AUBURNDALE, FL. Back in January 2026, a state inspector walked into Chill Harbor Inc., a specialty hemp shop on the Auburndale retail strip, and left behind eight stop sale orders, two repeat violations, and a supplemental report issued directly to management.
The inspection, conducted January 8 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, was classified as a product re-inspection tied to the shop operating without a valid food permit. None of the five violations documented that day were corrected on site.
What Inspectors Found
The inspector's first flagged item was direct: hemp or hemp extract products for human consumption were present in the shop that were "attractive to children, containing color additives," in violation of Florida Statute 581.217(3)(a). That violation had been documented before. It was marked repeat.
The second repeat violation involved kratom. Under Florida emergency rule 5KER25-6, kratom products sold for human consumption must carry labels disclosing the concentration of 7-Hydroxymitragynine, known as 7-OH, expressed in "parts per million (PPM) on a dry-weight basis" of the net package contents. The inspector found products on the shelves that did not meet that standard.
The inspector also noted that products in the retail area "intended for consumption does not include the ingredients, and or state proprietary blend, not defining content ingredients." Customers picking up those items had no way to know what was in them.
Eight Products Pulled
State inspectors issued eight separate stop sale orders during the January visit. Three were issued under Florida Statute 581.217(7)(e), the section governing distribution, retail sale, and advertising of hemp products. Five more were issued under Florida food law for a single reason: the products were obtained from an unapproved source.
No brand names, lot numbers, or package sizes were recorded in the stop sale documentation made available in public records. The specific items pulled from shelves are not identified in the data.
What the record does show is that five separate products in the shop could not be traced back to a verified, approved supplier. Under Florida food law, that is not a paperwork problem. It means the origin, handling history, and safety of those products is unknown.
What These Violations Mean
The unapproved source findings are the most consequential items in this inspection record. When a product cannot be traced to an approved source, there is no chain of custody. If a customer gets sick, investigators have no starting point. For hemp and kratom products, which are already subject to limited federal oversight, that traceability gap is especially significant.
The kratom labeling violation carries a specific public health weight. 7-Hydroxymitragynine is the compound in kratom associated with opioid-like effects and, at high concentrations, with serious adverse outcomes. Florida's emergency rule requiring PPM disclosure on labels exists precisely so consumers can make informed decisions about dosage. Products without that disclosure give buyers no meaningful information about what they are consuming.
The hemp products flagged as "attractive to children, containing color additives" fall under a separate but related concern. Florida law restricts the sale of hemp edibles and extracts designed or packaged in ways that appeal to minors. A product sitting on a retail shelf that looks like candy or a brightly colored snack presents a direct accidental ingestion risk.
The missing ingredient disclosures compound all of this. A customer with an allergy, a medication interaction, or a health condition has no way to evaluate a product that lists no ingredients and discloses no proprietary blend contents.
The Longer Record
The January 8 inspection was classified as a re-inspection, meaning state regulators had already visited Chill Harbor Inc. and found problems serious enough to require a follow-up. The two repeat violations confirm that at least some of what inspectors found in January had been documented on a prior visit and had not been resolved.
The inspection data available does not specify how many prior inspections are on record for this location or the exact dates of earlier visits. What the record does show is that the shop was operating without a valid food permit at the time of this inspection, and that two of the five violations found were not new findings.
Zero violations were corrected on site during the January visit. The stop sale orders remained in place at the conclusion of the inspection. The supplemental report issued to management during the visit, which the inspector noted "includes important information for management," is not reproduced in the public inspection record.