The Defense Is Narrower Than “Kratom Is Safe”
One of the most important things in the Utah record is what Botanic Tonics' own experts do not argue. The plaintiffs' expert evidence does not say kratom is harmless or risk-free.
Instead, the defense is more specific: evidence of harms from kratom generally, high-dose exposure, abuse, adulterated products or other formulations does not necessarily prove that Feel Free used at its labeled dose causes those same harms.
That distinction matters. It means the scientific dispute in this litigation is often about dose, composition, duration, causation and product-specific applicability — not whether adverse effects associated with kratom exist at all.
Addiction and Withdrawal Are in the Plaintiffs' Own Evidence
Verkerk's materials acknowledge scientific evidence concerning dependence, withdrawal and addiction. When addressing Utah's assertions that kratom can be addictive and produce withdrawal, the response is not that those outcomes are fictional. The argument is that the evidence is strongest in circumstances such as abuse, chronic high-dose exposure or exposure to more potent alkaloids.
Verkerk's review also summarizes literature describing kratom's opioid- and stimulant-like effects and states that it carries risks of adverse effects, abuse and withdrawal symptoms while calling for additional research.
The Record Uses the Word “Opiate”
In discussing abuse potential, Verkerk writes that herbal products can be abused and specifically identifies kratom because of its “opiate effects” at high levels of exposure. His report describes a dose-related pattern in which lower exposure may produce stimulant-like effects while higher exposure produces opiate-like effects.
The same expert material discusses high-mitragynine and high-7-hydroxymitragynine products as potentially unsafe and emphasizes limiting exposure to more addictive kratom components.
Mitragynine Does Not End the Story at Mitragynine
A recurring issue in the submitted expert evidence is metabolism. Verkerk notes that mitragynine is metabolized in the body to 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), a more potent opioid-active kratom alkaloid.
His report goes further when discussing chronic exposure: increased mitragynine exposure can increase the concentration of its 7-OH metabolite and, in the context he describes, increase addiction risk.
Neurological Effects: Seizures and Psychosis
The toxicology discussion in the plaintiffs' expert materials identifies neurological concerns including seizures and psychosis. The evidence base is mixed and includes different types of evidence, so those outcomes should not be represented as inevitable consequences of ordinary labeled use.
But they are part of the safety record the plaintiffs' own expert reviewed. The report also discusses anxiety, irritability, aggression, tremor and other neurological or behavioral effects in the context of longer-term or higher-dose exposure.
Liver Injury Is Not Dismissed as Imaginary
The expert record reviews published human liver-injury reports and identifies hepatotoxicity as a genuine safety concern. Several case reports are discussed critically, with Verkerk questioning dose, product quality, adulteration, co-exposures or causal certainty in individual cases.
That critique is important — but so is the underlying point: the plaintiffs' own safety review treats liver injury as an issue requiring analysis rather than a fabricated adverse effect.
Drug Interactions and Hepatic Metabolism
The Utah record also addresses drug-interaction risk. Both sides discuss kratom's potential to interfere with hepatic metabolism and the implications for other substances.
Utah State Chemist Brandon Forsyth states in his declaration that kratom can interfere with hepatic enzymes, slowing metabolism of substances including fentanyl, benzodiazepines and diphenhydramine, which he says can contribute to overdose risk.
Verkerk likewise recognizes drug-interaction risk as part of the broader kratom safety picture, while disputing attempts to automatically attribute every polysubstance event to a specific kratom product.
A Striking Utah Investigation: Mostly Mitragynine, Negligible 7-OH
Forsyth's declaration contains an incident worth separating from the debate over concentrated 7-OH products. He describes overseeing analysis after a spouse reported a substantial behavioral change in a person consuming kratom.
Forsyth says he initially suspected potent alkaloids such as 7-OH, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl or MGM-15. According to his declaration, testing instead showed that the vast majority of the kratom alkaloid content was mitragynine, with only negligible 7-OH detected.
Overdose and Death: What the Experts Actually Dispute
Utah's State Chemist states as his professional opinion that kratom products can lead to overdose or death. Plaintiffs' expert material reviews fatalities and disputes broad causal conclusions in cases involving other substances, uncertain product composition or other confounders.
But the plaintiffs' expert does not reduce the entire literature to “kratom has never contributed to a death.” Instead, the record contains a more complicated debate over toxic exposure, polysubstance use, product quality, dose and causality.
The Evidence Base Has Limits — Their Expert Says So
Verkerk's report says robust scientific evidence from high-quality studies remains limited and emphasizes the difficulty of establishing universal safety thresholds because kratom products vary in composition and exposure.
The report also discusses uncertainty surrounding dose-response, long-term use and the composition of products in the marketplace.
What the Two Sides Actually Agree On
- Kratom alkaloids interact with opioid receptors.
- Mitragynine is metabolized to 7-hydroxymitragynine.
- Dependence, withdrawal and addiction appear in the scientific literature.
- Liver injury is a legitimate subject of kratom safety research.
- Drug interactions are a legitimate concern.
- Neurological adverse effects, including seizures, appear in the evidence reviewed by the parties.
- Product composition, dose and duration materially affect risk.
- The available evidence does not answer every long-term safety question.
Where the parties diverge is primarily over how much those risks tell the court about Feel Free at labeled use and how Utah may regulate the product.
What This Part Does — and Does Not — Establish
- It does show that the plaintiffs' own expert evidence acknowledges multiple categories of kratom-related harm.
- It does show that addiction and withdrawal are not treated as invented phenomena.
- It does show that the expert evidence recognizes metabolism of mitragynine to 7-OH.
- It does not prove that every kratom product produces these outcomes at every dose.
- It does not establish that every reported adverse event was caused by kratom.
- It does not resolve whether Feel Free is unsafe when used precisely according to its label.
Read the Source Record
The combined federal court documents used for The Utah Files are available for direct review.
Case: Botanic Tonics, LLC and Global Kratom Coalition, Inc. v. Pehrson et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00267-HCN-DBP, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.