Undisclosed Ties and the Kratom Lobby
University of Florida professor Christopher McCurdy has emerged as a primary voice in the national debate over kratom legalization. He frequently testifies before state legislatures and in Washington, D.C., to argue against federal restrictions on the substance. ProPublica found that McCurdy has routinely failed to disclose significant financial relationships with the American Kratom Association, the industry’s most powerful lobbying group. This organization has provided travel reimbursements, funding for his university symposiums, and contributions to his school’s foundation.
While other researchers often disclose industry affiliations, McCurdy has maintained a public stance as a neutral academic arbiter. This position is particularly valuable to the American Kratom Association as it works to ensure the substance remains sold in convenience stores and smoke shops across the country. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates 5,200 Americans died from overdoses involving kratom between 2020 and 2024. Despite these figures, McCurdy continues to advocate for the product's availability, often comparing its risks to those of caffeine or water consumption.
The Intersection of Science and Advocacy
The American Kratom Association spends roughly $2.5 million annually on lobbying efforts. Documents show the group relies on McCurdy to sway policymakers in states considering bans or regulatory changes. In 2024, the association paid for his travel to multiple states, including a planned trip to Indonesia that cost $8,700 for a first-class ticket. Although that specific trip was canceled, correspondence indicates McCurdy retained flight credits for future association-related travel. He also briefed the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs on the group's behalf.
McCurdy’s involvement has yielded tangible results for the industry. In 2025, his testimony helped convince Rhode Island officials to pass a legalization bill despite initial concerns from state health authorities. His work is supported by federal grants totaling approximately $100 million, funds that could be jeopardized if kratom is classified as a Schedule I narcotic. Critics argue that his lack of transparency regarding the lobbyist funding obscures the potential bias in his testimony. Pharmacist and activist Jennifer Brandt has pushed journals to append corrections to his papers, questioning where legitimate science ends and corporate lobbying begins.
Challenging the Definition of Risk
The industry lobbying group draws a clear distinction between whole-leaf kratom products and highly potent synthetic derivatives. McCurdy has recently joined this effort, warning lawmakers that newer compounds are dangerous and require separate oversight. He maintains that his research findings on the risks of whole-leaf kratom, including documented cases of dependency and neonatal withdrawal, do not negate the necessity of keeping the plant accessible to the general public. He advocates for improved labeling and age restrictions rather than full prohibition.
Experts in scientific integrity suggest that the funding mechanism—donations to a university foundation rather than direct research sponsorship—allows these relationships to remain hidden from standard conflict-of-interest disclosures. While the University of Florida maintains that its review of McCurdy’s filings shows no non-compliance, the university has not provided specific details on whether the travel reimbursements exceeded internal reporting thresholds. As debates continue at the state and federal levels, the role of academic experts remains a focal point for those on both sides of the drug policy aisle.