Skip to main content

FDA Cracks Down on Dangerous "7-OH" Products – Here's What You Need to Know

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking a stand against a new wave of potentially dangerous products hitting the market: those containing high levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine, or "7-OH."

What is 7-OH?

You might know of kratom, a plant that naturally contains small amounts of 7-OH. However, the FDA's recent actions are focused on products that have concentrated 7-OH, far beyond what's found naturally. We're talking about things like pills, gummies, drink mixes, and even "shots" being sold online, in smoke shops, gas stations, and corner stores.

Why is the FDA concerned?

Simply put, these concentrated 7-OH products are not legal and can be dangerous. Here's why:

Not Approved: 7-OH is not allowed in dietary supplements or regular foods. There are also no FDA-approved medications containing 7-OH.
Unproven Safety and Effectiveness: When you use these products, you're exposing yourself to something that hasn't been tested to see if it's safe or if it actually works for any claimed benefits.
Misleading Claims: Some companies are illegally marketing these products with unproven claims, like saying they can relieve pain or help with anxiety.
What did the FDA do?

The FDA recently sent out warning letters to seven companies that were illegally selling these concentrated 7-OH products. These companies include:

Shaman Botanicals, LLC
My Smoke Wholesale
Relax Relief Rejuvenate Trading, LLC dba RRR Trading or EDP Kratom
Thang Botanicals, Inc. dba 7ΩHMZ, 7-OHMZ, or 7OHMZ
Royal Diamond Imports, Inc. dba Roxytabs.com
Hydroxie, LLC
7Tabz Retail, LLC
The FDA is demanding that these companies respond within 15 business days.

What does this mean for you?

The key takeaway is this: be cautious and informed. The FDA's action highlights their growing concern about these potent, unregulated products. If you see products containing 7-OH, especially in concentrated forms like pills or gummies, be aware that they are being marketed illegally and their safety is unproven. Your health and safety are important, so it's always best to stick to products that have been properly evaluated and approved.
Labels:

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 28, 2025 at 4:19 PM

    They do help but if the fda cant profit they ban

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 12:24 AM

    These are extremely helpful. This would be hullshit if they ban them. Fucking bullish it. Make it legal 21 and over. Not bad as cigarettes.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more