The tudei vs noble story didn't begin with
@Deleted User , True Kava or this forum. It really came to surface in the early 2000s when the kava market collapsed and when kava's reputation was nearly totally destroyed in Europe. Various scientisits, government officials and others started investigating the reasons why a plant with such a long history of safe use could suddenly be responsible for numerous adverse reactions and even death. It's been 15 years since that happened and we have a fairly substantial body of literature (both peer-reviewed papers and government reports) that confirm the safety of using noble kava roots in a traditional way. But from the very beginning it was clear that not all kava products exported to Europe, America etc were "noble kava roots prepared in a traditional way", so it was seen as quite likely that the new forms/types of kava had to be more closely investigated. It was quickly discovered that some of the kava exports contained leaves, stems, peelings, perhaps even mould and other impurities. In Vanuatu it was also noted that much of the exports contained the
"undrinkable" kava varieties (this is the actual terms used before the whole tudei-vs noble debate!). For most people it was fairly obvious that the exports of such products constituted a qualitative revolution and that traditional perception of kava safety could not possibly apply to products that are vastly different to those that are traditionally consumed.
In NZ back in 2002-2004 the government commissioned a big report on kava safety and concluded that traditional kava roots are safe, but there are big questions about organic extracts, leaves, stems, etc. Consequently, NZ adopted its famous "kava food standard" which makes it illegal to sell (albeit not posses) non-aqueous kava extracts, peelings, stems, leaves etc for human consumption. Only peeled roots and water extractions made from them can legally be sold here. Already back then it was noted by both government officials AND numerous submissions from various members of the public, representatives of Pacific governments and researchers (and I can assure you that
@Deleted User wasn't one of them) that it would also be very desirable to differentiate between what, they described back then as "drinkable" and "undrinkable" kava varieties. But the government concluded that back then (in 2004) there was no scientifically established way of distinguishing one from the other and decided that most traditional users posses the appropriate experience and knowledge to detect non-drinkable varieties in their traditional powders and as long as nobody will be selling strong extracts made with these varieties (or any other kava plants) the risk will remain minimal. So note two things:
1. It's been recognised that there are "undrinkable" kava varieties and that they could be more risky than "drinkable" kava varieties. This was one of the several potential risks associated with this market (in addition to aerial parts, mold, etc). So it's nothing new.
2. The government assumed that most drinkers of traditional kava are aware of the difference and hence will know what to avoid. In order to protect random people from consuming inferior kava in a concentrated form, the government banned strong extracts, pastes, tinctures and banned adding kava to food. Again, it's not illegal to make such products for one's own consumption or even to import tudei leaves. It's just illegal to sell leaves or tinctures as food to the general public.
The government of Vanuatu banned exports of "undrinkable" kava cultivars (now known as "tudei"/"two day") already more than a decade ago to protect the reputation of the entire industry. But the idea that some kava cultivars are "undrinkable" is also known elsewhere. E.g. a few years ago someone tried importing tudei to Samoa and selling it as local kava. It was a big scandal and the government was issuing warnings against "fake kava" (this is the term used for those imports) and how it was making people sick ("puking, nausea, etc).
The government of NZ was right to note that traditional drinkers will naturally reject "undrinkable kava products". The problem is that more and more drinkers are either not traditional drinkers or people who have lost connection to traditional practices. A random Chinese woman living in Chicago has no idea what "drinkable" kava should taste or feel like. She will simply assume all kava is kava, some might be strong, some might be weak, but it's all the same. A bit like with coffee. I don't think the government should be telling her what to consume, but I think it's absolutely amazing that the online community of kava drinkers has spontaneously created forums, guidelines and even associations aimed at spreading this traditional knowledge and informing the public about what's fairly obvious to all traditional consumers. This makes the whole market better, not worse. Yes, some vendors might lose their business, but many more will grow as more and more people will be getting good kava experience.
