Missouri kratom dealers would face product rules and age restrictions

Kratom dealers would have to follow product labeling and ingredient rules. The rules would cover people who handle or advertise foods or dietary ingredients containing any part of a kratom leaf, including manufacturers, wholesalers, and stores. Labels would explain the basis for calling the food a kratom product and state its amounts of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. Products could not contain harmful nonkratom substances or synthetic kratom compounds. The chemical 7-hydroxymitragynine could make up no more than 2% of the product’s alkaloids, a group of plant chemicals. Proven good-faith reliance on suppliers’ claims would excuse product-standard violations and handling products without the required disclosure, but not the separate duty to provide that disclosure. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services would set label rules through the state’s rulemaking process. Its rulemaking authority would end if the legislature’s powers to review, delay, or reject rules were ruled unconstitutional.

Dealers would be barred from distributing, selling, or offering kratom products for sale to anyone under 18. Violating the age restriction would be a class D misdemeanor, a criminal offense. The supplier-reliance defense would not apply to this restriction.

Missouri would reserve regulation of kratom products to the state. The restriction would cover local governments throughout Missouri.

The state health director could fine dealers, and people harmed by certain product violations could sue for damages. People harmed by violations involving missing disclosures or product standards could sue for resulting financial and other losses, alongside other available remedies. After notice and a hearing, the health director could impose fines for failing to provide the required disclosure: up to $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for later offenses. Handling products without the required disclosure or breaking ingredient and chemical-labeling rules would be a class D misdemeanor. A dealer would not commit those product violations if the evidence showed it was more likely than not that the dealer relied in good faith on suppliers’ claims.