I. The Statutory Framework

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–904, established five schedules of controlled substances ranked by potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and potential for physical or psychological dependence. Schedule I, the most restrictive, is reserved for substances that have “a high potential for abuse,” have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and lack “accepted safety for use” even under medical supervision.¹

Congress recognized almost immediately that the scheduling system had a structural weakness. A chemist who understood the relationship between molecular structure and pharmacological effect could produce a substance that was functionally identical to a scheduled drug but differed by a single methyl group, a shifted bond, or a rearranged substituent. Because the Controlled Substances Act listed specific chemical entities rather than pharmacological classes, each novel compound was legal until individually scheduled, a process that required notice-and-comment rulemaking and took months or years.

In 1986, Congress addressed this gap by enacting the Federal Analogue Act as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The statute, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 813, provides in its entirety: “A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.”²

The definition of “controlled substance analogue” is set forth at 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A). A substance qualifies as an analogue if its chemical structure is “substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II” and it has a “stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than” the effect of a scheduled substance, or if a person represents or intends the substance to have such an effect.³

The Supreme Court examined the Act’s intent requirement in McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), and held that the government must prove that the defendant knew he was dealing with “a substance with properties of a controlled substance analogue” or “a particular substance” meeting the analogue definition.⁴ The Court did not disturb the definition itself. The statute remains operative. A substance that is structurally similar to a Schedule I drug and intended for human consumption is, as a matter of federal law, a Schedule I drug.

This framework was designed to close the designer-drug loophole. It has been applied to synthetic cannabinoids, substituted cathinones, novel phenethylamines, and dozens of other compounds manufactured in clandestine laboratories. It has never been applied to a substance sold in the baking aisle of every Safeway in America.

II. The Scheduled Substance

MMDA, formally 3-methoxy-4,5-methylenedioxyamphetamine, is a psychedelic amphetamine listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Its Chemical Abstracts Service registry number is 13674-05-0. Its molecular formula is C₁₁H₁₅NO₃.⁵

MMDA was first synthesized in the early twentieth century, but its psychoactive properties were not systematically characterized until Alexander Shulgin, a biochemist and pharmacologist who held a DEA Schedule I research license, documented its effects in human subjects. Shulgin’s findings were published in his 1991 reference work PiHKAL: Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved, in which MMDA appears as entry number 132. He reported a dosage range of 100 to 250 milligrams administered orally, with effects lasting eight to twelve hours. At active doses, subjects reported enhanced sensory perception, eyes-closed visual imagery, and a state Shulgin described as “not so much hallucinogenic” as one of “increased receptivity” to external stimuli.⁶

MMDA’s structural core consists of an amphetamine backbone bearing two critical features: a 3,4-methylenedioxy ring and a 5-methoxy substituent. This combination of the methylenedioxy bridge and the methoxy group is what gives the molecule its pharmacological profile. The methylenedioxy ring is shared with MDA (Schedule I) and MDMA (Schedule I). The methoxy substitution pattern modifies the molecule’s binding affinity at serotonin receptors, producing a distinct but related psychoactive effect.⁷

MMDA has been listed in Schedule I since the Controlled Substances Act was signed into law on October 27, 1970. It appears at 21 CFR § 1308.11(d) alongside its structural relatives MDA, MDMA, and the dimethoxy-substituted amphetamines that Shulgin spent a career cataloguing. Manufacturing, distributing, or possessing it carries the same penalties as heroin.⁸

III. The Unscheduled Precursor

Myristicin is a naturally occurring allylbenzene compound found in the volatile oil fraction of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans Houtt.), where it constitutes between four and twelve percent of the essential oil by weight depending on the source, variety, and extraction method. Its CAS registry number is 607-91-0. Its molecular formula is C₁₁H₁₂O₃.⁹

The structural relationship between myristicin and MMDA is not a matter of interpretive chemistry. It is a matter of atomic inventory. Both molecules contain eleven carbon atoms. Both contain a 3,4-methylenedioxy ring fused to an aromatic benzene ring. Both bear a methoxy substituent at the 5-position. The sole structural difference is at the side chain: where MMDA has an amphetamine moiety (a propan-2-amine), myristicin has an allyl group (a prop-2-en-1-yl). The conversion from one to the other requires the addition of a single nitrogen atom through a process called transamination, the replacement of a carbon-carbon double bond with a carbon-nitrogen bond.¹⁰

This is not a theoretical possibility. It is a documented metabolic pathway. In 1966, Alexander Shulgin himself hypothesized that the psychoactive effects of nutmeg could be explained by in vivo amination of myristicin to produce MMDA. The hypothesis was based on the known capacity of mammalian enzyme systems to perform transamination reactions on allylbenzene compounds. Shulgin noted that myristicin’s structure was “tantalizingly close” to that of an active amphetamine and that the biotransformation required was “well within the known capability of mammalian biochemistry.”¹¹

Subsequent research has confirmed that myristicin is indeed metabolized to MMDA in the human body. A pharmacological review published in peer-reviewed literature states the metabolic pathway directly: “Myristicin is metabolized in the body to 3-methoxy-4,5-methylenedioxyamphetamine, also known as MMDA.”¹² MMDA is a sympathomimetic compound with hallucinogenic properties, and it is believed to be the compound responsible for nutmeg’s documented psychoactive effects at high doses.¹³

The DEA is familiar with Alexander Shulgin’s work. The agency relied on his published research, including data from PiHKAL, to support the scheduling of multiple substances. Shulgin held DEA Schedule I researcher license number 1835008 for decades. When the DEA raided his laboratory in 1994, it was because it found his research too useful to the wrong people, not because it doubted the accuracy of his chemistry.¹⁴

Shulgin’s research demonstrated that myristicin is a metabolic precursor to MMDA. His research demonstrated that MMDA is a hallucinogen. The DEA scheduled MMDA. It did not schedule myristicin. It did not investigate nutmeg. It moved on to the next synthetic compound in the next clandestine laboratory and left the spice rack undisturbed.

IV. The Pharmacological Record

Nutmeg intoxication is not a folk legend. It is a clinical entity with a documented literature stretching back more than a century. The toxic effects of large doses of nutmeg were first reported in the medical literature in 1576 by the Flemish physician Lobelius, who documented a case of a “pregnant English woman who, having eaten ten or twelve nutmegs, became deliriously inebriated.”¹⁵

The modern clinical literature is extensive. A ten-year retrospective study of the Illinois Poison Center from 2001 to 2011, published in the Journal of Medical Toxicology, documented thirty-two cases of nutmeg exposure reported to the center. Of these, 68.8 percent involved intentional abuse. Four patients required hospitalization, presenting with tachycardia, agitation, and hallucinations. All recovered, though one required ventilator support.¹⁶

A separate study of the California Poison Control System documented 119 cases of nutmeg ingestion over a comparable period, with the majority involving intentional recreational use by adolescents.¹⁷ The Texas Poison Centers reported seventeen cases from 1998 to 2004, of which 64.7 percent involved intentional abuse.¹⁸

The National Poison Data System, maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, tracks exposure rates across all U.S. poison centers. A study published in Clinical Toxicology analyzing NPDS data from 2000 to 2017 found a sixty-four percent increase in the rate of nutmeg exposure over the study period, even as most other natural psychoactive substances showed declining rates. Only marijuana and kratom showed larger increases during the same interval.¹⁹

In 2020 and 2021, the trend accelerated. A TikTok “nutmeg challenge” encouraged users to consume large quantities of ground nutmeg and document the resulting psychoactive effects on social media. The Swiss National Poison Information Center (Tox Info Suisse) documented 236 patient inquiries related to possible nutmeg intoxication from 2014 to 2023, with the peak years of thirty inquiries each coinciding precisely with the TikTok challenge and the COVID-19 pandemic home-baking surge.²⁰

The clinical presentation of nutmeg intoxication is consistent across the literature: tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, agitation, dry mouth, mydriasis, flushing, and, at higher doses, hallucinations, dissociation, and altered perception of time. The onset is delayed, typically four to eight hours after ingestion, and the effects persist for twenty-four to seventy-two hours. The toxidrome is consistent with sympathomimetic stimulation, which is consistent with the production of an amphetamine-class metabolite, which is consistent with the conversion of myristicin to MMDA.

Every one of these cases involved the ingestion of a substance that the FDA classifies as Generally Recognized as Safe.

V. The Regulatory Contradiction

The Food and Drug Administration’s regulation at 21 CFR § 182.10 lists spices that are “generally recognized as safe for their intended use.” The regulation was promulgated under the authority of section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which governs food additives. The list includes allspice, basil, cinnamon, oregano, and sixty-three other substances. It includes nutmeg. Specifically, it lists “Nutmeg” with the botanical designation “Myristica fragrans Houtt.”²¹

GRAS status is not a trivial regulatory classification. It is the FDA’s formal determination that a substance is safe for its intended use based on the views of qualified experts and a history of common use in food. The classification exempts the substance from the premarket approval requirements that apply to food additives. It means that no manufacturer is required to demonstrate the safety of nutmeg before adding it to a pumpkin pie, an eggnog, or a béchamel sauce. The FDA has already determined that it is safe.²²

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s own scheduling decisions, codified at 21 CFR § 1308.11, list MMDA under Schedule I, subsection (d), which covers “hallucinogenic substances.” The entry reads: “3-Methoxy-4,5-methylenedioxy amphetamine.”²³

These two regulatory determinations coexist in the same volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Chapter I, Part 182 says that nutmeg is safe to eat. Title 21, Chapter II, Part 1308 says that the substance the human body produces when it metabolizes nutmeg’s primary psychoactive compound is a Schedule I controlled substance indistinguishable from heroin for purposes of federal penalties. The two agencies share a title. They do not share notes.

The Federal Analogue Act does not contain an exception for substances classified as GRAS. It does not contain an exception for substances that have been consumed as food for five centuries. It does not contain an exception for substances sold in the baking aisle. Its triggering condition is “intended for human consumption.” The FDA’s own classification is a formal, binding, regulatory determination that nutmeg is intended for human consumption. The statute’s applicability condition is satisfied by a sister agency’s own regulation.

VI. The Enforcement Pattern

The DEA has enforced the Federal Analogue Act aggressively since its enactment. The agency has used the statute to prosecute manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of synthetic cannabinoids (marketed as “K2,” “Spice,” and “herbal incense”), substituted cathinones (marketed as “bath salts”), novel benzodiazepine analogues, and various phenethylamine derivatives. In 2012 alone, the DEA conducted “Operation Log Jam,” a nationwide enforcement action targeting synthetic drug distributors that resulted in more than ninety arrests, the seizure of five million packets of synthetic cannabinoids, and the service of more than two hundred search warrants in thirty-five states.²⁴

The Second Circuit, in United States v. Roberts, 363 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2004), upheld an analogue conviction where the government’s expert testified that the defendant’s substance was “substantially similar” to a scheduled compound based on shared structural features, including ring substitution patterns and side-chain modifications.²⁵ The structural features the court credited as establishing “substantial similarity” were, in kind, the same features shared by myristicin and MMDA: a conserved aromatic ring system with shared substituent groups and a side chain differing by a single functional group transformation.

In United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh Circuit affirmed an analogue conviction for 1,4-butanediol, a substance whose claim to analogue status rested on the fact that it is metabolized in the human body into gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), a Schedule I depressant. The court held that a substance need not be pharmacologically active in its native form to qualify as an analogue if it is converted into a scheduled substance upon ingestion. The metabolic conversion was sufficient.²⁶

This is precisely the relationship between myristicin and MMDA. Myristicin is not itself a potent hallucinogen at typical dietary doses. It is converted into one by the body’s own enzymatic machinery. The Seventh Circuit has already held that metabolic conversion into a scheduled substance satisfies the analogue test. The legal precedent exists. The chemical evidence exists. The pharmacological record exists.

What does not exist is a single DEA investigation, a single search warrant, a single indictment, or a single enforcement letter directed at any entity that manufactures, distributes, or sells nutmeg in the United States.

VII. The Scale of Non-Compliance

McCormick & Company, Incorporated, is the world’s largest spice company, headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland. In its fiscal year 2025 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company reported net sales of approximately $6.7 billion across its Consumer and Flavor Solutions segments. McCormick’s consumer products are distributed through grocery retailers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, and e-commerce platforms in more than 170 countries and territories.²⁷

McCormick manufactures and distributes ground nutmeg in multiple product formats, including individual jars, canisters, and “pumpkin pie spice” blends in which nutmeg is a listed ingredient. These products are available in the spice aisle of virtually every major grocery chain in the United States. They carry a nutrition facts panel, an ingredient list, and a UPC barcode. They do not carry a DEA registration number. McCormick is not registered with the DEA as a manufacturer or distributor of controlled substances. It is not required to maintain records of its nutmeg distribution under the Controlled Substances Act. It does not file suspicious activity reports when a customer purchases three jars of ground nutmeg in a single transaction.²⁸

The American Spice Trade Association has estimated that Americans purchase and consume approximately 800 million pounds of spices annually. Nutmeg is among the most commonly stocked spices in American households. A 2020 survey by the market research firm Statista found that approximately thirty-five percent of American households reported having nutmeg in their pantries, a figure that rises sharply during the fourth quarter of each year as eggnog, pumpkin pie, and holiday baking demand peaks.²⁹

There are approximately 131 million households in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. If thirty-five percent of them contain nutmeg, then approximately 45.9 million American households are in possession of a substance whose primary psychoactive compound is metabolized by the human body into a Schedule I controlled substance. Each of these households contains a quantity of myristicin sufficient, at extreme doses documented in the clinical literature, to produce sympathomimetic and hallucinogenic effects consistent with the ingestion of an amphetamine-class psychoactive substance.³⁰

The DEA’s own website provides an online registration portal at deadiversion.usdoj.gov through which manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, and researchers may apply for a registration number under 21 U.S.C. § 823. The portal has received zero applications from McCormick & Company, Walmart Inc., The Kroger Co., Costco Wholesale Corporation, or any other entity whose primary interaction with nutmeg involves placing it on a shelf next to the cinnamon.

VIII. The Thanksgiving Problem

Pumpkin pie is a traditional Thanksgiving dessert in the United States. The canonical recipe, as published by The Joy of Cooking and reproduced in substantially similar form by the Libby’s brand (a subsidiary of Nestlé S.A.) on the back of every can of pumpkin purée sold in the country, calls for one-half teaspoon of ground nutmeg among its spice ingredients. One-half teaspoon of ground nutmeg weighs approximately 1.1 grams. Ground nutmeg contains approximately four to twelve percent myristicin by weight in its volatile oil fraction, and the volatile oil itself constitutes approximately five to fifteen percent of the whole spice by weight.³¹

The National Turkey Federation estimates that approximately 46 million turkeys are consumed on Thanksgiving Day. If even a fraction of the households consuming those turkeys also prepare a pumpkin pie, then Thanksgiving represents the single largest annual mass-distribution event of a substance containing a Schedule I controlled substance precursor in the history of the United States. The distribution is conducted openly, in kitchens, by individuals who have not been investigated, licensed, registered, or even questioned by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The DEA’s Diversion Control Division maintains a network of field offices across the country tasked with preventing the diversion of controlled substances from legitimate channels to illicit use. The Division employs approximately six hundred diversion investigators. None of them have ever been assigned to the holiday baking season.

The Federal Analogue Act was enacted to prevent chemists from evading drug scheduling by making minor structural modifications to controlled substances. Its text does not distinguish between modifications made in a clandestine laboratory in Shenzhen and modifications unmade by the Myristica fragrans tree over the course of its sixty-million-year evolutionary history. The tree did not consult the Code of Federal Regulations before developing its biosynthetic pathway. The DEA did not consult the tree before scheduling MMDA.

The result is a regulatory framework in which the FDA has formally classified a substance as safe to eat, the DEA has formally classified the substance the body produces when you eat it as equivalent to heroin, and neither agency has acknowledged the contradiction. Title 21 of the United States Code contains both determinations. They have coexisted, undisturbed, for fifty-six years.

Ergo.