What Entered the Federal Court Record
Utah's 2026 Kratom Regulation Act created a legal fight over mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MP). In challenging the law, Botanic Tonics and the Global Kratom Coalition placed an unusually direct proposition into the record: MP occurs naturally in kratom leaf.
The litigation does not establish that every trace detection represents a pharmacologically meaningful dose. It does establish that a major kratom manufacturer and an industry coalition are themselves arguing that MP cannot be cleanly separated from ordinary natural leaf as a matter of presence.
The Plaintiffs' Position: MP Is Endogenous and Unavoidable
The pleadings say that all kratom contains endogenous, de minimis amounts of MP. Botanic Tonics also says its own kratom tested positive. Plaintiffs later argued that it is not possible to produce and sell a kratom product that does not contain MP.
For policymakers, that creates a practical question: if trace MP is endogenous to leaf, where does a statutory distinction between “natural kratom” and MP begin?
Eight Commercial Leaf Products. Eight Reported Positives.
Botanic Tonics' filing reports testing eight commercial kratom products obtained from the Utah market using LC-MS/MS, with a stated limit of detection of 0.04 ppm.
| Product | Form | Reported MP |
|---|---|---|
| Kong Kratom – Bali White | Leaf powder | 4.11 ppm |
| Choice Botanicals – Green Strain | Leaf powder | 3.69 ppm |
| The Kratom Company – Green Maeng Da | Leaf powder | 3.72 ppm |
| Mit Therapy – Red Gold | Leaf powder | 5.71 ppm |
| 1836 Kratom – Texas Red | Leaf powder | 1.34 ppm |
| Kratom Jane – Red Vein Thai | Encapsulated leaf | 3.37 ppm |
| Naturaleaf Indo Green Maeng Da | Encapsulated leaf | 3.76 ppm |
| Klarity Kratom – White Thai | Encapsulated leaf | 2.68 ppm |
Botanic Tonics Says Its Own Leaf Contains MP Too
The filing does not present the competitor results as evidence that only other companies have a contamination problem. Plaintiffs say the same phenomenon applies to Botanic Tonics' own kratom.
CEO Cameron Korehbandi stated under penalty of perjury that BT understands MP to be endogenous in all kratom and said Utah's scheduling provision affected the company's willingness to ship its Natural Kratom Leaf product into the state.
Why Utah's Schedule I Language Matters
Utah placed MP among controlled substances while regulating qualifying natural-leaf kratom. Plaintiffs argue those provisions collide because the scheduled compound is naturally present in the leaf the statute otherwise attempts to regulate.
This does not automatically determine how federal controlled-substance law applies to the whole plant, and trace detection alone does not establish toxicity, impairment or abuse potential at the detected concentration. Those are separate legal and pharmacological questions.
Presence Is Not the Same Thing as Risk
Botanic Tonics argues that the trace MP amounts it identifies are de minimis and not associated with adverse effects in humans. The record therefore presents two questions that should not be collapsed:
- Analytical: Is MP present in ordinary kratom leaf?
- Toxicological: What does a particular MP concentration mean for human health and abuse liability?
The plaintiffs' evidence is directly relevant to the first question. Dose-response, pharmacokinetic and toxicological evidence is still required to answer the second.
The Court Record Creates a Manufacturing Question
The litigation describes commercial kratom processing using heated chlorinated water and says that treatment oxidizes organic molecules. Other expert material in the case discusses oxidation and microbial processes as possible routes by which MP can arise.
The filings do not establish that Botanic Tonics' processing increases MP. A paired pre/post-processing analysis would be needed to answer that.
What the PACER Record Does — and Does Not — Establish
- It does show that Botanic Tonics and GKC affirmatively argue MP is endogenous to natural kratom.
- It does show that plaintiffs report MP in 8 of 8 Utah commercial leaf products tested.
- It does show that Botanic Tonics says its own kratom also contains trace MP.
- It does not prove that the reported trace concentrations themselves cause adverse effects.
- It does not by itself resolve federal scheduling of the whole plant.
- It does not establish that every commercial product has been independently tested.
Read the Source Record
The combined federal court documents used for The Utah Files are available for readers to inspect directly.
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.