No federal law says what a kratom label must say. The reason is not that the federal government has left the question open. It is that the Food and Drug Administration’s position is that no kratom food or dietary supplement can lawfully be sold at all, so there is no lawful federal category for a label rule to attach to.
Everything a kratom package is legally obliged to print in the United States therefore comes from state law. We read fourteen state statutes for this guide, each in the state’s own publication, on 29 October 2026. At one end, Colorado and Oklahoma each require a list of items that runs to eight or more entries, including sentences the seller must print word for word. At the other, Florida’s statute, Oregon’s Act and Minnesota’s require nothing on the label at all, and Kentucky repealed its labelling section in July 2026.
This guide sets out what each of those laws obliges a seller to print, and what nothing obliges anyone to print where no such law exists. It is about labelling rules. It is not a guide to products or to sellers, and it says nothing about which to choose.
The federal position
The FDA’s page on kratom states its conclusion in a short passage. It begins with supplements and food:
Kratom is not appropriate for use as a dietary supplement. FDA has concluded from available information, including scientific data, that kratom is a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury and, therefore, dietary supplements that are or contain kratom are adulterated under section 402(f)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act. Further, FDA has determined that kratom, when added to food, is an unsafe food additive within the meaning of section 409; food containing an unsafe food additive, such as kratom, is adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(i).
It ends by drawing the line: “kratom is not lawfully marketed in the U.S. as a drug product, a dietary supplement, or a food additive in conventional food.” The same page adds that “states may have their own regulations or prohibitions for kratom products” and that state agencies “are the best resource concerning applicable state laws”.
New dietary ingredient and adulterated are categories in federal food and drug law, and the FDA’s page draws the consequence itself: kratom “is not lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement and cannot be lawfully added to conventional foods”.
So federal food labelling law, which tells a cereal or a vitamin what to print, gives a kratom product no compliant version of itself to describe. The federal position on what a kratom label may say is, in effect, that there is no lawful kratom food or supplement to label. Our United States page sets out the rest of the federal picture, including the separate scheduling proceedings on 7-hydroxymitragynine.
Three state laws refer to the federal position in their own text, in different ways. Maryland’s, as reenacted in 2026, bars a retailer from selling a kratom product that “has not been recognized as a dietary ingredient or approved drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration”. Our Maryland page explains why nobody has yet reconciled that clause with the rest of the same statute. And Colorado and Oklahoma both require the label to carry a version of the disclaimer federal law uses for supplement claims (“These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration” in Colorado’s wording, “by the United States Food and Drug Administration” in Oklahoma’s), on a product the FDA says cannot lawfully be a supplement.
Fourteen state laws, side by side
The table lists what the statute or rule obliges the label to carry, not everything the law regulates. Factual basis is the model-act requirement to disclose on the label the factual basis on which a product is represented as kratom. Alkaloid amounts means the quantity of mitragynine, the leaf’s main alkaloid, and of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), a minor one that the FDA describes as having “substantially greater mu-opioid receptor potency” than mitragynine.
| State | Where the rule is | Must appear on the label | Wording set by law | Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | C.R.S. § 6-1-740, added 2025 | Manufacturer or distributor name and address, all ingredients, four disclosures, two statements, serving directions, mitragynine and 7-OH per serving | Two statements | 21 |
| Oklahoma | 63 O.S. §§ 1-1432.3, 1-1432.4 | Ingredients in order, under-18 sale ban, alkaloid amounts per product and per package, vendor address, serving directions, warnings, FDA statement; factual basis on label, website or QR code | One statement | 18 |
| Virginia | Va. Code § 59.1-200(A)(77) | All ingredients and a warning | The whole warning | 21 |
| Maryland | Health-Gen. § 21-2E-02, -03 | Factual basis, mitragynine and 7-OH amounts; no cartoons, mascots, neon colours or misleading designs on packaging | None | 21 |
| Arizona | A.R.S. §§ 36-795.01, 36-795.02 | Factual basis, mitragynine and 7-OH amounts | None | 18 |
| Utah | Utah Code §§ 4-45-103, 4-45-104 | Factual basis, mitragynine and 7-OH amounts; product must be registered | None | 21 |
| Florida | Rules 5K-4.030 and 5KER26-11 | Chapter 500 food labelling, no disease claims, 7-OH concentration and mitragynine-to-7-OH ratio | None on the label | 21 |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code §§ 19-12F-5, 19-12F-9a | A label approved by the Commissioner of Agriculture | One statement, through rules | 21 |
| Texas | Health & Safety Code § 445.002 | Use directions, including recommended serving size | None | 18 |
| Nevada | NRS 597.998(3) | Ingredients and directions for safe and effective use | None | 18 |
| Oregon | ORS 475.392 to 475.404 | Nothing in the Act | None | 21 |
| South Dakota | SDCL § 34-20B-115.1, added 2025 | Serving size, safe servings per 24 hours, servings per container, mitragynine and 7-OH amounts, a warning | The whole warning | 21 |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 152.027, subd. 7 | Nothing | None | 21 |
| Kentucky | KRS 217.2203, repealed 2026 | Nothing since July 2026 | None | 21 |
Colorado: the longest list
Colorado’s 2022 provision, section 44-1-105 of title 44, asked for “the identity and address of the manufacturer” and “the full list of ingredients”, as the 2024 edition of the Colorado Revised Statutes prints it. Senate Bill 25-072, signed on 29 May 2025 and applying to conduct from that date, added a new section 6-1-740 to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, which makes it a deceptive trade practice to sell a kratom product without a label that “clearly and conspicuously sets forth on each retail package”:
- the name and address of the place of business of the manufacturer or distributor;
- the full list of ingredients;
- disclosure and advice against use by people under 21, pregnant or breastfeeding, to consult a health-care professional before use, that kratom may be habit forming, and that it may interact with certain medications, drugs and controlled substances;
- two statements in set words: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” and “Keep out of reach of children.”; and
- directions for use giving a recommended amount per serving, the number of servings per package, a recommended number of servings that can safely be consumed in 24 hours, and “quantitative declarations of the amount of mitragynine and the amount of 7-hydroxymitragynine per serving”.
The same section bars kratom products that are confections, mimic candy, or are manufactured, packaged, labelled or distributed in a way that is appealing to children, “including in the distinct shape of a human, an animal, or fruit”. It also sets a ceiling of 2% 7-OH in the alkaloid fraction and bans synthesised and semi-synthesised alkaloids. We read the signed act and not a codified 2025 or 2026 edition, which we could not retrieve. An earlier printed version of the bill would have repealed section 44-1-105; the signed act does not, but it does remove a cross-reference to that section from the criminal code. We have not confirmed how the current codified title 44 treats it.
Oklahoma: eight items, as amended in 2025
Section 1-1432.4 was last amended with effect from 1 November 2025. Subsection (B) requires kratom products to be “accompanied by a label bearing the following information prior to its sale in this state”:
- the ingredients by common or usual name, “listed in descending order of predominance”;
- that sale or transfer to a person under 18 is prohibited;
- the amount of total kratom alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-OH “contained in the product”;
- the same three amounts “contained in packaging for the product”;
- the name and principal street address of the vendor or distributor;
- any federal food allergen labelling that applies, and directions including the recommended serving size, the number of servings in the container and “the number of servings that can be safely consumed in a day”, with a calibrated measuring device for liquid products under eight fluid ounces that hold more than three servings;
- precautionary statements, “including a warning that a consumer should consult a health care professional on questions about the use of kratom and that the product may be habit-forming”; and
- the statement “These statements have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
Section 1-1432.3 adds the factual-basis disclosure, and it is the only one of these laws that lets the seller make it “on the product label, website, or a quick response (QR) code on the product label linked to a website”. “Total kratom alkaloids” is defined in section 1-1432.2 as the sum of five named alkaloids. The compiled title we read is dated 31 December 2025, so it would not show an amendment made in the 2026 session. We did not find one, but we did not read every 2026 Oklahoma enactment.
Virginia: the warning is written for the seller
Subdivision 77 of Virginia’s list of prohibited practices bars selling a kratom product “that does not include a label listing all ingredients and with the following disclosure”:
“WARNING: Kratom may cause dependence and opioid-like withdrawal. Do not use while pregnant. Use may impair judgment. Not for persons younger than 21 years of age.”
It is the only law we read that dictates, word for word, a warning about what kratom itself may do: dependence, withdrawal and impaired judgment. South Dakota dictates a warning too, but about consulting a professional and pregnancy (quoted below), and West Virginia requires its rules to include a set statement of the same kind. Colorado and Oklahoma name the subjects of their health warnings and leave most of the wording to the seller.
Maryland, Arizona and Utah: the model act’s two items
These three share the model act’s core: a label disclosing the factual basis on which the product is represented as kratom, and a statement of the amount of mitragynine and 7-OH. In Arizona and Maryland the amount rule applies to every kratom product. Utah’s is narrower, as below.
Arizona’s section 36-795.02(A)(5) bars “any kratom-containing product that does not include on its package or label the amount of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine contained in the product”. Maryland’s section 21-2E-02(b)(1)(v) is in almost the same words.
Maryland adds rules about how the package looks. Section 21-2E-03(c), as amended with effect from 1 July 2026, makes it a violation to use in “the advertising, promotion, packaging, or labeling of a kratom product” a cartoon, a superhero, a video game reference, an image of a person who appears to be under 27, and now “neon colors, signs, or other brightly colored displays”, animals, mascots, and designs “that could reasonably mislead an individual to believe that the package contains anything other than a kratom product”. Section 21-2E-03(a) bars advertising “a therapeutic benefit of kratom” at all.
Utah’s text needs reading closely. Section 4-45-104(1) bars selling a kratom product that “(a) is not pure leaf kratom; and (b) does not include a product label on the kratom product packaging that states the amount of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine”. The conjunction is “and”, so on the face of the text the offence needs both limbs. Utah’s other route is registration: section 4-45-104(3) bars selling a product “that is not registered with the department”, and section 4-45-107 requires the department to make rules setting standards for a registered product, including “accurate labeling”. We have not read those rules. Our Utah page covers the rest of the chapter.
Florida: the statute is silent, two rules are not
Section 500.92 of the Florida Statutes sets an age of 21 and a rulemaking power, and says nothing about labels. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Rule 5K-4.030 requires kratom products to be “packaged and labeled as required by Chapter 500”, Florida’s food law, and bars label claims that the product is “intended for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”. It also requires a sign beside the display, not on the package, reading “THE SALE OF KRATOM TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 IS PROHIBITED. PROOF OF AGE IS REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE.”
Emergency Rule 5KER26-11, in force since 24 August 2026, adds two figures:
- the concentration of 7-OH, “expressed in milligrams per gram (mg/g) for solid or powdered Kratom Products and milligrams per milliliter (mg/mL) for liquid Kratom Products”, identified as “7-Hydroxymitragynine”, “7-OH” or “7-Hydroxy”; and
- the alkaloid ratio, the mass of mitragynine to the mass of 7-OH in whole numbers, which the rule illustrates as “Alkaloid Ratio 500 mg:1 mg”.
Both figures must be available before purchase, and must be printed on the package or reached through a QR code permanently fixed to it, in “three or fewer steps”. They may not be placed solely on the bottom of the package.
An emergency rule is temporary. Section 120.54(4)(c)1. of the Florida Statutes says one “may not be effective for a period longer than 90 days and may not be renewable”, except where the agency has started permanent rulemaking on the subject and that proposed rule is either under challenge or awaiting ratification by the Legislature. Ninety days from 24 August 2026 runs to 22 November 2026. We have not checked whether either exception applies. Our Florida page reads all three Florida rules.
West Virginia: a label approved in advance
West Virginia is the only state we read where the label is approved by an official before sale. Section 19-12F-9a says kratom products “may not be sold to the final consumer in this state without an approved label”, and lets the Commissioner of Agriculture “require and prescribe such labeling as the commissioner may determine to be necessary and appropriate”. Section 19-12F-5 requires the commissioner’s rules on labelling to include, at a minimum, the statement “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN BEFORE USE IF YOU ARE PREGNANT OR TAKING ANY MEDICATION”.
We read the statute and not the legislative rule made under it, so we cannot say what else the approved label must carry. The article’s stated purpose, in section 19-12F-2, is to allow limited, regulated access to kratom for adults 21 and older, and section 19-12F-6 requires remote sellers to verify that a buyer is 21 or older. Section 19-12F-3, last amended in 2026, defines a kratom product as the natural leaf “and any simple physical form of the leaf”, excluding anything “chemically concentrated beyond the leaf’s natural alkaloid profile”.
South Dakota: serving figures, alkaloid amounts and a set warning
South Dakota’s section 34-20B-115 deals with age. A second section added in 2025, 34-20B-115.1, makes it a Class 2 misdemeanour to prepare, sell or distribute a kratom product that does not include on its package or label:
- “the recommended serving size of the kratom product, a recommended number of servings that can be safely consumed in a twenty-four-hour period, and a list of servings per container”;
- “the amount of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine contained in the kratom product”; and
- this warning: “Consult a licensed, qualified healthcare professional before consuming this product. Not for use by women who are pregnant, nursing, or trying to become pregnant.”
The same section sets a 2% ceiling on 7-OH in the alkaloid fraction and bars synthetic alkaloids.
Texas and Nevada: directions and ingredients
Texas section 445.002 requires a processor to label each product “with the product use directions necessary to ensure safe use of the product by a consumer, including the recommended serving size”. Nevada’s NRS 597.998(3) bars selling a product without a label “that clearly sets forth the ingredients and directions for the safe and effective use of the kratom product”. Neither asks for an alkaloid figure.
Oregon, Minnesota and Kentucky: nothing on the label
Oregon’s Kratom Consumer Protection Act regulates who may sell and requires processors to register with the Department of Revenue, certifying third-party testing. It contains no labelling provision. Its definition does make a kratom product “a food, food product, food ingredient, dietary ingredient, dietary supplement or beverage for human consumption”, which may bring Oregon’s general food law into play. We have not read that law for this guide.
Minnesota’s section 152.027, subdivision 7, deals only with age, and we found no other Minnesota kratom section.
Kentucky had a labelling section and repealed it. KRS 217.2203, enacted in 2024, required a label listing ingredients, the amount of mitragynine and 7-OH, serving size and servings per container, the vendor’s name and street address, precautionary statements, and a disclaimer that the product “is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any medical condition or disease”. Section 134 of 2026 Kentucky Acts chapter 161 repealed it, together with the section that authorised regulations. The act gives section 134 no special date, and the Legislative Research Commission’s note to KRS 217.2201 records the same section’s repeal of a neighbouring provision as effective on 15 July 2026.
One loose end remains. Until July 2027, section 217.2202(2)(f) still bars selling a product that does not meet “the labeling requirements established pursuant to KRS 217.2203 or any administrative regulation promulgated thereunder”. The section it points to no longer exists. We have not found whether the Department for Public Health ever made a kratom labelling regulation, and what a repealed parent statute does to one is a legal question we are not going to answer.
The same act goes further. As amended by chapter 198, it rewrites KRS 217.2202 with effect from 1 July 2027 to say a kratom processor or retailer shall not distribute, sell “or make available for sale any kratom, kratom extract, or kratom product”. Until then, the current section 217.2202 sets an age of 21 and a 2% ceiling on 7-OH in the alkaloid fraction. From that date the section, as written, bars processors and retailers from selling kratom in any form. That is a future provision, and this paragraph describes it as written on 29 October 2026.
What the figures mean, and what they do not
The numbers on two compliant labels may not measure the same thing. Colorado asks for mitragynine and 7-OH per serving. Oklahoma asks for the amount in the product and in the package, and adds total alkaloids. Arizona, Maryland and South Dakota ask for the amount contained in the product without saying per what, and Utah for the amount in the packaged product. Florida asks for a concentration in milligrams per gram and a ratio. Each is a lawful label in its own state, and the figures cannot be read across from one to another without knowing which quantity each one is.
A required figure is not a tested figure. None of the statutes we read requires the figures on a label to be confirmed by a laboratory before sale. Utah and West Virginia leave testing standards to rules we have not read, and Oklahoma’s definition of a kratom product assumes its 7-OH ratio is “confirmed with a high-performance liquid chromatography testing method” without saying by whom or when. Oklahoma’s section 1-1432.4(D) obliges a vendor to provide independent test results “to confirm the items listed on the product label”, but only “upon request by the State Department of Health”. Oregon’s processors certify third-party testing for adulteration when they register. Utah’s department must set testing standards for registered products. In each case the label is a claim made by the seller, which a regulator may check afterwards.
The definitions decide which products the label rules reach. Most of these laws define a kratom product as a food or as something marketed for human consumption: Arizona’s as “a food product or dietary ingredient”, Maryland’s as “a product marketed for human consumption”, Colorado’s and Oklahoma’s as “a food or dietary supplement”. Nevada’s is different. Its definition applies “regardless of whether the product or ingredient is labeled or sold for human consumption”. Whether a “not for human consumption” label takes a product outside one of the other definitions is a legal question we are not going to answer, and our guide to what that phrase on a package means explains why it is not up to the seller.
Where no kratom law exists
In a state with no kratom statute, no law written for kratom tells a seller what to print. That is the whole of what the absence means. It does not mean nothing applies: every state has general food, consumer-protection and deceptive-practices law, and the FDA’s position applies everywhere. We have not read those general laws state by state, and we are not going to say how any of them applies to a particular package.
Some states have the opposite of a label rule. Our pages on Alabama, Arkansas and Indiana set out how each places kratom’s alkaloids in Schedule I. Where that is the law, a label requirement has nothing to attach to, and nothing printed on a package changes the status of what is inside it.
The table is not every state with a kratom law. Our piece on Kratom Consumer Protection Acts records that a 2025 survey also named Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana and Tennessee, whose statutes we have not read in their own legislature’s publication, and any of those positions may have changed since. Their absence is a fact about our reach, not about their law. Some of them may require more on a label than any row above.
How we read these laws
Each row comes from the state’s own publication of its code, or from the enacted act where the code was not current or could not be retrieved:
- Colorado from the signed text of Senate Bill 25-072. It is a scanned document with no text layer, so we read it by optical character recognition, checked the quoted pages against the page images, and quote it from that reading.
- Oklahoma from the Legislature’s compiled title 63, dated 31 December 2025.
- Maryland from chapter 354 of the 2026 Laws of Maryland. The General Assembly’s codified statute pages still served the text from before 1 July 2026 when we checked on 29 October 2026, including the billboard rule the 2026 act replaced.
- Kentucky from the 2024 and 2026 acts, and the Legislative Research Commission’s note on KRS 217.2201 for the effective date of the repeal. The commission’s statute pages returned a service error on our first attempt on 29 October 2026 and loaded on a second.
- Oregon from the 2025 edition of chapter 475, which would not show a change made in 2026.
- The others from the current text on each legislature’s site on 29 October 2026.
We did not read rules made under the Texas, Utah or West Virginia statutes, the Oregon Department of Revenue’s registration rules, or Oregon’s general food law. Any of them could add to what a label must carry in that state.
If a later act, rule or amendment changes any row above, write to editorial@wikikratom.com and we will correct the page and credit the correction.