New York Didn’t Pass “Consumer Protection.” It Codified a Contradiction.

Below is a hard-hitting blog post written in a critical, advocacy tone. It is framed as policy criticism and opinion, grounded in statute and public record, without making factual claims about personal character beyond legislative actions.

New York lawmakers just congratulated themselves for “protecting consumers” by regulating kratom.

What they actually did was something far worse:
they regulated the retail sale of a product their own state law already treats as illegal.

That’s not consumer protection.
That’s legislative malpractice.

New York Already Has a Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act — And It Was Ignored

New York does not need a special kratom law to determine whether kratom is safe.

It already has one.

New York’s Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified primarily in Agriculture & Markets Law (AML) Article 17, mirrors the federal FD&C Act almost word-for-word when it comes to adulterated food.

Under AML §200, food is deemed adulterated if it:

“Bears or contains any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health.”

That standard does not require:

• FDA approval
• A criminal conviction
• A body count
• Or legislative permission

It requires only one thing: credible evidence that a substance may be injurious to health.

That evidence already exists for kratom.

Kratom Meets New York’s Definition of “Adulterated” — Plainly

The FDA has been unequivocal for years:

• Kratom contains mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, compounds with opioid-like activity
• Kratom is not an approved food additive
• Kratom is not an approved dietary ingredient
• Kratom lacks adequate safety data
• Kratom products have been associated with serious adverse events and deaths

The FDA’s legal conclusion is not casual language. It is statutory:

Kratom products are adulterated because they contain a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that it does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

New York’s FD&C Act uses the same safety threshold.

There is no legal gymnastics required here.

If kratom is adulterated under federal law, it meets the definition of adulterated under New York law as well.

Regulation Does Not Cure Illegality

This is the central failure of the new bill.

The legislature chose to regulate the sale of kratom rather than confront the uncomfortable truth that:

You cannot “label” or “age-restrict” an adulterated product into legality.

You can regulate alcohol because alcohol is not adulterated per se.
You can regulate cannabis because the legislature affirmatively removed it from prohibition.

But kratom?

New York never amended its FD&C Act.
Never exempted kratom.
Never overrode adulteration standards.

It simply pretended the conflict didn’t exist.

That leaves New York in an absurd position where:

• A product can be regulated for retail sale
• While still being illegal to sell as food under state law

That is not clarity.
That is legal incoherence.

And Yes — This Includes the Pharmacist Who Voted for It

There is exactly one pharmacist in the New York State Legislature:
John T. McDonald III.

He voted in favor of this bill.

That vote is especially troubling — because a pharmacist does not get the luxury of claiming ignorance about food and drug law.

Pharmacists are trained to understand:

• Adulteration
• Unapproved ingredients
• Safety standards
• Risk without benefit
• Regulatory authority

And yet, when faced with a product the FDA has repeatedly described as adulterated and unsafe, this legislature’s sole pharmacist chose to support a bill that sidesteps New York’s own FD&C Act instead of enforcing it.

That is not harm reduction.
That is regulatory abdication.

If a pharmacist-legislator cannot recognize when a substance meets the legal definition of adulteration under his own state’s law, then the problem is not lack of data — it’s lack of will.

Unanimous Votes Don’t Make Bad Law Good

Supporters will point to the vote count.

Unanimous.
Bipartisan.
Feel-good press releases.

But unanimity is not evidence of correctness — especially when no one bothered to reconcile the bill with existing law.

The New York FD&C Act was not repealed.
It was not amended.
It was not even discussed.

It was ignored.

The Bottom Line

New York already had the legal tools to protect consumers from kratom.

What it lacked was the courage to use them.

Instead, lawmakers chose the path of least resistance:

• Regulate
• Rebrand
• Look busy
• Avoid confrontation

And in doing so, they created a statutory contradiction that:

• Confuses enforcement
• Shields retailers
• Exposes consumers
• And undermines the integrity of New York’s own food-safety laws

That is not consumer protection.

That is pretending the law doesn’t exist — until someone gets hurt.