Hanaway sues major Missouri distributor of what she calls opioid-like kratom 7-OH 70%

By Lilley Halloran0%

4/1/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.1% saturation with 346 hits. Analysis detected 2,516 faulty-reasoning hits from 886 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.8% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,495 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.40% of the article peer group.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway is suing a Kansas City company over its manufacture and sale of a kratom product that she said is similar to opioids. 
The suit against CBD American Shaman, the leading supplier of a product called 7-OH in Missouri, and several related companies was jointly filed with the state Department of Health and Senior Services. 
It alleges the company failed to properly disclose the effects of the drug. 
“What they've said is it's nonaddictive and it's nonintoxicating,” Hanaway said during a press conference Tuesday. 
“They're giving away free samples of a highly addictive product, and they're advertising all over the place.” 
The lawsuit also claims the company advertises its products without proper safety testing and regulatory approval. 
In a statement, American Shaman owner Vincent Sanders said, “We have consistently maintained that our products are safe and we have been transparent in sharing the scientific support and quality information behind them.” 
Sanders, who has said his company was the first to produce 7-OH, said American Shaman intends to defend itself in court. 
Hanaway’s suit seeks to prevent American Shaman from marketing, selling or distributing 7-OH. 
The action follows a monthslong investigation into several companies launched by the attorney general’s office last year. 
In December, the U.S. 
Justice Department seized thousands of products from American Shaman warehouses. 
The company issued a recall in February for chewable tablets that contained more 7-OH than the declared content. 
If the lawsuit is successful, it would not stop others from selling the product, but investigations into other manufacturers and retailers of 7-OH are still “very live,” Hanaway said. 
What is 7-OH? 
Kratom comes from a tropical tree in Southeast Asia, called Mitragyna speciosa. 
Products made with its crushed leaves  including capsules, powders, gummies and drinks  are marketed as energy boosters and natural remedies for pain, anxiety and opioid withdrawal. 
The substance Hanaway’s lawsuit targets is 7-hydroxymytragynine, or 7-OH, a compound found in kratom that is chemically converted and sold in much higher concentrations than are naturally occurring. 
The U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration, which sent a warning letter to American Shaman last summer, has said 7-OH is often falsely marketed as natural kratom, but the extract is 13 times more potent than morphine. 
Julie Weber, director of the Missouri Poison Control Center, said it has a strong potential for addiction. 
“7-OH is not a harmless herbal product,” Weber said. 
“Its potent alkaloids carry medical risk, and the synthetic form is really a current public health risk.” 
Weber said calls to the center over kratom exposure spiked from 24 in 2024 to more than 75 in 2025. 
Neither drug has been approved by the FDA for any use, but products can be found for sale across the state in gas stations, smoke shops and online. 
Because no law regulating kratom and 7-OH exists, people of any age are permitted to purchase them. 
“Packaging has also been made appealing, featuring the different bright colors and images that mimic store bought candies and drinks,” said Weber. 
“Children are accessing these occasionally and getting into these products because they think it's good to eat.” 
Justin Bumbalough, director of the Rolla faith-based recovery program Life Changers Missouri, said the drug is often used intentionally by people who are attempting to wean themselves off of opioids. 
“People trying to get set free from addiction are ending up right back into the same trap, right back into the same bondage,” Bumbalough said. 
“A lot of those people that I've been ministering to about opioids  getting free for them  they're not with us today because of the 7-OH kratom epidemic.” 
The Rolla City Council moved to ban 7-OH in March. 
Legislation to address 7-OH 
Legislation currently pending approval from the Senate would regulate kratom in Missouri by limiting its sale to people 21 and older, requiring disclaimers on labels and prohibiting products from mimicking candy or appealing to children. 
The bill, sponsored by Sen. 
Mike Henderson, R-Desloge, would also substantially reduce the amount of 7-OH products can contain to 1,000 parts per million. 
“Some people argue, ‘Oh, it works for pain management for some,’” Henderson said Tuesday. 
“I would argue maybe trading one devil for the next.” 
But SB 1605 stalled last week with bipartisan opposition. 
Sen. 
Nick Schroer, R-Defiance, said last week he wants to see a ban on both kratom and 7-OH. 
Sen. 
Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, said he is concerned about regulating 7-OH so heavily. 
“I think there's some information and some reason to believe that they do provide some valuable pain relief and an alternative to opioids that, as I think we all agree, are devastating our country,” Webber said during floor debate. 
Henderson said he has had good conversations with both senators but is firm about keeping restrictions on 7-OH. 
“I don’t want to be the person that legalizes 7-OH,” Henderson said. 
Hanaway said she rarely takes a position on bills making their way through the legislature, but she feels strongly that 7-OH should be banned. 
“7-OH is re-addicting people who are trying to recover from opioid addictions  addicting for the first time people who think it's some safe natural product  and killing people,” Hanaway said. 
“We've got to put a stop to it.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Lilley Halloran: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 6.3%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 4.9%Lilley Halloran: 5.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 1.4%Lilley Halloran: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion1.4%This article: 14.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Lilley Halloran: 3.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 14.9%Lilley Halloran: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias14.9%This article: 39.1%Lilley Halloran: 6.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias39.1%This article: 8.1%Lilley Halloran: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Lilley Halloran: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.4%This article: 3.7%Lilley Halloran: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias11.5%This article: 4.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 1.6%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man1.6%This article: 21.0%Lilley Halloran: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority21.0%This article: 6.4%Lilley Halloran: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 6.9%Lilley Halloran: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope6.9%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.4%Lilley Halloran: 4.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization6.4%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.4%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon5.4%This article: 21.9%Lilley Halloran: 10.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion21.9%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.1%Lilley Halloran: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.1%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.9%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof7.9%This article: 5.1%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature5.1%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.8%Lilley Halloran: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal10.8%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.5%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.5%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Lilley Halloran: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground4.4%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.5%This article: 5.1%Lilley Halloran: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 1.4%Lilley Halloran: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice1.4%This article: 9.3%Lilley Halloran: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination9.3%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.6%

886 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers55%attributed speech398writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 16 words • 100.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageVincent Sanders • 33 words • 100.0% coverageVincent Sanders • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Weber • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Weber • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Weber • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Weber • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Weber • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJulie Weber • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJustin Bumbalough • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJustin Bumbalough • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJustin Bumbalough • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMike Henderson • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMike Henderson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNick Schroer • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Webber • 12 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Webber • 39 words • 0.0% coverageMike Henderson • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMike Henderson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 32 words • 100.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Justin Bumbalough

100%flagged-word coverage
84 attributed words17% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+34.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Justin Bumbalough: 34.5%34.5%Indoctrination+29.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Justin Bumbalough: 29.8%29.8%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Justin Bumbalough: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Justin Bumbalough: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.