we got to 100. Our peak in America was 121,000 people a year dying from opiate overdose deaths. We're down to 60. And at the rate we're going in two more years, the opiate crisis is done. So in closing, I urge you, please oppose this bill or amend it with sensible regulation. And we will be the first ones here to support and say, hey, take away 80 percent of the points of sale. Put it only in stores that are 21 and over so people like me can get it and kids can not.
Thank you. We appreciate your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, you got off easy. Oh, yeah. No. OK, sorry. Sorry. Raise your hand. I didn't know. I don't know. I don't know.
the correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony today. It sounds, are you equating the reduction in opioids and the overdose and the challenges we had there with people choosing instead Creighton? So legally, I could not stand up here without,
you know, actual testimonies from doctors say, yes, we can confirm it. However, I can look at the numbers and just go, okay, well, the proxen and these other things, they were available in 2022. They were available at the beginning of 2023, but the opiate overdose kept going up and up. It wasn't until 7-OH became available. And you can look on the CDC charts, all of a sudden the drop started. And as horrible as it was in Florida, the gentleman saw or mentioned when we had the emergency scheduling, the first two weeks afterward, Oprah dose deaths tripled. Now, again, social scientists, they're going to take years to debate it. And I understand it. But as someone who just looks at numbers and goes, okay, well, a billion and a half doses are consumed. There are zero reported deaths. And I myself use it. I mean there are days I can turn my neck from the car accident On 7OH I function perfectly well I don have the pain If my alternative is Oxy or Percocet you driving me to the street That why I so against the band
Quick follow-up, Mr. Sir. So the 1.4 million doses per year, Ohio being one of the largest consumers, like what's our consumer numbers here?
So in Ohio, the rough estimate looks about 280,000 Ohioans consume the products.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Mock. Welcome to committee and proceed when you're ready.
Thank you so much for having me, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, Committee. Sorry, first time, long-time listener, first time testifier. So if I get the protocols wrong, I apologize. But yeah, my name is Brian Mock. I am a Summit County resident, born and raised in Ohio. I've spent about 20 years of my career in the nonprofit sector, working with folks who are homeless, people coming back from incarceration, all of which many, many, many adult diagnosis, mental health and drug addiction. And now I'm the CEO of an organization called End It for Good that works for drug policy reform. And for me, this is an opportunity to go upstream. I've seen a lot of lives destroyed and lives lost because of drugs, and this is an opportunity to what we do at End of For Good is promote health care over handcuffs to make it really short in less than three minutes. And what we really work to do is try to work on a drug policy that takes a kind of economics approach to the free market and that kind of conservative economic approach and look at health care instead of incarceration. So when we look at a drug policy issue, especially like Cratom and 7OH, Three things happen with prohibition. One thing that doesn't happen is that demand doesn't disappear overnight. People will continue to use that drug or a substitute drug. And so that does not change generally. What does change? Three things. We say the person changes. So instead of it being somebody who's working through addiction, a mental health patient, working generally trauma is the root issue of addiction. Instead of it being a health issue, it becomes a criminal justice issue. And criminal justice has a very great role in our society, but it's kind of like a sledgehammer when people need a scalpel, right? So that person, instead of getting health care, gets incarceration, which is more trauma, high recidivism rate, and it's many times worse since the situation. The second thing that changes is the substance itself. When something's prohibited, there's a marked demand to concentrate it, right? If you've ever tailgated, beer is outside the stadium, and it's beer and it's low dose, right? If you want to bring something into the stadium, it's not that I've ever done it, but it's done through a flask, right? Whiskey, 151, that dose goes higher because transportation costs goes up and smuggling is easier in high fund. And that's what we see with heroin and fentanyl, right, is that constant demand to go higher in the concentration and get stuff in. Right, so it makes the substance more dangerous by making it illegal, right? And then you don't have the labeling, you don't have regulation, right? There's no control over what it is. So if you're moving in between batches where this batch is 3% fentanyl and this batch is 4%, you can overdose very easily, right? And similar with all drugs when they're not labeled. The third thing that happens, right, is the marketplace is unregulated. If you have a dispute, you can't go to court, you can't call the police, you can't go to the Ohio Department of Agriculture audit, you have to force gang violence, cartels, et cetera, bad things. In conclusion, we really, you know, and if we're good, we applaud what we're doing here with Kratom. We like the common sense regulation that is 21 and over. It is regulate, it is keep the manufacturers and labeling accountable. I specifically and humbly suggest looking at the 7-OH specific part. where we're looking at 2%, which is effectively a ban. Having a milligram-based thing is more in line with what people in that space use and talk about on the ground, as well as a rate that is actually kind of in the market that what people are actually using. And I'm sorry. I apologize for going over time.
Very well done. Thank you for your testimony. Are there questions from the committee? Representative Sims.
Where did you say you were from?
I'm born and raised in Cleveland.
I live in Summit County now. Summit County, yeah. Right, I moved out of Cuyahoga into Summit.
I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered if you could elaborate a little more about the flash thing.
Oh, the flash?
Yeah. Well, you know, the Brown State and the Muni lot. It's a social experiment there. Thank you so much. Thank you, ma'am.
Any additional questions? We thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Next up to provide opponent testimony is Jennifer Young. Thank you for being here, and proceed when you're ready.
Thank you. My name is Jennifer Young. I am the mother of Johnny Loring. He was my firstborn child. He was a smart, funny, and loving young man. He graduated early. He texted me first thing in the morning and the last thing every night. He lived with me and his dad for his entire 27 years of his life. April 18, 2024 started as a normal day, the yearly morel mushroom hunt with his father, his uncle, and friends. As Johnny walked out the door that morning, I told him to have a great time, and I loved him. He looked back at me from the door, and he smiled and said, I love you too, Mom. That was the last time I saw my child alive. That was the last conversation I had with my child. Johnny was not reckless or trying to harm himself. He had severe anxiety and PTSD, like a lot of people do these days, especially young people. He found something that he believed would help. He drank Kratom tea twice a day. He bought it at a storefront that looked legitimate. A brick-and-mortar store. Kratom only. Clean countertops, labeled products, friendly staff, he was told it was safe and natural, all organic. The staff knew about Johnny's seizures, and they said nothing about the side effects to him and seemed like they could care less that he was having seizures He did not use enhanced extracts or standalone 70H just plain natural kratom leaf He did not take an unusually large amount of kratom that day. He took his last dose of kratom tea 45 minutes before he passed away. He trusted that if something is sold openly and legally, that it was safe. that someone had made sure it was safe and wouldn't kill him, and that trust cost my son his life. After Johnny's death, I began learning what I wish I'd researched before, the risks associated with Kratom, including seizure, psychosis, dependency, toxicity, and even death. All documented scientific literature does exist. Public health agencies have issued warnings. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy received the evidence and implied the law. They reviewed the risk, reviewed eight statutory factors, the lack of accepted medical use, the absence of established safety under medical supervision. They voted unanimously. Unanimously. I mean, it speaks for itself. They are experts appointed to protect Ohio families. House Bill 587 would override that decision, and I'm asking you to uphold the board's decision. When products are sold on shelves and storefronts, we assume it has been evaluated and vetted. You cannot bring my child back. However, you can't decide if the expert review process and the states matter. You can decide rather the unanimous findings of a higher drug expert stand. Not for me, but for Johnny. It's too late for us and my family. but for the next mother or father or loved one, they still have time to protect them. My son was found face down in the outskirts of Wayne National Forest, lifeless. His tongue was bitten completely in half from the force of a deadly seizure. Please let his story mean something to you. I oppose House Bill 587. Thank you all for listening, and I wanted to put into consideration in the 18 countries have banned Kratom. And there is no drug testing for it. So people can go and get jobs, be law enforcement, whatever, and they don't get drug tested for it. And it is a derivative opiate. People want to compare alcohol, cigarettes, Tylenol, none of that is sold as safe all supplements Please take into consideration what I telling you and just do the right thing My son had 990 milliliters of mitragynin in his system and seizure meds. Mitragynin is a stimulant of low doses and a strong opiate effect at large doses. I brought a picture of my son for you guys to see my boy. His life is cut short. Our hearts are broken. He had one seizure three weeks before he died. I have pictures from the hospital visit, but I'm not gonna share them with you because it's hard enough for me to look at them. My baby is gone. My first born son, forever. My best friend. People can sit in here and defend something that kills, but I want you to listen to me when I tell you and I plead with you, this stuff is poison, and it needs to be banned. I'm here for other parents, like Dan and myself and my husband, to tell you guys that this has to stop. Thank you.
We thank you for your testimony today. Representative Newman.
Thank you to the Chair, and thank you, Mrs. Young, for coming in to testify today. And again, I have one of the voice, what probably everyone on the committee wants you to know is that we're terribly sorry to hear about the loss of your son. Thank you. Thank you for coming to talk and give testimony in spite of the difficulty and the grief that you've gone through. And I know it's difficult to talk about your son's seizures and manner of his death. It's very difficult. And we appreciate that. And so my question is about just a bit of that. If you don't mind just explaining a little bit more. You referred to your son's seizures. Can you just relay a little bit more about that?
He had a handful of seizures. He began taking Kratom in about three. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
I want to hear all that. But did your son have seizures before he ever began using Kratom?
Never once in his entire life.
Okay. Go ahead and explain the rest.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. My son began taking Kratom in 2021. He had his first seizure in May of 2021, shortly after beginning taking it. He had did a short hospital visit for the weekend to keep him under, you know, to watch over him to make sure he was okay. And he'd had maybe four other seizures before his death, a handful of them We had no idea it was Kratom that was giving him the seizures and the doctors couldn figure out what was going on with him because the drug tests were coming back okay The doctors and the ER didn't have scientific data to understand Kratom, and most of them, like you, had never even heard of it. And three weeks before Johnny passed away, he came in from work. He was a delivery driver for America's Floor Source. He loved his job. And I will add to you guys that before Johnny started taking Kratom, he dealt with a lot of anxiety, a lot of stress. He was a very shy boy. He started taking it and he did seem like he was better. He could go to work and he could focus and he could, his anxiety had eased until it hadn't, until he started having the seizures. And three weeks before he passed away, he came in from work, he went into the kitchen to get something to eat. And I heard a loud boom. I went into the kitchen and my son was on the floor having a massive seizure, blood gushing from his face. And of course, I called 911. I pulled him on his side and tried to console him until the ambulance got there. We went to the hospital. Doctors said there's no other substances in his system. We don't understand what's going on here with him. They referred him to a seizure clinic. That was for May the 9th, 2024, and my son passed away April 18th, 2024. He had not gotten a chance to go to the seizure clinic. because his life was robbed from him. He'd only had a couple of seizures before he passed away. Any additional questions?
We thank you for your testimony, and thank you for... I know it would be extremely challenging to relive this, and we appreciate that.
Thank you. Thank you.
Members, I would draw your attention. There's additional written testimony on your iPad. We ask that you spend the time and read that. There's quite a few of them. Those that were here today to testify in person, we thank you. And this concludes the third hearing of House Bill 587. With no further business before the committee, we now are hereby adjourned. Thank you.