Last reviewed: August 30, 2026. Educational content for adults 21+. This is not medical or legal advice. Kiody does not sell concentrated 7-OH products.
Suggested page / content hub: Learning Center → Responsible Use & Product Literacy
Suggested URL slug: /learn/kratom-extract-ratios/
Review date: August 30, 2026
The five numbers people often confuse
Before comparing products, sort each number into the right category.
| Number on a label or COA | What it may describe | What it does not automatically prove |
|---|---|---|
| 10:1 | A claimed mass relationship between starting botanical material and extract | Ten times the alkaloid concentration, ten times the effect or ten times the serving amount |
| 20× or “20X” | A marketing or concentration claim whose basis must be defined | A standard scientific ratio or a verified multiplier |
| 15% mitragynine | 15 parts mitragynine per 100 parts of tested material, if reported weight-for-weight | Total alkaloids, 7-OH amount, botanical input ratio or safety |
| 150 mg/g mitragynine | 150 milligrams per gram of tested material | Milligrams in a capsule or bottle unless unit weight is also known |
| 30 mg per serving | A declared constituent amount in the labeled serving | The concentration of every unit unless serving size, homogeneity and testing are supported |
None of these numbers alone establishes identity, purity, contaminant status, legal status or suitability for a particular person.
What a ratio can mean
The notation 10:1 literally expresses a relationship of ten units to one unit. The problem is that labels do not always tell the reader what the units represent.
For a dry botanical extract, a manufacturer may intend 10:1 to mean:
Ten kilograms of dried leaf were used to produce one kilogram of native dry extract.
That is an input-to-output mass relationship. It describes manufacturing yield, not a direct biological multiplier.
But the same notation could be used less precisely to mean:
- ten kilograms of leaf were introduced before processing and one kilogram of spray-dried powder was recovered, including carrier;
- ten kilograms of fresh material were used to make one kilogram of liquid or dry product;
- one part leaf was combined with ten parts solvent, which reverses the apparent direction of the ratio;
- a finished product is marketed as representing ten parts of leaf per one part of extract; or
- the seller simply calls the product “10X” without a documented mass balance.
Those are not equivalent statements. A reviewable claim needs definitions.
FDA’s botanical-drug guidance provides a useful quality-language model: a process description should identify the botanical quantity, solvent, temperature and time, and should state yield as the amount of original botanical raw material relative to the amount of extract. That guidance applies to botanical drug development, not specifically to retail kratom, but the documentation principle is valuable: state what went in, what came out and how the result was calculated.
Native extract, finished extract powder and finished product
Three masses may exist in one manufacturing record:
- Native extract mass. The solids recovered from the extraction process before carriers or formulation ingredients are added.
- Finished extract-powder mass. Native extract plus any carrier, flow aid or processing ingredient used to make a stable powder.
- Finished-product mass. The formulated capsule, tablet, liquid, pouch or other consumer unit, including all declared ingredients.
Suppose 100 kilograms of dried leaf produce 8 kilograms of native extract solids. The native input-to-output relationship is:
100 kg ÷ 8 kg = 12.5
That is a 12.5:1 native-extract ratio.
If 2 kilograms of carrier are then added, the finished extract-powder mass becomes 10 kilograms. Relative to the original leaf input:
100 kg ÷ 10 kg = 10
The formulated powder is 10:1 on an input-to-finished-powder basis, even though the native extract was 12.5:1. Neither ratio is inherently false if clearly defined. The problem begins when the label provides the larger ratio while the COA describes the carrier-containing material, or when the company never discloses which mass it used.
Fresh leaf and dry leaf are not interchangeable
Water has mass. A ratio calculated from fresh leaf can look much larger than one calculated from the corresponding dried botanical material.
Imagine 50 kilograms of fresh leaves contain enough water that drying leaves 12.5 kilograms of botanical solids. If processing produces 2.5 kilograms of dry extract:
- fresh-input ratio:
50 ÷ 2.5 = 20:1 - dry-input ratio:
12.5 ÷ 2.5 = 5:1
Both calculations use the same batch, yet one says 20:1 and the other says 5:1. A meaningful ratio should therefore state whether the starting material was fresh, partially dried or dried, and whether the denominator was a liquid extract, native dry extract or formulated powder.
FDA’s dietary-supplement labeling guide likewise distinguishes the amount of an extract from the condition of its starting botanical material. The guide allows additional information about extract concentration and solvent but does not turn a ratio into a substitute for the actual declared amount.
Why 10:1 does not mean ten times the alkaloids
Extraction is not simple compression. It is a separation process.
If one gram of starting leaf contains a constituent, some fraction may transfer into the extraction solvent, some may remain in spent plant material, some may be lost during filtration or drying, and some may change during processing. The recovery percentage may differ across constituents.
Consider a simplified example:
- 10 kilograms of leaf contain 120 grams of mitragynine in total.
- The extraction and recovery process transfers 72 grams into one kilogram of finished extract powder.
- The label’s process ratio is 10:1.
- The actual mitragynine concentration is
72 g ÷ 1,000 g = 7.2%.
The starting leaf contained 1.2% mitragynine. The finished powder contains 7.2%. For this measured constituent, the concentration increased sixfold, not tenfold.
That does not mean the extract is “six times stronger” in a consumer-effects sense. It means only that the tested powder contains six times as much mitragynine per gram as the tested starting leaf in this hypothetical mass balance.
Now imagine a different solvent system recovers 108 grams into the same one-kilogram output. That product would contain 10.8% mitragynine. The input-to-output ratio is still 10:1, but the measured constituent concentration differs substantially.
The ratio does not reveal extraction efficiency. The assay does.
Ratio versus standardized percentage
A product described as standardized to 15% mitragynine makes a different type of claim from 10:1 extract.
If the percentage is weight-for-weight:
15% = 15 g per 100 g = 150 mg/g
That percentage should be supported by an appropriate, validated or verified analytical method and a lot-specific result. A complete record should identify whether 15% is:
- a minimum specification;
- a target;
- an exact label declaration with an allowed tolerance;
- the result for one tested lot; or
- a marketing number copied across multiple lots.
“Standardized” should not be treated as a synonym for “concentrated.” Standardization implies that a manufacturer has defined a target or range and uses controls to bring or select material within that specification. A naturally variable extract can be concentrated without being consistently standardized. A standardization claim can also be misleading if no acceptance criteria, method or lot result is available.
FDA’s dietary-supplement CGMP regulations require component and finished-product specifications for identity, purity, strength and composition within the framework’s scope. They also require appropriate tests or examinations to determine whether selected specifications are met. Those rules provide a useful reason to ask for the actual result—not only the word “standardized.” This quality benchmark does not represent that FDA has approved kratom as a dietary ingredient or approved a particular kratom product.
Converting percent, mg/g and unit amounts
Label comparisons become easier when every result is converted to the same basis.
Percent to milligrams per gram
For weight-for-weight percentages:
percent × 10 = mg/g
Examples:
- 1.2% = 12 mg/g
- 5% = 50 mg/g
- 15% = 150 mg/g
- 0.04% = 0.4 mg/g
Milligrams per gram to percent
mg/g ÷ 10 = percent
Examples:
- 18 mg/g = 1.8%
- 75 mg/g = 7.5%
- 150 mg/g = 15%
- 0.5 mg/g = 0.05%
Milligrams per unit
mg/g × unit weight in grams = mg per unit
If a capsule contains 250 milligrams of extract powder, its fill weight is 0.250 gram. If a lot result is 80 mg/g mitragynine:
80 mg/g × 0.250 g = 20 mg per capsule
That is label math, not a serving recommendation.
Milligrams per labeled serving
If the labeled serving contains two 250-milligram capsules, the total extract powder is 0.500 gram:
80 mg/g × 0.500 g = 40 mg per labeled serving
The result is only as reliable as the fill-weight control, mixture homogeneity, analytical result and serving definition.
A worked comparison: leaf, ratio and assay
Suppose Product A is pure botanical leaf powder and Product B is a dry extract.
Product A
- product form: unextracted leaf powder
- mitragynine result: 1.3%
- conversion: 13 mg/g
Product B
- process claim: 10:1 extract
- mitragynine result: 8.5%
- conversion: 85 mg/g
For mitragynine concentration per gram:
85 ÷ 13 = approximately 6.54
Product B has about 6.5 times the mitragynine concentration per gram in this example, not ten times. That comparison says nothing about other alkaloids, contaminants, serving choices, individual response or legal status.
If Product B contains a carrier and the label’s 10:1 ratio was calculated from native extract rather than finished powder, the claim needs even more explanation.
“Equivalent to” claims need a bridge
A label may say that 500 milligrams of extract is “equivalent to 5 grams of leaf.” This is usually derived from a 10:1 process ratio:
0.5 g extract × 10 = 5 g botanical input equivalent
That calculation can be arithmetically correct while still being incomplete. It is a raw-material-equivalent claim, not proof that every constituent in 5 grams of starting leaf is present in the same amount or proportion.
A defensible equivalency statement should disclose:
- whether the starting material was dry leaf;
- whether the ratio uses native or carrier-containing extract;
- the actual batch yield;
- the extraction solvent or solvent system;
- whether the equivalence is based on input mass or measured chemical constituents;
- whether added isolated alkaloids were used; and
- which finished-product amount corresponds to the stated equivalent.
If the label simply says “equivalent to 5 grams” without naming leaf, extract, constituent or calculation, the statement is too ambiguous to audit.
“20X,” “50X” and “maximum strength”
An “X” claim can mean a documented extract ratio, a comparison with an internal product, a concentration step or nothing more than branding.
Ask four questions:
- X times what? The comparison needs a baseline.
- Measured how? Input/output mass, mitragynine percentage, total alkaloids or another metric?
- Compared with which lot? Botanical starting material varies.
- Verified by whom? A manufacturer calculation and an independent assay answer different questions.
Words such as “ultra,” “maximum,” “premium” and “full spectrum” do not have a universal kratom laboratory definition. A customer should give more weight to a lot number, product form, ingredient list, actual unit weight and clearly reported alkaloid results than to an undefined multiplier.
What “full spectrum” can—and cannot—mean
“Full spectrum” often suggests that an extract preserves a broader range of botanical constituents than a single isolated compound. Without a written specification, the term is not quantitative.
A reviewable full-spectrum claim would need to identify the measured chemical profile, reference range and method used to compare the extract with authenticated leaf. Even then, extraction can change relative proportions. Detecting several alkaloids does not show that every naturally occurring constituent was recovered, and it does not establish that their ratios match the original leaf.
A chemical fingerprint can support a claim that multiple characteristic constituents are present. It cannot prove completeness merely because a chromatogram has many peaks.
Native extract versus fortified or enhanced material
A native extract is generally understood as material obtained from the botanical extraction process before isolated constituents or unrelated active materials are added. A fortified or enhanced product has been adjusted after extraction, for example by adding an isolated constituent.
Those distinctions matter because two products can have the same mitragynine percentage but different manufacturing histories:
- Product 1 reaches 15% through selective extraction and concentration.
- Product 2 begins as a lower-percentage extract and receives added isolated mitragynine.
- Product 3 blends native extract with botanical leaf and a carrier.
One assay number cannot distinguish all three histories. The ingredient declaration, supplier records, manufacturing record and multi-analyte chemical profile provide additional evidence.
The same principle applies to 7-OH. A result alone may show how much is present under the method, but it may not establish whether the 7-OH was naturally present, concentrated during processing, formed through oxidation or transformation, or intentionally added. A product represented as ordinary botanical extract should not quietly rely on enhancement to reach its declared composition.
Why the extraction solvent matters
Solvents have different chemical properties and may recover different groups of constituents. The solvent system can also influence color, taste, powder behavior, residual-solvent testing needs and the relationship between the extract and starting leaf.
A useful manufacturing description names:
- water, ethanol or another extraction solvent;
- solvent concentration where relevant;
- botanical-to-solvent ratio, which is not the same as botanical-to-extract ratio;
- extraction time and temperature;
- repeated extraction stages;
- filtration and concentration steps;
- drying method;
- carrier or processing aids; and
- actual yield.
Two products labeled 10:1 may be chemically different if one is a water extract and another uses a different solvent system. The ratio cannot replace the method description or chemical fingerprint.
Liquid extracts create additional unit problems
Liquid labels may report milligrams per milliliter, milligrams per bottle, milligrams per serving, weight/volume percentages or a botanical-to-solvent ratio. Density can matter when converting between mass and volume.
For a liquid with 12 mg/mL mitragynine and a 15 mL bottle:
12 mg/mL × 15 mL = 180 mg per bottle
If the serving is 5 mL:
12 mg/mL × 5 mL = 60 mg per labeled serving
Again, these calculations provide product literacy, not a recommendation to consume that amount.
A notation such as 1:5 in 40% ethanol may describe one part botanical material to five parts extraction solvent. It should not be read as a 5:1 dry-extract ratio. Direction, material condition and units must be stated.
Total alkaloids are not the same as mitragynine
A label may state 40% total alkaloids and 30% mitragynine. These are related but different measurements.
If both are measured on the same weight basis:
- total alkaloids: 400 mg/g
- mitragynine: 300 mg/g
- mitragynine as a percentage of the reported total alkaloids:
300 ÷ 400 × 100 = 75%
That 75% value is not 75% of product weight. It is the proportion of the reported total-alkaloid amount attributed to mitragynine.
This is also why a state limit expressed as 7-OH as a percentage of total alkaloid composition cannot be checked by reading only the 7-OH dry-weight percentage. The denominator is different.
7-OH: three denominators that must not be mixed
Consider a hypothetical extract with:
- 7-OH: 0.04% of product weight
- total alkaloids: 20% of product weight
- labeled unit weight: 500 mg
Dry-weight concentration
0.04% × 10 = 0.4 mg/g
Amount per 500 mg unit
0.4 mg/g × 0.500 g = 0.2 mg per unit
Percentage of total alkaloids
First use the same units:
- 7-OH = 0.04% of product
- total alkaloids = 20% of product
Then divide:
0.04 ÷ 20 × 100 = 0.2% of total alkaloids
The three answers—0.04% dry weight, 0.2 mg per unit and 0.2% of total alkaloids—describe different relationships. Replacing one with another can create a serious label or legal error.
Current federal status as of August 30, 2026
DEA’s federal action concerning 7-OH above a specified threshold remains a proposal, not an effective scheduling order, as of this review date. The proposal describes a 0.050% dry-weight threshold for botanical material and alternative triggers for processed or synthetic articles. The comment period has been extended through September 10, 2026.
By contrast, DEA’s separate temporary order placing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15 and MGM-16 in Schedule I became effective August 26, 2026. DOJ has announced enforcement discretion for incidental trace mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in products otherwise consistent with botanical kratom, but that statement supplies no numerical safe harbor and does not cover MGM-15 or MGM-16.
Extract-ratio math cannot establish legal status. A product needs lot-specific composition data, product-form review and jurisdiction-specific legal review. State and local rules may use different thresholds, ban synthetic or semi-synthetic constituents, restrict product forms or prohibit kratom entirely.
Kiody is 21+ and does not sell concentrated 7-OH. Readers should use Kiody’s nationwide botanical-leaf and 7-OH trackers for dated jurisdiction summaries rather than inferring legality from an extract label.
What a useful extract COA should show
A lot-matched certificate of analysis should allow a reviewer to distinguish measured results from label claims. Useful fields include:
- laboratory name and contact information;
- report or certificate number;
- client and product name;
- supplier, manufacturer or submitter;
- product form: native extract, formulated extract powder, capsule, liquid or finished unit;
- lot or batch number;
- sample receipt and analysis dates;
- sample condition;
- analytical method;
- reporting basis, such as weight/weight or weight/volume;
- mitragynine result and unit;
- 7-OH result and unit;
- other reported alkaloids where relevant;
- total-alkaloid method and result if a total claim is made;
- LOD and LOQ where nondetect or trace results matter;
- specification or acceptance range;
- actual result rather than “pass” alone;
- authorized laboratory approval; and
- any dilution, dry-basis correction or uncertainty note needed to interpret the result.
The COA may verify composition. It usually does not verify the manufacturer’s input-to-output ratio unless the laboratory also reviewed production records. Ratio substantiation belongs in the batch and mass-balance documentation.
Twelve questions to ask about a ratio claim
- What botanical species and plant part were used?
- Was the starting material fresh, partially dried or dried?
- Is the denominator native extract, carrier-containing powder or finished product?
- Is the ratio based on actual batch yield or a theoretical recipe?
- Were carriers, excipients or flow aids added?
- What extraction solvent and concentration were used?
- Is the label declaring a process ratio, botanical equivalent or measured constituent multiplier?
- Which lot-specific alkaloid results support the finished product?
- Does the COA use percent, mg/g, mg/mL or mg per unit?
- Are total alkaloids measured by a defined method, or merely calculated by adding a partial panel?
- Was any isolated or synthesized constituent added after extraction?
- Does the product meet every applicable state, local and federal requirement for its actual composition and form?
Warning signs
Set a claim aside for further review when:
- “50X” appears with no baseline or calculation;
- a ratio is presented as a guaranteed effects multiplier;
- a label gives a percentage but omits the named constituent;
- percent, mg/g and milligrams per serving do not mathematically agree;
- the same COA is reused across unrelated lots;
- the tested sample name does not match the finished product;
- an extract ratio appears only in marketing copy and not in controlled specifications;
- the manufacturer will not say whether carriers are included;
- total alkaloids are reported without a method or analyte definition;
- a “full spectrum” claim has no fingerprint or multi-analyte criteria;
- 7-OH is described as “natural” without evidence addressing manufacture and concentration;
- a nondetect result lacks a reporting limit;
- the ratio changes while the product specification and COA remain identical;
- liquid units mix milligrams, milliliters and percentages without density or serving information; or
- the seller treats a passing alkaloid assay as proof of contaminant safety or legality.
One warning sign does not prove fraud. It identifies a question that should be resolved before the claim is relied upon.
Five worked label reviews
Example 1: clear process ratio, clear assay
The label states “dry leaf extract, native DER 8–10:1,” identifies water as the extraction solvent and lists 200 mg of extract powder per capsule. A lot COA reports mitragynine at 90 mg/g.
The ratio is presented as a range, which can reflect batch yield. The assay converts to 9% mitragynine. At 0.200 gram of extract per capsule, the calculated amount is:
90 mg/g × 0.200 g = 18 mg per capsule
The documentation still needs lot matching and ingredient review, but the claim is interpretable.
Example 2: impressive multiplier, no definition
The front says “50X Ultra.” The ingredient panel says only “proprietary botanical blend.” No extract amount, ratio definition, alkaloid result or lot COA is available.
There is no objective way to determine what 50X means. The claim should not be converted into a leaf equivalent or constituent amount.
Example 3: carrier changes the ratio
Production records show 20 kilograms of leaf produced 1 kilogram of native extract. The manufacturer adds 1 kilogram of carrier.
- native ratio:
20 ÷ 1 = 20:1 - finished powder ratio:
20 ÷ 2 = 10:1
Advertising the carrier-containing powder as 20:1 without explanation would use the wrong denominator for the material customers receive.
Example 4: percentage and serving math disagree
The label claims 12% mitragynine and says a 250-milligram capsule contains 40 milligrams.
Twelve percent equals 120 mg/g. The expected amount in 0.250 gram is:
120 × 0.250 = 30 mg
The 40-milligram claim does not agree. Possible explanations include a different fill weight, a rounded percentage, a formulation change or an error. The discrepancy should be resolved rather than averaged away.
Example 5: legal denominator confusion
A report lists 7-OH at 0.03% of product weight and total alkaloids at 1.0% of product weight.
The 7-OH share of total alkaloids is:
0.03 ÷ 1.0 × 100 = 3%
A reviewer who reads only “0.03%” may miss that the result equals 3% of total alkaloids. Whether that matters legally depends on the jurisdiction, date, product and exact statutory denominator.
A proposed 28-field Kiody extract review record
For each extract or extract-containing product considered for educational comparison, supplier qualification or future catalog review, Kiody could maintain:
- product name;
- internal item number;
- product form;
- supplier name;
- manufacturer name;
- supplier lot;
- internal lot;
- botanical species;
- plant part;
- fresh or dry starting condition;
- starting botanical mass;
- native extract mass;
- carrier identity and mass;
- finished extract-powder mass;
- calculated native ratio;
- calculated finished-powder ratio;
- extraction solvent;
- extraction process reference;
- theoretical yield;
- actual yield;
- finished unit weight or volume;
- labeled serving definition;
- lot-specific mitragynine result;
- lot-specific 7-OH result;
- total-alkaloid result and method, if claimed;
- named-derivative review, including MP, MGM-15 and MGM-16;
- jurisdiction and legal-review date; and
- quality approval, rejection or hold decision.
This record separates production evidence from analytical evidence. It also prevents a ratio calculated for a native intermediate from following a differently formulated finished product without review.
Frequently asked questions
Is 10:1 kratom extract ten times stronger than leaf?
Not necessarily. A 10:1 claim may describe botanical input mass divided by extract output mass. It does not show tenfold recovery of every alkaloid or predict a tenfold effect. Compare lot-specific constituent results on the same unit basis.
Is a higher ratio always more concentrated?
No. Ratio definitions, starting moisture, extraction efficiency, carrier content and yield can differ. A clearly assayed lower-ratio product can contain more of a measured constituent than a poorly recovered higher-ratio product.
What is the difference between 10:1 and 10X?
“10:1” can be a defined mass ratio. “10X” is ambiguous unless the seller identifies the baseline and measurement. Some companies use them interchangeably, but a reviewer should not assume they mean the same thing.
Does 15% mean 150 milligrams per serving?
No. Fifteen percent weight-for-weight equals 150 mg per gram. The amount per serving depends on how many grams of the tested material are in the labeled serving.
Does an extract ratio appear on a COA?
Sometimes, but a laboratory generally tests the submitted sample rather than witnessing the full production mass balance. The ratio should be supported by manufacturing records. The COA should verify selected composition specifications.
Does mitragynine percentage prove botanical identity?
It can support chemical identification, but one marker alone may not prove species, plant part or absence of added isolate. Botanical identity may require supply-chain, microscopic, genetic and broader chemical evidence appropriate to the form.
Is total alkaloid percentage the same as mitragynine percentage?
No. Mitragynine can be one part of a reported total-alkaloid measurement. The method must define what is included in the total.
Can I add individual alkaloid results to calculate total alkaloids?
Only if the method and reporting framework support that definition. A panel of selected analytes may omit other alkaloids, and different methods may not be directly additive. “Total alkaloids” needs a defined method and acceptance criterion.
Why disclose the extraction solvent?
Solvents recover constituents differently. The solvent helps explain why products with the same input/output ratio may have different chemical profiles. It also helps determine which process and residual-solvent controls are relevant.
What does “native extract” mean?
It generally refers to extract solids before carriers or formulation ingredients are added. The company should define the term because commercial usage is not perfectly uniform.
Is a botanical equivalent the same as consuming that weight of leaf?
No. It usually expresses input mass through a process ratio. Selective extraction and losses mean the finished extract is not simply compressed whole leaf.
Can a ratio show whether an extract is enhanced?
No. Ingredient records, manufacturing records and chemical profiling are needed to evaluate whether isolated constituents were added after extraction.
Does a low 7-OH dry-weight percentage guarantee compliance with a 2%-of-total-alkaloids law?
No. Those percentages use different denominators. Both the 7-OH amount and total-alkaloid amount must be available on a compatible basis.
Is the proposed federal 0.050% 7-OH threshold already law?
No, not as of August 30, 2026. DEA’s threshold action remains proposed, with comments extended through September 10, 2026. The separate Schedule I order for MP, MGM-15 and MGM-16 is already effective.
Does Kiody sell concentrated 7-OH?
No. Kiody is 21+ and does not sell concentrated 7-OH products.
Does a detailed ratio make an extract FDA-approved?
No. Documentation quality and FDA approval are separate issues. FDA states that it has not approved kratom products as drugs and maintains current enforcement positions concerning unlawfully marketed kratom products.
Source notes and citations
- 21 CFR § 111.70 — component and finished-product specifications for identity, purity, strength and composition.
- 21 CFR § 111.75 — appropriate tests or examinations and supplier-COA qualification requirements.
- FDA, Botanical Drug Development: Guidance for Industry — process descriptions, botanical input, solvent, extraction conditions, yield, chemical identification and complementary analytical methods. This drug-development guidance is used here as a documentation model, not as evidence that kratom is an approved drug or lawful dietary ingredient.
- FDA, Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter IV — declaration of extract amounts, starting-material condition and optional extract concentration or solvent information.
- 21 CFR § 101.36 — serving and quantitative-amount framework for dietary-supplement labeling.
- FDA, current kratom information — FDA’s current position on kratom products and claims.
- FDA, Import Alert 54-15 — current federal import-alert treatment of listed kratom products and firms.
- DEA, proposed temporary placement of 7-OH above a specified threshold (July 6, 2026).
- DEA, extension of the 7-OH comment period (comments due September 10, 2026).
- DEA, temporary Schedule I order for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15 and MGM-16 (effective August 26, 2026).
- DOJ, Justice Department Announces Emergency Scheduling of Three Potent Opioid Compounds — stated enforcement-discretion policy for incidental trace MP in otherwise botanical kratom.