In less than two years, kratom has shifted from a relatively low-profile herbal supplement on smoke shop shelves to a closely monitored product in California, as regulators use existing food and drug laws to limit how it is sold and presented to consumers.
The plant-derived substance, made from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa trees native to Southeast Asia, remains unscheduled under both federal law and California’s controlled substances statutes, meaning lawmakers have not explicitly classified it alongside drugs such as heroin or prescription opioids. At the same time, a series of administrative actions led by state health and alcohol regulators has significantly reduced the availability of kratom products in mainstream retail settings, creating a patchwork of rules that can be confusing for consumers and businesses alike.
Central to this development is a decision by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to treat kratom and its primary alkaloids, including mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), as unlawful ingredients when used in foods, dietary supplements, or products marketed for human consumption. In a statewide consumer warning issued in late 2025, CDPH stated that foods, dietary supplements, and medical drugs containing kratom or 7-OH are “dangerous and illegal to sell or manufacture” under existing food and drug laws, effectively framing kratom sales as a matter of product safety and labeling rather than criminal narcotics enforcement; that position is publicly outlined on the department’s “About Kratom” page on the California Department of Public Health website.
The practical impact of that interpretation became clearer this year, when Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that 95% of California businesses contacted by regulators had complied with a directive to remove kratom and 7-OH products from their shelves. In a March 2026 statement posted on the official website of the Office of the Governor of California, Newsom characterized the policy as a public health measure and emphasized that it is “illegal to manufacture or sell kratom or 7-OH products for consumption at any age,” underscoring that the rules apply to products marketed as drinks, gummies, capsules, or other ingestible forms.
Under this approach, retailers licensed by the state’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) have become a particular focus. In a January 2026 advisory, ABC informed licensees that foods, dietary supplements, and medical drugs containing kratom or 7-OH “are illegal to sell or manufacture” in California, and that businesses that continue to stock such products could face fines, suspension, or revocation of their alcohol licenses. The notice, which is posted on the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control website, presents kratom not as a newly scheduled drug but as a product category that conflicts with existing food and beverage regulations, effectively closing off a key retail channel without changing the state’s controlled substances list.
California’s approach parallels broader scrutiny of kratom at the federal level, even as national policy remains unsettled. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly stated that kratom-containing products are “not lawfully marketed” as dietary supplements or drugs, citing safety and regulatory concerns. The agency’s current position, including warning letters and consumer advisories, is detailed on its dedicated kratom page on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website, and has informed California’s view that kratom products sold for ingestion violate state food and drug codes regardless of whether the plant itself is listed as a controlled substance.
The legal picture becomes more complex when synthetic or concentrated forms of 7-hydroxymitragynine are considered. While 7-OH occurs naturally in the kratom leaf, regulators have paid particular attention to high-potency, semisynthetic formulations that they view as behaving more like traditional opioids. In a 2025 scientific review, the FDA concluded that certain 7-OH products could be many times more potent than morphine and recommended that specific formulations be placed under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a recommendation described in an agency report available through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s official document repository. This distinction—between natural plant material and isolated or synthetically enhanced compounds—has influenced state-level discussions about whether to restrict kratom in general or focus on the most concentrated derivatives.
Within California, state-level administrative actions coexist with local ordinances that go further. Several major jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento, have adopted municipal rules that prohibit kratom sales, preventing retailers from offering the botanical or its derivatives within city limits. Public health officials in Los Angeles County, for example, issued an order in 2025 directing retailers to remove kratom and 7-OH products, citing overdose cases and reiterating that the products cannot be legally marketed as consumable items; details of that directive are outlined in a press release on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health website. These local measures operate in addition to statewide administrative restrictions, so in some areas kratom is not only difficult to find but also explicitly restricted by local law.
At the same time, state law still does not list kratom or its active alkaloids on the California controlled substances schedules, leaving a gap between criminal law and regulatory practice. That gap has become a point of discussion for industry groups and consumers who argue that relying on food and drug law interpretations effectively sidesteps the legislative process. It has also prompted lawmakers to consider whether a more explicit statutory framework is needed, not necessarily to permit or outlaw kratom, but to define standards around age limits, product testing, labeling, and potency caps.
The most closely watched proposal on that front is Assembly Bill 1088, a measure introduced in the 2025–2026 legislative session to create kratom-specific public health regulations. The bill, which focuses on establishing a regulatory framework rather than a criminal classification, has been referred to the Assembly and Senate health committees and is tracked in real time on the California Legislative Information portal. If enacted, AB 1088 would bring kratom under a clearer set of state health and safety rules, potentially aligning California with other states that have adopted “Kratom Consumer Protection Acts” to regulate testing, labeling, and sales.
Across the United States, kratom’s legal status varies significantly, highlighting how distinctive California’s reliance on administrative tools is. Several states—among them Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Vermont, and Wisconsin—have formally restricted mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine by statute, classifying them as controlled substances under state law. A 2023 brief from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, available on the CRS section of Congress.gov, notes that these laws generally treat kratom alkaloids as illegal drugs, which contrasts with California’s emphasis on food safety and labeling requirements.
Other states have taken a regulatory approach designed to keep kratom available under defined conditions. Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, and several others have enacted laws that allow kratom sales while imposing age limits and quality control standards, a landscape summarized in that same Congressional Research Service report on Congress.gov. Still others, such as Utah and Oklahoma, have become venues for litigation, with kratom companies challenging new sales restrictions and pointing to clinical data they say support the plant’s safety when used as directed.
The federal government has adopted a measured posture so far, emphasizing study and surveillance over immediate scheduling of kratom itself. The National Institute on Drug Abuse describes kratom as a plant-based substance that can produce both opioid- and stimulant-like effects and notes that federal agencies are continuing to evaluate its risks and potential benefits; that overview is accessible on the National Institute on Drug Abuse website. For California regulators, those evolving federal assessments have not precluded firm state-level actions on retail kratom products, but they have added context to the ongoing discussion over whether the plant should remain unscheduled, be placed under the Controlled Substances Act, or be treated as its own category.
Within California, the legal reality for consumers is nuanced. Because kratom is not a scheduled drug, individual possession is not prosecuted in the same way as possession of controlled substances, and there is no statewide statute that criminalizes simple possession for adults. However, the combination of state food and drug enforcement and local ordinances means that purchasing