26 �

�

THE ENTHEOGEN REVIEW, POB 19820, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819-0820, USA

VOLUME XII, NUMBER 1 VERNAL EQUINOX 2003

An increasing number of sources have been selling what theyclaim is dried leaf of Mitragyna speciosa, known by the com-mon name kratom. Much of this material originatedfrom Bruno Phillips, of Ebotashop (4 rés. le Clos desCharmes, rue Emile Zola, 5000 La Roche sur Yon, FRANCE,www.ebotashop.org, e_bota@hotmail.com), who says thatit was sourced from Myanmar, Burma. Phillips and an in-dividual who goes by the name of Farmer Hank were ap-proaching numerous retailers of specialty ethnobotanicalsand persuading them to carry this product. The material isbeing made into extract in the United States, described bydifferent companies as “kratom acetate,” “mitragynine ac-etate,” and “full-spectrum alkaloid free-base of kratom.” Oneof the people to whom Phillips pitched the dried leaf mate-rial for resale was Daniel Siebert. Siebert astutely noticedthat this leaf does not match the published description forthe plant—the venation pattern on the leaves was not rightand the underside of the leaves was entirely covered in tri-chomes, giving the leaf a hairy appearance. According to thepublished botanical description for the leaf of this plant, thetop is supposed to be glabrous (smooth), and the bottomhas no trichomes present on the interneural parts of thelamina (Shellard & Lees 1965; Siebert 2003). Siebert sug-gested that it would be a good idea if I notified ER readers ofthis misidentified leaf material. It has been suggested thatover 100 kilos of this mystery herb may have been distrib-uted by Phillips worldwide at prices ranging from $200.00to $600.00 per kilo (Shaman Australis 2003); if this true,there is a lot of bad material on the market.

Strangely, some people claim that this material is psychoac-tive in a manner similar to kratom. Others notice no activityat all. It has now been shown that this material is not kratom,both due to its incompatible botany and due to it not con-taining mitragynine, a target alkaloid unique to Mitragynaspeciosa. It would be interesting to know whether or not thosewho claim that this material has “kratom-like” effects haveever tried properly identified kratom. One person who hastried both, commented to me that the bogus material “hadsome sort of effect, though when comparing it to a small stashof kratom from Thailand I found in my freezer, it had none ofthe pleasant euphoria and mild rapture of attention, just asort of beside myself disconnected state” (B.K. 2003). A sec-

Bogus Kratom Market Exposed

by Jon Hanna

ond person familiar with the effects produced from real kra-tom commented on the bogus material, stating: “We weresent samples a while back and were thoroughly unimpressedand questioned the validity of the sample” (A.C. 2003).

In order to help confirm that the material on the market wasnot actually kratom, I obtained a quantity of mitragynineethane disulphonate from Dennis McKenna to use as a ref-erence standard for chemical analysis. There was concernthat this material might have degraded, as it was around 14years old. As an aside, it has been mentioned elsewhere thatthis reference standard was “obtained from [a] specialtychemical supplier,” which is not the case, and I have also seenit posted to an on-line forum that this material was syntheti-cally produced, which is incorrect. Hitomitsu Takayama

at the Chiba University in Japan was one of the first peopleto synthesize mitragynine in 1995 (Shulgin 2003), whichwas only eight years ago (clearly the 14-year-old sample couldnot have been produced by synthesis). Just after I receivedthe mitragynine ethane disulphonate, I was informed of achemical supply company, Apin Chemicals, that offered areference standard of mitragynine picrate (Shulgin 2003).So I also purchased 10 mg of mitragynine picrate from themfor the hefty price of $250.00. Both forms of mitragynine werethen distributed to several individuals who had an interestin analyzing the commercially available material.

The first results came in from Siebert, who performed thinlayer chromatography on several samples of known kratom,putative kratom, and the mitragynine reference standards.He noted:

The mitragynine picrate and mitragynine ethanedisulphonate both reacted with Erlich’s reagent to pro-duce pale purple spots on my TLC plates. Neither of thesecompounds [is] entirely pure. The TLC profiles of bothsamples were almost identical. Both produced twomatching spots: one prominent spot (presumablymitragynine) and one smaller spot. The mitragynineethane disulphonate also produced a third clear spot thatwas smaller than the other two and several additionalvery faint spots. I was also able to visualize the com-pounds using UV light. The larger spot absorbs shortwave UV light. The smaller spots fluoresce bright yellow

� 27THE ENTHEOGEN REVIEW, POB 19820, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819-0820, USA

�VOLUME XII, NUMBER 1 VERNAL EQUINOX 2003

under long wave UV light. Apparently mitragynine is rea-sonably stable, since the profile of the fourteen-year-oldmitragynine ethane disulphonate was not substantiallydifferent than that of the recently procured mitragyninepicrate.

I also examined “kratom acetate” sold by Ethnogarden

and leaves sent to me from France by Bruno. These leavesare allegedly from Myanmar (Burma). The “kratom ac-etate” was supposedly isolated from leaves obtained fromthe [Burmese] source. Neither of these produced any vis-ible indole spots on the plates when sprayed withErlich’s reagent. And when exposed to UV light, therewere no spots corresponding to those in the referencestandards. It is very clear that these do not containmitragynine. This is not particularly surprising since themorphology of the leaves indicates that they are notMitragyna speciosa.

I also analyzed leaves grown by [Native Habitat, Sha-

man Australis, and J.B.]. And also leaves obtainedfrom…Thailand, and some leaves from an “unknownsource” that were sent to me by Will Beifuss (probably[also from Thailand]). All of these produced spots thatappear identical to the reference standards. In the caseof the relatively fresh leaves obtained from [Native Habi-

tat, Shaman Australis, and J.B.], a green chlorophyllspot largely obscures the mitragynine spot, making it dif-ficult to see. I was not able to see this clearly until Iexamined the chromatograms under UV light andcompared them with the reference standards.

Additional results, this time from HPLC analysis, came infrom MJB Botanicals, the U.S. company that had been pro-ducing the “kratom acetate” extract from the bogus leaves,that was sold via them, Ethnogarden, and probably othervendors as well. They stated:

Solvent: 95% MeOH 5 % H2O; Pressure: 1000 psi; Flow:1.5 ml/min; Column YMC-Pack ODS-AQ; S-5 Micron250 x 4.6 mm ID; 5 runs per sample; Run time 12 min-utes; Alkaloid salts were converted to free-base formswith ammonia

The mitragynine ethane disulphonate was very contami-nated, with an average of 7 peaks, with the biggest al-ways being approximately 5.7 minutes. This product istoo contaminated or degraded to use as a true referencesample.

The mitragynine picrate had 1 peak average, retentiontime of 1.6 minutes, with slight trailings being possiblecontaminates.

The “kratom acetate” had 3 peaks, with the largest being2.3 minutes, and the others at 1.9 and 2.5 respectively,with no trailings.

Yohimbe had 1 peak average, with retention time of 2.4minutes, with no trailings.

Melatonin (a tryptamine) had an average retention timeof 3.8 minutes, with no trailings.

So I can say that that the “kratom acetate” does not con-tain mitragynine picrate or the other mitragynine com-pound. With the retention time being within 0.1 min ofyohimbe, I would think that the active alkaloid might bea related compound or chemically similar.

Many companies that were known to have been offering thebogus leaf material or extract have been informed of thesetest results. Some companies have not at the time of thiswriting made any change in the manner in which they areselling the bogus material. Other companies are continuingto offer it (some under the name “Mellow Gold”), noting thatthe identity of the material is actually unknown, but statingthat it has “kratom-like” effects. Based only on the few bioas-says that I am aware of which were performed by people whohave experienced the effects of real kratom, I would suggesthere that to call the effects produced by this unknown mate-rial “kratom-like” is inaccurate. In addition, although therehave been no known or reported side-effects from consum-ing the mystery herb or the extract made of it, it strikes methat it is irresponsible to continue marketing an herb thathas not been identified—it could have chemicals in itthat are carcinogenic or that cause liver damage, and thenegative effects from ingesting these chemicals might notbe apparent for some time. One company, Cannapee

(www.cannapee.ch), appears to be claiming that the bogusmaterial is some species of Mitragyna (which it may not be,and certainly isn’t known to be), although they have stoppedselling it as M. speciosa.

To add to the confusion, some people growing properly iden-tified kratom plants have obtained no activity from the leaveswhatsoever. Others growing clones of the same plant havepointed out that the potency can be quite variable.

I have arranged for HPLC analysis and GC/MS analysis tobe done on various plant samples, to determine whether ornot they contain mitragynine, and if so, how much is there.This testing will be reported on in a future issue of The En-theogen Review. (Not all of the companies that provided me

28 �

�

THE ENTHEOGEN REVIEW, POB 19820, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819-0820, USA

VOLUME XII, NUMBER 1 VERNAL EQUINOX 2003

with samples have had their material tested yet.) As well, mi-croscopy work will be done on known kratom leaves, to cre-ate a database that will aid in proper identification of mate-rial that is offered commercially, hopefully helping to pre-vent scams in the future.

I should state that I do not believe that any of the retailersselling the bogus material were aware that it was not authen-tic. The blame for this scam lies with Phillips/Ebotashop,the wholesaler who approached various retail companieswith his so-called “kratom.” It has been said that he has re-fused to provide any refunds for those people to whom hesold the bogus material (Shaman Australis 2003). As well,it is known that he is still selling the bogus material even af-ter he was informed that it is not correctly identified. So, evenif he was originally selling it by error himself (not knowingthat it was misidentified), this can no longer be stated. It isstill listed as being available at the Ebotashop web page.Some sales of Phillips’ material were originally beingbrokered through Sebastian Torres (Kitzu Botanicals).However, Torres stopped facilitating such sales when helearned that the material was incorrectly identified, andFarmer Hank has also stopped selling the bogus material.

Those companies that are selling properly identified Mitra-gyna speciosa plants include Shaman Australis, The Base-

ment Shaman, Theatrum Botanicum, and Native Habi-

tat. This does not necessarily mean that all of these compa-nies are selling plants that are potent or even active—Na-

tive Habitat has previously commented on the inactivityof the plants that they have. It is currently thought that cli-mate may have an affect on the plant’s chemistry, and per-haps a change in climate may increase the potency of theirplants. At this time I can not recommend purchasing kratomfrom any business other than those mentioned directlyabove. In the future I will provide names of any additionalcompanies that are known to be selling dried kratom that testspositive for mitragynine.

So far as I am aware, there has been no definitive study inhumans that shows that mitragynine is the primary activechemical in Mitragyna speciosa, although there have beenstudies with mice which seem to indicate that it might be(Idid et al. 1998). The sole known oral bioassay of 100 mgmitragynine produced no effects (Wogg 2000). In the 1960s,over 22 alkaloids were reported isolated from Mitragyna spe-ciosa (Jansen & Prast 1988). A few of the alkaloids foundtherein include speciogynine, speciociliatine, paynantheine,mitragynaline, 7-hydroxymitragynine, corynantheidaline, 3-

dehydromitragynine, tetrahydromitragynine, mitralactonal,mitrasulgyline, mitralactonine, and 9-methoxymitral-actonine—the last five of these are new as of 1998, and thelast two are from young leaves (Shulgin 2003). Clearly morework needs to be done with the plant; the isolation and quan-tification of chemicals from plants that are known to be potentwould be a good first step. Bioassaying each of these com-pounds individually in amounts that are found in a compa-rable amount of a “dose” of active leaf would get us a lot closerto understanding what is going on. Hopefully someone withaccess to some quantity of potent leaf and the means to ex-tract and isolate the compounds therein will employ the“Heffter technique” in the near future.

There has been some small amount of noise (mainly repeatedby vendors of kratom or the bogus material) that in Thailandwhere Mitragyna speciosa grows, and where it is illegal, thegovernment has had a change of heart and is planning tomake it legal in order to treat addictions. I have been unableto locate any reliable source of data for this claim. Also I haveheard that the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administra-

tion (their version of the FDA) is planning on placing thechemical mitragynine into their “Schedule 4.” This schedulewould mean that the plant and dried herb are still legal, solong as they are not being consumed or sold for consump-tion (Shaman Australis 2003). Frankly, it is mind-bogglingthat a government agency in Australia has set its sights onthis chemical, which may not even be psychoactive in hu-mans, which has never been available in pure form to themasses, and hence which can not reasonably be considereda “drug of abuse” in any realistic sense. As well, it has beenreported that the Malaysian National Narcotics Agency

engaged a botanist last year to conduct a study to determineif kratom should be classified there as a dangerous drug(Yahya 2002).

I would like to thank all of the vendors and individuals whosupplied me with leaf material for analysis, including Sha-

man Australis, Native Habitat, The Basement Shaman,Herbal-Shaman, B.K. & Rick, Craig, and Pure Land Eth-

nobotanicals. Thanks also to Dennis McKenna and Sasha

Shulgin for their help with this project, to MJB Botanicals

for providing material and sharing their test results, to Will

Beifuss who supplied initial funds to purchase the secondreference standard and shared material for testing, and manythanks to Daniel Siebert for bringing this scam to my at-tention in the first place, for providing material for testing,and for sharing his test results. �

Regarding the article “Bogus Kratom MarketExposed” on pages 26–28. Since this was written,Bruno Phillips has finally responded to the dataabout this scam that was posted at the Shaman

Australis web page URL http://www.shaman-australis.com/Website/Shamanmainpageframeset.htmPhillips claims that he was the victim in this scam,and states that he never charged more than $200.00 akilo for the bogus herb, although he also says that his“partner sold the herb as he wanted” so perhaps this iswhere the higher prices that were reported camefrom. Phillips web page no longer lists the kratom asbeing available, although it did still list it as availablewhen the article was written a couple of weeks ago,well after he knew that the herb as mis-identified.Based on the chronology of events, it would appear asthough he only took this offering off of his web pageafter the scam was exposed at the Shaman Australis

site. Phillips has also mentioned a single wholesalerto whom he refunded money, making it sound asthough he does plan to offer refunds to those whowere sold bad product. If true, this is great—althoughwe would suggest that he should automatically send arefund payment immediately to everyone that he soldthis herb to. We encourage any botanical supplierwho has purchased the bogus kratom recently fromPhillips to demand a refund, and we also encourageany individuals who have purchased bogus kratomrecently from retailers to demand refunds.

Another correction to this article is due: it turns outthat Australia does plan to ban the plant Mitragynaspeciosa, as well as the chemical mitragynine (men-tioned in the article).

Finally, qualitative testing (comparison to a purereference standard of mitragynine picrate) done byDaniel Siebert recently revealed that the dried kratomleaf offered by Pure Land Ethnobotanicals [2701University Avenue, PMB 463, Madison, WI 53705-3700, info@ethnobotanicals.com, http://www.ethnobotanicals.com] is indeed correctly identi-fied. This company appears to currently be the solesource for imported dried leaf. •

Errata

and Addendum