@Paul-Kemp With the news of th

 @Monnie-Fuq-LaVenus I don’t think the AKA is buddies with the FDA. Because they want vendors to produce GMP compliant product why would that mean they are ‘buddies’. Because we want safe product the same as the FDA?? We don’t want to go against them if their rules make sense. Why would we disagree with the FDA if they simply want Krstom to be safe and GMP compliant ~ Right? @Mac-Haddow 

last edited by guywithtrees

@Monnie-Fuq-LaVenus Any representation that AKA has any relationship with the FDA is false. Despite our best efforts to engage the FDA on a discussion of why pure, unadulterated, and non-contaminated kratom should be properly classified and regulated as a food, the FDA REFUSES to even respond.

What the AKA is dedicated to is protecting and preserving the freedom of kratom consumers to make informed choices on products they use to manage their health and well-being. Consumer have the absolute right -- under the standards established by the courts for noncommercial speech -- to make such decisions.

The FDA has clearly adopted a very aggressive posture to claim the vast majority of kratom manufacturers refuse to follow GMPS and label their products with illegal therapeutic claims, and that is the argument they are promoting today to state regulatory agencies. Some vendors want NO REGUATIONS of any kind. That is not the real world, and it will never be possible even when we convince the Congress to do the same thing they did in 1994 with the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) where they limited FDA's regulatory authority over vitamins and dietary supplements. Kratom vendors will be subject to the regulations on food and dietary ingredients, and if they choose to market kratom as a dietary supplement, all of the regulations covered in DSHEA for those kinds of products.

Those who argue for no regulation paint a target on kratom and that will empower the FDA to argue all kratom must be banned.

If you really are not interested in promoting false information about the AKA, then now would be the time to stand up and repudiate these absurd attacks and question the motives of those making them.

I am glad to talk personally on this subject if needed.  My email is mhaddow@americankratom.org.

So, all their asking us to do is if we run across a vendor who chooses not to follow GMP guidelines then we refer it to the AKA first, then they will kick it off to the FDA if necessary?  Do I understand this right?

@pete2000 Yes, the courts have permitted the FDA to look at all forms of a vendor's "speech" that included blogs, websites, social medial platforms and marketing materials disseminated in any way in which an economic benefit can be imputed. This commercial speech prohibits any vendor from making therapeutic claims for any product for which there has not been an approval granted by the FDA.

@machaddow your very correct. It's why vendors need to watch what they say and how they act online. 

@Monnie-Fuq-LaVenus The process will be for any report submitted on a possible illegal therapeutic claim to (1) be evaluated based on the evidence submitted; (2) an independent verification that the claims are actually being made; (3) a contact with the vendor to see if they will voluntarily correct any impermissible therapeutic claims -- and if they do the issue will be considered resolved; and (4) for vendors who cannot be reached because they do not provide required contact information or if they refuse to correct verified suspect claims, then the report will be forwarded to the FDA under current adverse event and therapeutic claim reporting systems for investigation.

It is likely that many vendors are unaware of the limitations on marketing, and AKA wants to protect the kratom consumers from the FDA using such marketing practices to be more aggressive in enforcement than they already are.

No vendor needs to make any health claims on their products or on their site.  I get that there are vendors (i havent shopped recently so I can't say I know of any offhand) who claim their product "cures what ails you" or will fix any pain you have.  We've been fighting that since forever and just to get this point across, One particular person I came across about a year ago claimed his kratom was the "best opiate on the market" and i messaged him and, although I may have stated it a bit harsh, i told him he needed to change his sales pitch and he came back with "that's what makes it sell so good".  Things like that are what we are fighting. IF that's what we are concentrating on, then I'm on board.  My issue with all of this is that we've fought the FDA tooth and nail for years and with every fiber of our being put all we had into every time we've had a success.  I can't speak for anyone else but i think many people feel like we're getting too close to the entity that has been wanting to shut us down since day one.  It's a terrifying thing.  Many of us wouldn't be alive without this leaf and the thought of losing it scares us literally to death. @machaddow I'm not personally attacking you, i want to make that clear.  I'll keep fighting the good fight. I just want to make sure my efforts are going the right direction. 

@Monnie-Fuq-LaVenus We are completely in sync on this issue. Everything we do at AKA is to stop the War on Kratom that the FDA aggressively prosecutes at every level of government. I personally appreciate your willingness to hear the facts on this issue. I know there are some vendors who are upset, but AKA represents the interests of consumers.

@machaddow  we all agree that vendors should not be making these sort of claims. But I feel the big question is who gets to make the policy. Who decides what vendor to go after and which ones to leave alone or talk to them about correcting their actions. 

Will the aka allow vendors to adjust their marketing or claims before they are reported to FDA? Is there any sort of process to remedy? 

This is also put into place to get rid of "backpack" vendors, which is awesome.  Anyone can put powder in a bag and slap a label on it and resell it.  This would put a stop to that. Right?

Just to clear the air, I'm not personally attacking anyone.  I'm doing what I can to protect the leaf.  

You are tho. What you said was a very very serious accusation against the American Kratom Association and Mac Haddow as Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Please explain yourself and take back these attacks you’ve made here and on Facebook. We already have divisions within our community. We don’t need anymore especially when it is due to a simple misunderstanding etc. 

@guywithtrees I described this program in another response, but every vendor will have the opportunity to both respond and make any appropriate changes to marketing claims that need adjusted. The vendors who do not put contact information on their labels and that AKA cannot track down, and those who refuse to remove clearly impermissible therapeutic claims, will be the only ones referred to the FDA for investigation.