theconversation.com – Adam Nemeroff, Assistant Provost for Innovations in Learning, Teaching, and Technology, Quinnipiac University – 2025-09-02 07:33:00
AI slop refers to low- to mid-quality content—images, videos, audio, text—generated quickly and cheaply by AI tools, often without accuracy. It floods social media and platforms like YouTube, Spotify, and Wikipedia, displacing higher-quality, human-created content. Examples include AI-generated bands, viral images, and videos that exploit internet attention economies for profit. AI slop harms artists by reducing job opportunities and spreads misinformation, as seen during Hurricane Helene with fake images used politically. Platforms struggle to moderate this content, threatening information reliability. Users can report or flag harmful AI slop, but it increasingly degrades the online media environment.
You’ve probably encountered images in your social media feeds that look like a cross between photographs and computer-generated graphics. Some are fantastical – think Shrimp Jesus – and some are believable at a quick glance – remember the little girl clutching a puppy in a boat during a flood?
These are examples of AI slop, low- to mid-quality content – video, images, audio, text or a mix – created with AI tools, often with little regard for accuracy. It’s fast, easy and inexpensive to make this content. AI slop producers typically place it on social media to exploit the economics of attention on the internet, displacing higher-quality material that could be more helpful.
AI slop has beenincreasing over the past few years. As the term “slop” indicates, that’s generally not good for people using the internet.
AI slop’s many forms
The Guardian published an analysis in July 2025 examining how AI slop is taking over YouTube’s fastest-growing channels. The journalists found that nine out of the top 100 fastest-growing channels feature AI-generated content like zombie football and cat soap operas.
This song, allegedly recorded by a band called The Velvet Sundown, was AI-generated.
Listening to Spotify? Be skeptical of that new band, The Velvet Sundown, that appeared on the streaming service with a creative backstory and derivative tracks. It’s AI-generated.
In many cases, people submit AI slop that’s just good enough to attract and keep users’ attention, allowing the submitter to profit from platforms that monetize streaming and view-based content.
The ease of generating content with AI enables people to submit low-quality articles to publications. Clarkesworld, an online science fiction magazine that accepts user submissions and pays contributors, stopped taking new submissions in 2024 because of the flood of AI-generated writing it was getting.
These aren’t the only places where this happens — even Wikipedia is dealing with AI-generated low-quality content that strains its entire community moderation system. If the organization is not successful in removing it, a key information resource people depend on is at risk.
This episode of ‘Last Week Tonight with John Oliver’ delves into AI slop. (NSFW)
Harms of AI slop
AI-driven slop is making its way upstream into people’s media diets as well. During Hurricane Helene, opponents of President Joe Biden cited AI-generated images of a displaced child clutching a puppy as evidence of the administration’s purported mishandling of the disaster response. Even when it’s apparent that content is AI-generated, it can still be used to spread misinformation by fooling some people who briefly glance at it.
AI slop also harms artists by causing job and financial losses and crowding out content made by real creators. The placement of this lower-quality AI-generated content is often not distinguished by the algorithms that drive social media consumption, and it displace entire classes of creators who previously made their livelihood from online content.
Wherever it’s enabled, you can flag content that’s harmful or problematic. On some platforms, you can add community notes to the content to provide context. For harmful content, you can try to report it.
Along with forcing us to be on guard for deepfakes and “inauthentic” social media accounts, AI is now leading to piles of dreck degrading our media environment. At least there’s a catchy name for it.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content presents a balanced and factual discussion about the rise of low-quality AI-generated content (“AI slop”) and its impacts on media, misinformation, and creators. It references examples involving both political figures and general media platforms without taking a partisan stance or promoting a specific political agenda. The focus is on the technological and social implications rather than ideological viewpoints, resulting in a centrist perspective.
theconversation.com – Chanam Lee, Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University – 2025-09-02 07:32:00
College students face significant stress from academics, social pressures, and finances, contributing to rising anxiety, depression, and suicide rates. The 2024 National College Health Assessment found 30% of students report anxiety harming academics, with 20% at risk of severe distress. While counseling services have expanded, creating healthier campus environments by increasing green spaces offers another solution. Research, including a Texas A&M study, shows access to greenery, nature views, and walkable paths reduces stress, improves mood, and fosters belonging. Outdoor areas like Aggie Park provide mental health benefits and encourage physical activity, which lowers anxiety and depression. Smaller schools and those with religious affiliations also report better student mental health. Enhancing campus green spaces is a cost-effective way to support student well-being and academic success.
Stress on college students can be palpable, and it hits them from every direction: academic challenges, social pressures and financial burdens, all intermingled with their first taste of independence. It’s part of the reason why anxiety and depression are common among the 19 million students now enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, and why incidents of suicide and suicidal ideation are rising.
In the 2024 National College Health Assessment Report, 30% of the 30,000 students surveyed said anxiety negatively affected their academic performance, with 20% at risk for symptoms that suggest severe psychological distress, such as feelings of sadness, nervousness and hopelessness. No wonder the demand for mental health services has been increasing for about a decade.
Many schools have rightfully responded to this demand by offering students more counseling. That is important, of course, but there’s another approach that could help alleviate the need for counseling: Creating a campus environment that promotes health. Simply put, add more green space.
We are scholarswho studythe impact that the natural environment has on students, particularly in the place where they spend much of their time – the college campus. Decades of research show that access to green spaces can lower stress and foster a stronger sense of belonging – benefits that are particularly critical for students navigating the pressures of higher education.
Making campuses green
In 2020, our research team at Texas A&M University launched a Green Campus Initiative to promote a healthier campus environment. Our goal was to find ways to design, plan and manage such an environment by developing evidence-based strategies.
Our survey of more than 400 Texas A&M students showed that abundant greenery, nature views and quality walking paths can help with mental health issues.
More than 80% of the students we surveyed said they already have their favorite outdoor places on campus. One of them is Aggie Park, 20 acres of green space with exercise trails, walking and bike paths and rocking chairs by a lake. Many students noted that such green spaces are a break from daily routines, a positive distraction from negative thoughts and a place to exercise.
Outdoor seating, whether rocking chairs or park benches, also has numerous benefits. More time spent talking to others is one of them, but what might be surprising is that enhanced reading performance is another. More trees and plants mean more shaded areas, particularly during hot summers, and that too encourages students to spend more time outside and be active.
Aggie Park, a designated green space on the campus of Texas A&M University, opened in September 2022. Texas A&M University
Less anxiety, better academic performance
In short, the surrounding environment matters, but not just for college students or those living or working on a campus. Across different groups and settings, research shows that being near green spaces reduces stress, anxiety and depression.
Even a garden or tree-lined street helps.
In Philadelphia, researchers transformed 110 vacant lot clusters into green spaces. That led to improvements in mental health for residents living nearby. Those using the green spaces reported lower levels of stress and anxiety, but just viewing nature from a window was helpful too.
Our colleagues discovered similar findings when conducting a randomized trial with high school students who took a test before and after break periods in classrooms with different window views: no window, a window facing a building or parking lot, or a window overlooking green landscapes. Students with views of greenery recovered faster from mental fatigue and performed significantly better on attention tasks.
It’s still unclear exactly why green spaces are good places to go when experiencing stress and anxiety; nevertheless, it is clear that spending time in nature is beneficial for mental well-being.
Small can be better
It’s critical to note that enhancing your surroundings isn’t just about green space. Other factors play a role. After analyzing data from 13 U.S. universities, our research shows that school size, locale, region and religious affiliation all make a difference and are significant predictors of mental health.
Specifically, we found that students at schools with smaller populations, schools in smaller communities, schools in the southern U.S. or schools with religious affiliations generally had better mental health than students at other schools. Those students had less stress, anxiety and depression, and a lower risk of suicide when compared with peers at larger universities with more than 5,000 students, schools in urban areas, institutions in the Midwest and West or those without religious ties.
No one can change their genes or demographics, but an environment can always be modified – and for the better. For a relatively cheap investment, more green space at a school offers long-term benefits to generations of students. After all, a campus is more than just buildings. No doubt, the learning that takes place inside them educates the mind. But what’s on the outside, research shows, nurtures the soul.
Aggie Park, a designated green space on the campus of Texas A&M University, opened in September 2022. Texas A&M University
Less anxiety, better academic performance
In short, the surrounding environment matters, but not just for college students or those living or working on a campus. Across different groups and settings, research shows that being near green spaces reduces stress, anxiety and depression.
Even a garden or tree-lined street helps.
In Philadelphia, researchers transformed 110 vacant lot clusters into green spaces. That led to improvements in mental health for residents living nearby. Those using the green spaces reported lower levels of stress and anxiety, but just viewing nature from a window was helpful too.
Our colleagues discovered similar findings when conducting a randomized trial with high school students who took a test before and after break periods in classrooms with different window views: no window, a window facing a building or parking lot, or a window overlooking green landscapes. Students with views of greenery recovered faster from mental fatigue and performed significantly better on attention tasks.
It’s still unclear exactly why green spaces are good places to go when experiencing stress and anxiety; nevertheless, it is clear that spending time in nature is beneficial for mental well-being.
Small can be better
It’s critical to note that enhancing your surroundings isn’t just about green space. Other factors play a role. After analyzing data from 13 U.S. universities, our research shows that school size, locale, region and religious affiliation all make a difference and are significant predictors of mental health.
Specifically, we found that students at schools with smaller populations, schools in smaller communities, schools in the southern U.S. or schools with religious affiliations generally had better mental health than students at other schools. Those students had less stress, anxiety and depression, and a lower risk of suicide when compared with peers at larger universities with more than 5,000 students, schools in urban areas, institutions in the Midwest and West or those without religious ties.
No one can change their genes or demographics, but an environment can always be modified – and for the better. For a relatively cheap investment, more green space at a school offers long-term benefits to generations of students. After all, a campus is more than just buildings. No doubt, the learning that takes place inside them educates the mind. But what’s on the outside, research shows, nurtures the soul.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content focuses on mental health challenges faced by college students and advocates for increasing green spaces on campuses as a way to improve well-being. It relies on scientific research and evidence-based findings without promoting any particular political ideology or partisan agenda. The discussion is centered on public health and environmental design, topics that generally transcend traditional political divides, resulting in a neutral, centrist perspective.
theconversation.com – Leo S. Lo, Dean of Libraries; Advisor to the Provost for AI Literacy; Professor of Education, University of Virginia – 2025-09-01 07:35:00
Artificial intelligence systems consume significant water—up to 500 milliliters per short interaction—primarily for cooling data center servers and generating electricity. Water use varies greatly by location and climate; for example, dry, hot areas rely heavily on evaporative cooling, which consumes more water. Innovations like immersion cooling and Microsoft’s zero-water cooling design promise to reduce consumption but aren’t yet widespread. AI’s water footprint also depends on the model’s complexity, with newer models like GPT-5 using considerably more water than efficient ones. Despite large aggregate usage, AI’s water consumption remains small compared to everyday activities like lawn watering. Transparency and efficiency improvements are crucial for balancing innovation with sustainability.
But the study that calculated those estimates also pointed out that AI systems’ water usage can vary widely, depending on where and when the computer answering the query is running.
When people move from seeing AI as simply a resource drain to understanding its actual footprint, where the effects come from, how they vary, and what can be done to reduce them, they are far better equipped to make choices that balance innovation with sustainability.
The first is on-site cooling of servers that generate enormous amounts of heat. This often uses evaporative cooling towers – giant misters that spray water over hot pipes or open basins. The evaporation carries away heat, but that water is removed from the local water supply, such as a river, a reservoir or an aquifer. Other cooling systems may use less water but more electricity.
Hydropower also uses up significant amounts of water, which evaporates from reservoirs. Concentrated solar plants, which run more like traditional steam power stations, can be water-intensive if they rely on wet cooling.
Water use shifts dramatically with location. A data center in cool, humid Ireland can often rely on outside air or chillers and run for months with minimal water use. By contrast, a data center in Arizona in July may depend heavily on evaporative cooling. Hot, dry air makes that method highly effective, but it also consumes large volumes of water, since evaporation is the mechanism that removes heat.
Timing matters too. A University of Massachusetts Amherst study found that a data center might use only half as much water in winter as in summer. And at midday during a heat wave, cooling systems work overtime. At night, demand is lower.
Newer approaches offer promising alternatives. For instance, immersion cooling submerges servers in fluids that don’t conduct electricity, such as synthetic oils, reducing water evaporation almost entirely.
And a new design from Microsoft claims to use zero water for cooling, by circulating a special liquid through sealed pipes directly across computer chips. The liquid absorbs heat and then releases it through a closed-loop system without needing any evaporation. The data centers would still use some potable water for restrooms and other staff facilities, but cooling itself would no longer draw from local water supplies.
These solutions are not yet mainstream, however, mainly because of cost, maintenance complexity and the difficulty of converting existing data centers to new systems. Most operators rely on evaporative systems.
You can estimate AI’s water footprint yourself in just three steps, with no advanced math required.
Step 1 – Look for credible research or official disclosures. Independent analyses estimate that a medium-length GPT-5 response, which is about 150 to 200 words of output, or roughly 200 to 300 tokens, uses about 19.3 watt-hours. A response of similar length from GPT-4o uses about 1.75 watt-hours.
Step 2 – Use a practical estimate for the amount of water per unit of electricity, combining the usage for cooling and for power.
Independent researchers and industryreports suggest that a reasonable range today is about 1.3 to 2.0 milliliters per watt-hour. The lower end reflects efficient facilities that use modern cooling and cleaner grids. The higher end represents more typical sites.
Step 3 – Now it’s time to put the pieces together. Take the energy number you found in Step 1 and multiply it by the water factor from Step 2. That gives you the water footprint of a single AI response.
Here’s the one-line formula you’ll need:
Energy per prompt (watt-hours) × Water factor (milliliters per watt-hour) = Water per prompt (in milliliters)
For a medium-length query to GPT-5, that calculation should use the figures of 19.3 watt-hours and 2 milliliters per watt-hour. 19.3 x 2 = 39 milliliters of water per response.
For a medium-length query to GPT-4o, the calculation is 1.75 watt-hours x 2 milliliters per watt-hour = 3.5 milliliters of water per response.
If you assume the data centers are more efficient, and use 1.3 milliliters per watt-hour, the numbers drop: about 25 milliliters for GPT-5 and 2.3 milliliters for GPT-4o.
A recent Google technical report said a median text prompt to its Gemini system uses just 0.24 watt-hours of electricity and about 0.26 milliliters of water – roughly the volume of five drops. However, the report does not say how long that prompt is, so it can’t be compared directly with GPT water usage.
Those different estimates – ranging from 0.26 milliliters to 39 milliliters – demonstrate how much the effects of efficiency, AI model and power-generation infrastructure all matter.
Comparisons can add context
To truly understand how much water these queries use, it can be helpful to compare them to other familiar water uses.
When multiplied by millions, AI queries’ water use adds up. OpenAI reports about 2.5 billion prompts per day. That figure includes queries to its GPT-4o, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-3.5 and GPT-5 systems, with no public breakdown of how many queries are issued to each particular model.
Using independent estimates and Google’s official reporting gives a sense of the possible range:
All Google Gemini median prompts: about 650,000 liters per day.
All GPT 4o medium prompts: about 8.8 million liters per day.
All GPT 5 medium prompts: about 97.5 million liters per day.
For comparison, Americans use about 34 billion liters per day watering residential lawns and gardens. One liter is about one-quarter of a gallon.
Generative AI does use water, but – at least for now – its daily totals are small compared with other common uses such as lawns, showers and laundry.
But its water demand is not fixed. Google’s disclosure shows what is possible when systems are optimized, with specialized chips, efficient cooling and smart workload management. Recycling water and locating data centers in cooler, wetter regions can help, too.
Transparency matters, as well: When companies release their data, the public, policymakers and researchers can see what is achievable and compare providers fairly.
Water use shifts dramatically with location. A data center in cool, humid Ireland can often rely on outside air or chillers and run for months with minimal water use. By contrast, a data center in Arizona in July may depend heavily on evaporative cooling. Hot, dry air makes that method highly effective, but it also consumes large volumes of water, since evaporation is the mechanism that removes heat.
Timing matters too. A University of Massachusetts Amherst study found that a data center might use only half as much water in winter as in summer. And at midday during a heat wave, cooling systems work overtime. At night, demand is lower.
Newer approaches offer promising alternatives. For instance, immersion cooling submerges servers in fluids that don’t conduct electricity, such as synthetic oils, reducing water evaporation almost entirely.
And a new design from Microsoft claims to use zero water for cooling, by circulating a special liquid through sealed pipes directly across computer chips. The liquid absorbs heat and then releases it through a closed-loop system without needing any evaporation. The data centers would still use some potable water for restrooms and other staff facilities, but cooling itself would no longer draw from local water supplies.
These solutions are not yet mainstream, however, mainly because of cost, maintenance complexity and the difficulty of converting existing data centers to new systems. Most operators rely on evaporative systems.
You can estimate AI’s water footprint yourself in just three steps, with no advanced math required.
Step 1 – Look for credible research or official disclosures. Independent analyses estimate that a medium-length GPT-5 response, which is about 150 to 200 words of output, or roughly 200 to 300 tokens, uses about 19.3 watt-hours. A response of similar length from GPT-4o uses about 1.75 watt-hours.
Step 2 – Use a practical estimate for the amount of water per unit of electricity, combining the usage for cooling and for power.
Independent researchers and industryreports suggest that a reasonable range today is about 1.3 to 2.0 milliliters per watt-hour. The lower end reflects efficient facilities that use modern cooling and cleaner grids. The higher end represents more typical sites.
Step 3 – Now it’s time to put the pieces together. Take the energy number you found in Step 1 and multiply it by the water factor from Step 2. That gives you the water footprint of a single AI response.
Here’s the one-line formula you’ll need:
Energy per prompt (watt-hours) × Water factor (milliliters per watt-hour) = Water per prompt (in milliliters)
For a medium-length query to GPT-5, that calculation should use the figures of 19.3 watt-hours and 2 milliliters per watt-hour. 19.3 x 2 = 39 milliliters of water per response.
For a medium-length query to GPT-4o, the calculation is 1.75 watt-hours x 2 milliliters per watt-hour = 3.5 milliliters of water per response.
If you assume the data centers are more efficient, and use 1.3 milliliters per watt-hour, the numbers drop: about 25 milliliters for GPT-5 and 2.3 milliliters for GPT-4o.
A recent Google technical report said a median text prompt to its Gemini system uses just 0.24 watt-hours of electricity and about 0.26 milliliters of water – roughly the volume of five drops. However, the report does not say how long that prompt is, so it can’t be compared directly with GPT water usage.
Those different estimates – ranging from 0.26 milliliters to 39 milliliters – demonstrate how much the effects of efficiency, AI model and power-generation infrastructure all matter.
Comparisons can add context
To truly understand how much water these queries use, it can be helpful to compare them to other familiar water uses.
When multiplied by millions, AI queries’ water use adds up. OpenAI reports about 2.5 billion prompts per day. That figure includes queries to its GPT-4o, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-3.5 and GPT-5 systems, with no public breakdown of how many queries are issued to each particular model.
Using independent estimates and Google’s official reporting gives a sense of the possible range:
All Google Gemini median prompts: about 650,000 liters per day.
All GPT 4o medium prompts: about 8.8 million liters per day.
All GPT 5 medium prompts: about 97.5 million liters per day.
For comparison, Americans use about 34 billion liters per day watering residential lawns and gardens. One liter is about one-quarter of a gallon.
Generative AI does use water, but – at least for now – its daily totals are small compared with other common uses such as lawns, showers and laundry.
But its water demand is not fixed. Google’s disclosure shows what is possible when systems are optimized, with specialized chips, efficient cooling and smart workload management. Recycling water and locating data centers in cooler, wetter regions can help, too.
Transparency matters, as well: When companies release their data, the public, policymakers and researchers can see what is achievable and compare providers fairly.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content presents a balanced and fact-based analysis of the environmental impact of AI, specifically focusing on water usage. It relies on scientific studies, industry reports, and expert opinions without promoting a particular political agenda. The article acknowledges concerns about resource consumption while also highlighting technological innovations and practical solutions, aiming to inform readers rather than persuade them toward a partisan viewpoint. This neutral and informative approach aligns with a centrist perspective.
theconversation.com – David Kroll, Professor of Natural Products Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus – 2025-08-29 07:41:00
David Bregger’s son, Daniel, died in 2021 after using kratom, a herbal supplement marketed as a natural anxiety remedy. Unaware of its risks, Daniel consumed a product containing 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), a potent opioid-like chemical. Colorado’s new Daniel Bregger Act regulates kratom potency and restricts sales to adults, addressing deceptive practices around concentrated 7-OH products. While kratom powder has mild effects, concentrated extracts pose overdose risks, especially combined with other sedatives. Despite controversies, kratom shows promise for pain relief and opioid addiction treatment. Ongoing research aims to develop safer, effective medications from kratom compounds, balancing benefits and risks.
David Bregger had never heard of kratom before his son, Daniel, 33, died in Denver in 2021 from using what he thought was a natural and safe remedy for anxiety.
By his father’s account, Daniel didn’t know that the herbal product could kill him. The product listed no ingredients or safe-dosing information on the label. And it had no warning that it should not be combined with other sedating drugs, such as the over-the-counter antihistamine diphenhydramine, which is the active ingredient in Benadryl and other sleep aids.
As the fourth anniversary of Daniel’s death approaches, a recently enacted Colorado law aims to prevent other families from experiencing the heartbreak shared by the Bregger family. Colorado Senate Bill 25-072, known as the Daniel Bregger Act, addresses what the state legislature calls the deceptive trade practices around the sale of concentrated kratom products artificially enriched with a chemical called 7-OH.
The Daniel Breggar Act seeks to limit potency and underage access to kratom, an herbal supplement.
7-OH, known as 7-hydroxymitragynine, has also garnered national attention. On July 29, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that products containing 7-OH are potent opioids that can pose significant health risks and even death.
I study pharmaceutical sciences, have taught for over 30 years about herbal supplements like kratom, and I’ve written about kratom’s effects and controversy.
Kratom – one name, many products
Kratom is a broad term used to describe products made from the leaves of a Southeast Asian tree known scientifically as Mitragyna speciosa. The Latin name derives from the shape of its leaves, which resemble a bishop’s miter, the ceremonial, pointed headdress worn by bishops and other church leaders.
Kratom is made from dried and powdered leaves that can be chewed or made into a tea. Used by rice field workers and farmers in Thailand to increase stamina and productivity, kratom initially alleviates fatigue with an effect like that of caffeine. In larger amounts, it imparts a sense of well-being similar to opioids.
In fact, mitragynine, which is found in small amounts in kratom, partially stimulates opioid receptors in the central nervous system. These are the same type of opioid receptors that trigger the effects of drugs such as morphine and oxycodone. They are also the same receptors that can slow or stop breathing when overstimulated.
In the body, the small amount of mitragynine in kratom powder is converted to 7-OH by liver enzymes, hence the opioid-like effects in the body. 7-OH can also be made in a lab and is used to increase the potency of certain kratom products, including the ones found in gas stations or liquor stores.
And therein lies the controversy over the risks and benefits of kratom.
Natural or lab made: All medicines have risks
Because kratom is a plant-derived product, it has fallen into a murky enforcement area. It is sold as an herbal supplement, normally by the kilogram from online retailers overseas.
But readers countered the DEA’s stance and sent me more than 200 messages that primarily documented their use of kratom as an alternative to opioids for pain.
Others described how kratom assisted them in recovery from addiction to alcohol or opioids themselves. Similar stories also flooded the official comments requested by the DEA, and the public pressure presumably led the agency to drop its plan to regulate kratom as a controlled substance.
Kratom is under growing scrutiny.
But not all of the stories pointed to kratom’s benefits. Instead, some people pointed out a major risk: becoming addicted to kratom itself. I learned it is a double-edged sword – remedy to some, recreational risk to others. A national survey of kratom users was consistent with my nonscientific sampling, showing more than half were using the supplement to relieve pain, stress, anxiety or a combination of these.
Natural leaf powder vs. artificially concentrated extracts
After the DEA dropped its 2016 plan to ban the leaf powder, marketers in the U.S. began isolating mitragynine and concentrating it into small bottles that could be taken like those energy shots of caffeine often sold in gas stations and convenience stores. This formula made it easier to ingest more kratom. Slowly, sellers learned they could make the more potent 7-OH from mitragynine and give their products an extra punch. And an extra dose of risk.
People who use kratom in the powder form describe taking 3 to 5 grams, the size of a generous tablespoon. They put the powder in capsules or made it into a tea several times a day to ward off pain, the craving for alcohol or the withdrawal symptoms from long-term prescription opioid use. Since this form of kratom does not contain very much mitragynine – it is only about 1% of the powdered leaf – overdosing on the powder alone does not typically happen.
That, along with pushback from consumers, is why the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to restrict only the availability of 7-OH and not mitragynine or kratom powder. The new Colorado law limits the concentration of kratom ingredients in products and restricts their sales and marketing to consumers over 21.
Even David Bregger supports this distinction. “I’m not anti-kratom, I’m pro-regulation. What I’m after is getting nothing but leaf product,” he told WPRI in Rhode Island last year while demonstrating at a conference of the education and advocacy trade group the American Kratom Association.
Such lobbying with the trade group last year led the American Kratom Association to concur that 7-OH should be regulated as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. The association acknowledges that such regulation is reasonable and based in science.
Researchers have identified numerous other chemicals called alkaloids from kratom leaf specimens and commercial products. These researchers show that some types of kratom trees make unique chemicals, possibly opening the door to other painkillers. Researchers have also found that compounds from kratom, such as 7-OH, bind to opioid receptors in unique ways. The compounds seem to have an effect more toward pain management and away from potentially deadly suppression of breathing. Of course, this is when the compounds are used alone and not together with other sedating drugs.
Rather than contributing to the opioid crisis, researchers suspect that isolated and safely purified drugs made from kratom could be potential treatments for opioid addiction. In fact, some kratom chemicals such as mitragynine have multiple actions and could potentially replace both medication-assisted therapy, like buprenorphine, in treating opioid addiction and drugs like clonidine for opioid withdrawal symptoms.
Rigorous scientific study has led to this more reasonable juncture in the understanding of kratom and its sensible regulation. Sadly, we cannot bring back Daniel Bregger. But researchers can advance the potential for new and beneficial drugs while legislators help prevent such tragedies from befalling other families.
Kratom is made from dried and powdered leaves that can be chewed or made into a tea. Used by rice field workers and farmers in Thailand to increase stamina and productivity, kratom initially alleviates fatigue with an effect like that of caffeine. In larger amounts, it imparts a sense of well-being similar to opioids.
In fact, mitragynine, which is found in small amounts in kratom, partially stimulates opioid receptors in the central nervous system. These are the same type of opioid receptors that trigger the effects of drugs such as morphine and oxycodone. They are also the same receptors that can slow or stop breathing when overstimulated.
In the body, the small amount of mitragynine in kratom powder is converted to 7-OH by liver enzymes, hence the opioid-like effects in the body. 7-OH can also be made in a lab and is used to increase the potency of certain kratom products, including the ones found in gas stations or liquor stores.
And therein lies the controversy over the risks and benefits of kratom.
Natural or lab made: All medicines have risks
Because kratom is a plant-derived product, it has fallen into a murky enforcement area. It is sold as an herbal supplement, normally by the kilogram from online retailers overseas.
But readers countered the DEA’s stance and sent me more than 200 messages that primarily documented their use of kratom as an alternative to opioids for pain.
Others described how kratom assisted them in recovery from addiction to alcohol or opioids themselves. Similar stories also flooded the official comments requested by the DEA, and the public pressure presumably led the agency to drop its plan to regulate kratom as a controlled substance.
Kratom is under growing scrutiny.
But not all of the stories pointed to kratom’s benefits. Instead, some people pointed out a major risk: becoming addicted to kratom itself. I learned it is a double-edged sword – remedy to some, recreational risk to others. A national survey of kratom users was consistent with my nonscientific sampling, showing more than half were using the supplement to relieve pain, stress, anxiety or a combination of these.
Natural leaf powder vs. artificially concentrated extracts
After the DEA dropped its 2016 plan to ban the leaf powder, marketers in the U.S. began isolating mitragynine and concentrating it into small bottles that could be taken like those energy shots of caffeine often sold in gas stations and convenience stores. This formula made it easier to ingest more kratom. Slowly, sellers learned they could make the more potent 7-OH from mitragynine and give their products an extra punch. And an extra dose of risk.
People who use kratom in the powder form describe taking 3 to 5 grams, the size of a generous tablespoon. They put the powder in capsules or made it into a tea several times a day to ward off pain, the craving for alcohol or the withdrawal symptoms from long-term prescription opioid use. Since this form of kratom does not contain very much mitragynine – it is only about 1% of the powdered leaf – overdosing on the powder alone does not typically happen.
That, along with pushback from consumers, is why the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to restrict only the availability of 7-OH and not mitragynine or kratom powder. The new Colorado law limits the concentration of kratom ingredients in products and restricts their sales and marketing to consumers over 21.
Even David Bregger supports this distinction. “I’m not anti-kratom, I’m pro-regulation. What I’m after is getting nothing but leaf product,” he told WPRI in Rhode Island last year while demonstrating at a conference of the education and advocacy trade group the American Kratom Association.
Such lobbying with the trade group last year led the American Kratom Association to concur that 7-OH should be regulated as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. The association acknowledges that such regulation is reasonable and based in science.
Researchers have identified numerous other chemicals called alkaloids from kratom leaf specimens and commercial products. These researchers show that some types of kratom trees make unique chemicals, possibly opening the door to other painkillers. Researchers have also found that compounds from kratom, such as 7-OH, bind to opioid receptors in unique ways. The compounds seem to have an effect more toward pain management and away from potentially deadly suppression of breathing. Of course, this is when the compounds are used alone and not together with other sedating drugs.
Rather than contributing to the opioid crisis, researchers suspect that isolated and safely purified drugs made from kratom could be potential treatments for opioid addiction. In fact, some kratom chemicals such as mitragynine have multiple actions and could potentially replace both medication-assisted therapy, like buprenorphine, in treating opioid addiction and drugs like clonidine for opioid withdrawal symptoms.
Rigorous scientific study has led to this more reasonable juncture in the understanding of kratom and its sensible regulation. Sadly, we cannot bring back Daniel Bregger. But researchers can advance the potential for new and beneficial drugs while legislators help prevent such tragedies from befalling other families.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
This content maintains a balanced and evidence-based tone, presenting both the potential benefits and risks associated with kratom. It supports reasonable regulation rather than outright prohibition, acknowledging perspectives from regulatory agencies, scientific researchers, consumer advocates, and families affected by kratom-related incidents. The article refrains from partisan language or ideology and focuses on public health, safety, and scientific inquiry, typical of a centrist approach to policy discussions.
