The debate surrounding kratom a substance with both therapeutic potential and significant risks, has intensified in recent years. At the center of this controversy is Christopher McCurdy a professor at the University of Florida whose advocacy for keeping kratom legal has been influenced by undisclosed financial ties to the American Kratom Association (AKA).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that between 2020 and 2024, 5,200 people in the United States died from drug overdoses involving kratom. Additionally, calls to poison control centers involving kratom have spiked by 1,200% in the last decade. Despite these alarming statistics, McCurdy has been a vocal proponent for kratom’s continued availability, emphasizing its medicinal potential while downplaying its risks.
McCurdy’s Financial Ties to the Kratom Industry
McCurdy has received travel reimbursements, donations to his university’s foundation, and funding for an annual symposium on kratom research from the AKA. These financial ties have not been disclosed in his conflict of interest statements or on the papers he publishes. The AKA, which advocates for kratom consumers, has relied on McCurdy to convince lawmakers that kratom is safe enough to remain legal.
Kratom, derived from a tree native to Southeast Asia, is sold as a powder or in various forms. In small amounts, it acts as a stimulant, while in larger amounts, it behaves like an opioid. Despite the FDA’s prohibition on marketing it as a supplement, it is often advertised as a mood and energy enhancer, a painkiller, and an alternative to opioids.
The Role of the American Kratom Association
The AKA has been instrumental in keeping kratom products widely available in the United States. The group spends about $2.5 million a year on lobbying efforts, funded by manufacturers and vendors. McCurdy’s involvement with the AKA includes briefing the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and traveling to various states to advocate for kratom’s legality.
In 2023, McCurdy briefed the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs remotely. In 2025, he traveled to Vienna for an in-person briefing, with his hotel room paid for by the AKA. In 2024, he planned a trip to Indonesia to advocate against a full ban on kratom, with the AKA paying for a first-class plane ticket. Although he canceled the trip, he retained the flight credit for future AKA-related travel.
The Debate Over Kratom’s Legality
McCurdy’s advocacy for kratom’s legality has been met with opposition from those who argue for stricter regulations. Jennifer Brandt, a Virginia pharmacist advocating for a total ban on kratom sales, has been vocal about the need for transparency in McCurdy’s financial ties to the industry. She has filed records requests with the University of Florida and asked medical journals to append corrections listing McCurdy’s ties to the AKA.
McCurdy’s research focuses on developing kratom’s dominant chemical compound into a pharmaceutical to treat addiction. This work has been funded by the federal government, which has invested an estimated $100 million in grants. McCurdy argues that decisions about kratom should be informed by the best available science and that his views are based on more than two decades of scientific research.
However, critics contend that McCurdy should be more forthright about his relationship with the kratom industry. They argue that his lack of disclosure undermines the credibility of his research and advocacy. McCurdy maintains that reimbursed travel expenses do not influence the substance of his presentations or his scientific conclusions.
The debate over kratom’s legality is complex and multifaceted. While some argue for its therapeutic potential, others highlight its risks and the need for stricter regulations. As the discussion continues, the role of financial ties and transparency in shaping policy decisions remains a critical issue.
