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 they
claim is dried leaf of Mitragyna speciosa, known by the common name kratom. Much
of this material originated from Bruno Phillips, of Ebotashop (4 rés. le Clos
des Charmes, rue Emile Zola, 5000 La Roche sur Yon, FRANCE, www.ebotashop.org,
e_bota@hotmail.com), who says that it was sourced from Myanmar, Burma. Phillips
and an individual who goes by the name of Farmer Hank were approaching numerous
retailers of specialty ethnobotanicals
and persuading them to carry this product. The material is being made into
extract in the United States, described by different companies as “kratom
acetate,” “mitragynine acetate,” and “full-spectrum alkaloid free-base of
kratom.” One of the people to whom Phillips pitched the dried leaf material for
resale was Daniel Siebert. Siebert astutely noticed that this leaf does not
match the published description for the plant—the venation pattern on the leaves
was not right and the underside of the leaves was entirely covered in trichomes,
giving the leaf a hairy appearance.
According to the published botanical description for the leaf of this plant, the
top is supposed to be glabrous (smooth), and the bottom has no trichomes present
on the interneural parts of the lamina (Shellard & Lees 1965; Siebert 2003).
Siebert suggested
that it would be a good idea if I notified ER readers of this misidentified leaf
material. It has been suggested that over 100 kilos of this mystery herb may
have been distributed
by Phillips worldwide at prices ranging from $200.00 to $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 psychoactive in a manner
similar to kratom. Others notice no activity at all. It has now been shown that
this material is not kratom, both due to its incompatible botany and due to it
not containing mitragynine, a target alkaloid unique to Mitragyna speciosa. It
would be interesting to know whether or not those who claim that this material
has “kratom-like” effects have ever tried properly identified kratom. One person
who has tried both, commented to me that the bogus material “had some sort of
effect, though when comparing it to a small stash of kratom from Thailand I
found in my freezer, it had none of the pleasant euphoria and mild rapture of
attention, just a sort of beside myself disconnected state” (B.K. 2003).
A second person familiar with the effects produced from real kratom commented on
the bogus material, stating: “We were sent samples a while back and were
thoroughly unimpressed and questioned the validity of the sample” (A.C. 2003).
In order to help confirm that the material on the market was not actually
kratom, I obtained a quantity of mitragynine ethane disulphonate from Dennis
McKenna to use as a reference standard for chemical analysis. There was concern
that this material might have degraded, as it was around 14 years old. As an
aside, it has been mentioned elsewhere that this reference standard was
“obtained from [a] specialty chemical supplier,” which is not the case, and I
have also seen it posted to an on-line forum that this material was
synthetically produced, which is incorrect. Hitomitsu Takayama at the Chiba
University in Japan was one of the first people to synthesize mitragynine in
1995 (Shulgin 2003), which was only eight years ago (clearly the 14-year-old
sample could not have been produced by synthesis). Just after I received the
mitragynine ethane disulphonate, I was informed of a chemical supply company,
Apin Chemicals, that offered a reference standard of mitragynine picrate (Shulgin
2003).
So I also purchased 10 mg of mitragynine picrate from them for the hefty price
of $250.00. Both forms of mitragynine were then distributed to several
individuals who had an interest in analyzing the commercially available
material.
The first results came in from Siebert, who performed thin layer chromatography
on several samples of known kratom, putative kratom, and the mitragynine
reference standards.
He noted:
The mitragynine picrate and mitragynine ethane disulphonate both reacted with
Erlich’s reagent to produce pale purple spots on my TLC plates. Neither of these
compounds [is] entirely pure. The TLC profiles of both samples were almost
identical. Both produced two
matching spots: one prominent spot (presumably mitragynine) and one smaller
spot. The mitragynine ethane disulphonate also produced a third clear spot that
was smaller than the other two and several additional very faint spots. I was
also able to visualize the compounds using UV light. The larger spot absorbs
short wave UV light. The smaller spots fluoresce bright yellow under long wave
UV light. Apparently mitragynine is reasonably stable, since the profile of the
fourteen-year-old mitragynine ethane disulphonate was not substantially
different than that of the recently procured mitragynine picrate.
I also examined “kratom acetate” sold by Ethnogarden and leaves sent to me from
France by Bruno. These leaves are allegedly from Myanmar (Burma). The “kratom
acetate” was supposedly isolated from leaves obtained from the [Burmese] source.
Neither of these produced any visible indole spots on the plates when sprayed
with Erlich’s reagent. And when exposed to UV light, there were no spots
corresponding to those in the reference standards. It is very clear that these
do not contain mitragynine. This is not particularly surprising since the
morphology of the leaves indicates that they are not Mitragyna speciosa.
I also analyzed leaves grown by [Native Habitat, Shaman Australis, and J.B.].
And also leaves obtained from…Thailand, and some leaves from an “unknown source”
that were sent to me by Will Beifuss (probably [also from Thailand]). All of
these produced spots that appear identical to the reference standards. In the
case of the relatively fresh leaves obtained from [Native Habitat, Shaman
Australis, and J.B.], a green chlorophyll spot largely obscures the mitragynine
spot, making it difficult to see. I was not able to see this clearly until I
examined the chromatograms under UV light and compared them with the reference
standards.
Additional results, this time from HPLC analysis, came in from MJB Botanicals,
the U.S. company that had been producing the “kratom acetate” extract from the
bogus leaves, that was sold via them, Ethnogarden, and probably other vendors as
well.
They stated:
Solvent: 95% MeOH 5 % H2O; Pressure: 1000 psi; Flow: 1.5 ml/min; Column YMC-Pack
ODS-AQ; S-5 Micron 250 x 4.6 mm ID; 5 runs per sample; Run time 12 minutes;
Alkaloid salts were converted to free-base forms with ammonia; The mitragynine
ethane disulphonate was very contaminated, with an average of 7 peaks, with the
biggest always
being approximately 5.7 minutes. This product is too contaminated or degraded to
use as a true reference sample.
The mitragynine picrate had 1 peak average, retention time of 1.6 minutes, with
slight trailings being possible contaminates.
The “kratom acetate” had 3 peaks, with the largest being 2.3 minutes, and the
others at 1.9 and 2.5 respectively, with no trailings.
Yohimbe had 1 peak average, with retention time of 2.4 minutes, with no
trailings.
Melatonin (a tryptamine) had an average retention time of 3.8 minutes, with no
trailings.
So I can say that that the “kratom acetate” does not contain mitragynine picrate
or the other mitragynine compound. With the retention time being within 0.1 min
of yohimbe, I would think that the active alkaloid might be a related compound
or chemically similar. Many companies that were known to have been offering the
bogus leaf material or extract have been informed of these test results. Some
companies have not at the time of this writing made any change in the manner in
which they are selling the bogus material. Other companies are continuing to
offer it (some under the name “Mellow Gold”), noting that the identity of the
material is actually unknown, but stating that it has “kratom-like” effects.
Based only on the few bioassays that I am aware of which were performed by
people who have experienced the effects of real kratom, I would suggest here
that to call the effects produced by this unknown material “kratom-like” is
inaccurate.
In addition, although there have been no known or reported side-effects from
consuming
the mystery herb or the extract made of it, it strikes me that it is
irresponsible to continue marketing an herb that has not been identified—it
could have chemicals in it that are carcinogenic or that cause liver damage, and
the negative effects from ingesting these chemicals might not be apparent for
some time. One company, Cannapee (www.cannapee.ch), appears to be claiming that
the bogus material is some species of Mitragyna (which it may not be, and
certainly isn’t known to be), although they have stopped selling it as M.
speciosa.
To add to the confusion, some people growing properly identified kratom plants
have obtained no activity from the leaves whatsoever. Others growing clones of
the same plant have pointed out that the potency can be quite variable.
I have arranged for HPLC analysis and GC/MS analysis to be done on various plant
samples, to determine whether or not they contain mitragynine, and if so, how
much is there. This testing will be reported on in a future issue of The
Entheogen Review.
As well, microscopy work will be done on known kratom leaves, to create a
database that will aid in proper identification of material that is offered
commercially, hopefully helping to prevent scams in the future.
I should state that I do not believe that any of the retailers selling the bogus
material were aware that it was not authentic. The blame for this scam lies with
Phillips/Ebotashop, the wholesaler who approached various retail companies with
his so-called “kratom.” It has been said that he has refused to provide any
refunds for those people to whom he sold the bogus material (Shaman Australis
2003). As well, it is known that he is still selling the bogus material even
after he was informed that it is not correctly identified. So, even if he was
originally selling it by error himself (not knowing that it was misidentified),
this can no longer be stated. It is still listed as being available at the
Ebotashop web page.
Some sales of Phillips’ material were originally being brokered through
Sebastian Torres (Kitzu Botanicals). However, Torres stopped facilitating such
sales when he learned that the material was incorrectly identified, and Farmer
Hank has also stopped selling the bogus material.
Those companies that are selling properly identified Mitragyna speciosa plants
include Shaman Australis, IAmShaman, The Basement Shaman, Theatrum Botanicum,
and Native Habitat.
This does not necessarily mean that all of these companies are selling plants or
material that are potent or even active—Native Habitat has previously commented
on the inactivity
of the plants that they have. It is currently thought that climate may have an
affect on the plant’s chemistry, and perhaps a change in climate may increase
the potency of their
plants. At this time I can not recommend purchasing kratom from any business
other than those mentioned directly above. In the future I will provide names of
any additional
companies that are known to be selling dried kratom that tests positive for
mitragynine.
So far as I am aware, there has been no definitive study in humans that shows
that mitragynine is the primary active chemical in Mitragyna speciosa, although
there have been studies with mice which seem to indicate that it might be (Idid
et al. 1998). The sole known oral bioassay of 100 mg mitragynine produced no
effects (Wogg 2000). In the 1960s, over 22 alkaloids were reported isolated from
Mitragyna speciosa (Jansen & Prast 1988). A few of the alkaloids found therein
include speciogynine, speciociliatine, paynantheine, mitragynaline,
7-hydroxymitragynine, corynantheidaline, 3-dehydromitragynine,
tetrahydromitragynine, mitralactonal, mitrasulgyline, mitralactonine, and
9-methoxymitralactonine—the last five of these are new as of 1998, and the last
two are from young leaves (Shulgin 2003).
Clearly more work needs to be done with the plant; the isolation and
quantification of chemicals from plants that are known to be potent would be a
good first step. Bioassaying each of these compounds individually in amounts
that are found in a comparable amount of a “dose” of active leaf would get us a
lot closer to understanding what is going on. Hopefully someone with access to
some quantity of potent leaf and the means to extract and isolate the compounds
therein will employ the “Heffter technique” in the near future.
There has been some small amount of noise (mainly repeated by vendors of kratom
or the bogus material) that in Thailand where Mitragyna speciosa grows, and
where it is illegal, the government has had a change of heart and is planning to
make it legal in order to treat addictions. I have been unable to locate any
reliable source of data for this claim. Also I have heard that the Australian
Therapeutic Goods Administration (their version of the FDA) is planning on
placing the chemical mitragynine into their “Schedule 4.” This schedule would
mean that the plant and dried herb are still legal, so long as they are not
being consumed or sold for consumption (Shaman Australis 2003).
Frankly, it is mind-boggling that a government agency in Australia has set its
sights on this chemical, which may not even be psychoactive in humans, which has
never been available in pure form to the masses, and hence which can not
reasonably be considered
a “drug of abuse” in any realistic sense. As well, it has been reported that the
Malaysian National Narcotics Agency engaged a botanist last year to conduct a
study to determine if kratom should be classified there as a dangerous drug (Yahya
2002).
I would like to thank all of the vendors and individuals who supplied me with
leaf material for analysis, including Shaman Australis, Native Habitat, The
Basement Shaman, Herbal-Shaman, B.K. & Rick, Craig, and Pure Land
Ethnobotanicals.
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 second
reference standard and shared material for testing, and many thanks to Daniel
Siebert for bringing this scam to my attention in the first place, for providing
material for testing, and for sharing his test results.
Regarding the article “Bogus Kratom Market Exposed” on pages 26–28. Since this
was written, Bruno Phillips has finally responded to the data about this scam
that was posted at the Shaman Australis web page:
http://www.shamanaustralis.com/Website/Shamanmainpageframeset.htm
Specific to Mitragyna speciosa
(Kratom):
