University of Florida professor Christopher McCurdy, a leading voice urging policymakers not to criminalize Kratom, has routinely failed to disclose longstanding financial ties to the American Kratom Association in conflict of interest statements and published papers, according to an investigation by ProPublica.
McCurdy has accepted travel reimbursements, donations to his university's foundation and funding for an annual symposium on research into the leaf's medicinal potential from the AKA. The lobbying group, which describes itself as advocating for Kratom consumers, has deployed McCurdy to key states considering bans or working to overturn existing restrictions on the product.
Kratom comes from a tree native to Southeast Asia and is sold as a powder, capsules, tablets or shots. In small amounts it acts as a stimulant; in larger amounts it functions like an opioid. The FDA prohibits marketing it as a supplement or using it as a food ingredient, yet it remains widely available in gas stations, smoke shops and convenience stores.
What the Left Is Saying
Public health advocates and those affected by Kratom addiction say McCurdy's undisclosed industry ties raise serious concerns about scientific integrity in regulatory debates. Jennifer Brandt, a Virginia pharmacist who advocates for total bans on Kratom sales, filed records requests with the University of Florida for McCurdy's correspondence and has asked a medical journal to append corrections listing his ties to the lobbying group.
"I'm really confused on where science ends and lobbying begins," Brandt said. She was among those filing complaints about McCurdy's role in shaping policy while maintaining an appearance of neutrality.
The CDC reported 5,200 people died from drug overdoses involving Kratom between 2020-2024, with calls to poison control centers spiking 1,200 percent over the last decade. Health advocates argue this evidence warrants stricter regulation regardless of who is making the case against restrictions.
Organizations working to restrict Kratom access say undisclosed financial relationships undermine public trust in scientific testimony and regulatory processes. They contend that researchers advising on policy should be required to transparently disclose all industry funding.
What the Right Is Saying
Kratom advocates and some researchers argue that criminalization would create new problems while limiting options for those who say they use the substance without ill effects to combat opioid addiction or manage pain. McCurdy has emphasized therapeutic potential while noting that even water can be dangerous in excessive quantities, according to his statements.
"Decisions about Kratom should be informed by the best available science," McCurdy told ProPublica. He stated that reimbursed travel expenses do not influence the "substance" of his presentations or scientific conclusions.
Proponents note that other scientists who consult with and conduct research for the AKA do disclose those relationships, and argue the substance has helped some users avoid harder drugs. They contend that appropriate manufacturing standards and labeling could address health concerns without outright bans.
McCurdy's work opposing criminalization dates to 2018, when he joined other scientists to convince the DEA not to classify Kratom as a Schedule I narcotic. In letters to federal regulators, scientists argued such a designation would "severely hinder" research into possible therapeutic uses.
What the Numbers Show
According to CDC data cited by ProPublica: 5,200 people in the United States died from drug overdoses involving Kratom between 2020 and 2024. Poison control center calls related to Kratom have increased by approximately 1,200 percent over the past decade.
McCurdy's research has focused on developing Kratom's dominant chemical compound into a pharmaceutical treatment for addiction. Federal grants totaling an estimated $100 million have funded this research, funding that could be disrupted if Kratom is declared illegal.
The FDA currently prohibits marketing Kratom as a supplement or using it as a food ingredient, though enforcement varies. Multiple states have enacted varying levels of restriction, with some considering full bans and others working to overturn existing prohibitions.
The Bottom Line
McCurdy's placement in the AKA's Legacy Advocate Hall of Fame reflects his extensive involvement in lobbying efforts against restrictions on Kratom products. His case highlights ongoing debates about transparency requirements for scientists advising policymakers on regulated substances.
The disclosure questions come as Kratom derivatives with increased potency have appeared on store shelves, raising stakes for both public health officials and industry advocates. What constitutes adequate financial disclosure for researchers providing policy testimony remains under discussion in regulatory and academic circles.
Those advocating for restrictions argue that undisclosed industry relationships compromise scientific credibility in life-and-death policy debates. Industry supporters counter that criminalization would harm users who rely on the substance while eliminating promising therapeutic research pathways.