There are a lot of complex interrelated issues here. Let me just list them without getting into my positions:
1) What is being proposed is a kind of governing body for Kava quality control. It's a body that will have no legal backing or legitimacy. The closest thing I could think of would be a "Fair Trade" or "Organic" labeling federation - both of which have usually worked against the interests of small actors.
2) Tudei is at the heart of the controversy. There is no substantial evidence that Tudei is unhealthy, particularly when you compare it to other substances like ethanol.
3) There is an economic component. Some vendors have decided to go with TK, other have decided to abstain. There are implications for winners and losers in all of this. That's bound to create huge fault lines in this community.
4) Probably the most important topic is the issue of Kava's legality. Does TK help or hurt? That remains to be seen. We can all agree that Kava shouldn't be mixed with stuff that make it unhealthy. But, again, Tudei was never the issue with the European ban. The reason that the Vanuatu laws came into effect was as a response to a completely different issue. So we are discussing regulating the thing that they got wrong.
5) I have good relationships with many vendors. I don't want to get into names and particular vendors. But I know as a significant member of this community that there is a lot of anger, hurt, and pain surrounding the rise (and fall) of TK.
6) It is undeniable that TK has had a positive effect in many aspects of the Kava market and the availability of good, clean Noble Kava.
If that's not all complicated enough, I don't know what is. Hence this thread. There is good and bad that has come out of all of this. We just need to get the story straight.
.
1. TK has never proposed to to become a "governing body". Merely a grass root community quality watchdog. There are hundreds of such organisations in all sorts of markets. Their legitimacy always rests solely on the trust and support of those who choose to follow their recommendations. Far from seeking to establish an unaccountable monopoly, Garry has been almost desperately calling for more people to follow his lead or to help him with his testing. Nobody has been willing/able to help him or run a similar service.
So, what's your proposal? Garry should stop testing? People should stop testing? People should stop trusting tests? What's the actual message that you have? You claim you just want to hear different "narratives", but then imply that the only volunteer who's been doing testing for the community is the equivalent of some federation that you "have worked against" and that you oppose. This suggests that you do oppose Garry's voluntary and generous testings in the name of... what? Vendors that fail tests?
One of the vendors who kept failing tests came here once and pleaded for the standards to be lowered and not to publish up to 25% spiking (or whatever that was) as "spiked" because he wasn't able to get anything better. Would you argue that Garry and other tests should have said "yea mate, sure, no worries, we will now be claiming that 25% of spiking is fine and will label it as 100% noble because otherwise you lose your customers, no worries mate. It doesn't matter that people like Mike etc have been able to find 100% noble, you are right that we should protect your business, mate, it's obviously way more important than your customers". ?
2. Not only tudei. Stems, leaves, peelings have also been seen as a problem. There are still vendors who sell kava stems! But yes, tudei is also a big issue. You claim that there is no substantial evidence to suggest it's unhealthy. There are strong indications that it might be substantially less safe than noble though as highlighted by virtually all kava scientists. A few quotes (from TK's website):
"In the case of kava, the determination of suitable qualities is reflected by the secular experience in the Pacific. In this region, experience tells that noble cultivars are safe and deliver the appropriate physiological effects with no hang-over. However, experience with two-days cultivars, indicates that they might possibly be connected with observations of liver toxicity."
Dr. Vincent Lebot, "
Detection of flavokavins (A, B, C) in cultivars of kava using HPTLC", 2013
"Noble cultivars are considered by Pacific practitioners as the safest as no incidences of liver toxicity has been linked to their traditional social use."
Angelique F. Showman et al "
Contemporary Pacific and Western perspectives on `awa (Piper methysticum) toxicology", 2014
“Calculations and comparison of known toxicity data with flavokavin contents of noble and two-day kava underline that there is a potential problem with the safety of non-noble varieties."
Dr. Mathias Schmidt, "
Islands Business", Suva Fiji, 2014
"Adverse reactions emerged unexpectedly in face of the apparent safe traditional use of kava for thousands of years; these reactions were most probably a consequence of poor-quality raw kava material employed in the manufacture of a few kava extracts."
Dr. Rolf Teschke, "Kava and the Risk of Liver Toxicity: Past, Current, and Future", 2011.
Do you have any quotes that would claim otherwise?
Tudei might be healthier than ethanol. But ethanol is healthier than asbestos and asbestos is healthier than industrial bleach mixed with uranium. The fact that tudei is healthier than ethanol doesn't mean it's exactly as risk free and beneficial as noble.
3. Legality. The NZ example demonstrates that identifying risky factors helps to keep the market alive. NZ government identified that kava as a traditional beverage is safe. It noted that by traditional it meant a beverage made by water extraction of roots of the plant. It also noted that there are "undrinkable" kava varieties, but it considered that traditional drinkers will be able to detetect and avoid them due to their experience with "drinkable" kava varieties. So in the end acetonic, ethanolic extracts of kava, kava leaves, etc have all been been banned (selling them for human consumption). Traditional kava can be sold with a short mandatory statement: "May cause drowsiness. Use in moderation". Initially they wanted to push for that FDA "may harm the liver" crap, but decided that this doesn't apply to traditional kava. This legislation has hurt big businesses producing extracts as well as big crooks selling leaves etc (though we know some are still selling aerial parts of the plant, but at least not in the form of strong extracs). It has protected the reputation of traditional growers and consumers.
I personally believe that it is not the business of government to make men virtuous, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. But I also ultimately want to enjoy good kava. So if the government insists on creating a kava legislation I prefer that it does so in accordance with the scientific recommendations and traditional knowledge. And these suggest that certain kava products are more risky than others. What you effectively propose is to loudly claim that this isn't true and that all kava products should be seen as legit as they might be "safer than ethanol". I fear that such an approach will lead to a situation where all kava products will continue to be seen as risky because some might be causing adverse reactions.
