Interrogatory and Vendor Updates - Root of Happiness 30% Kava Extract

[Zac Imiola (Herbalist)]

" He was just playing nice by providing these CoAs. Really they're made for when the FDA comes a knockin', not for scrutinizing forum members."

I really don't find this helpful for the way in which we are going as a community.. ECSPECIALLY for extracts of ANY kind.. if a vendor cannot afford to get a COA then that's one thing as the case with @Squanch72 since he's a small timer, but if he were to HAVE COAS and then choose not to share them that's another issue entirely ... I don't think we take for granted the access we have to vendors such as yourself, it's an amazing thing we have going on here and COA access is a very essential and unique aspect to what we're doing here.. I don't want at anytime COAs to become some kind of privelage rather than a right. that just doesn't seem right...
That is how everyother organization like ciggaretes works... the FDA can see what's their but we can't ? that's not right.

Scrutiny is very helpful ... just do it in a positive and beneficial way. Excess negativity in the posts is obviously the problem not the interagation

 

[Bula Kava House]

" He was just playing nice by providing these CoAs. Really they're made for when the FDA comes a knockin', not for scrutinizing forum members."

I really don't find this helpful for the way in which we are going as a community.. ECSPECIALLY for extracts of ANY kind.. if a vendor cannot afford to get a COA then that's one thing as the case with @Squanch72 since he's a small timer, but if he were to HAVE COAS and then choose not to share them that's another issue entirely ... I don't think we take for granted the access we have to vendors such as yourself, it's an amazing thing we have going on here and COA access is a very essential and unique aspect to what we're doing here.. I don't want at anytime COAs to become some kind of privelage rather than a right. that just doesn't seem right...
That is how everyother organization like ciggaretes works... the FDA can see what's their but we can't ? that's not right.

Scrutiny is very helpful ... just do it in a positive and beneficial way. Excess negativity in the posts is obviously the problem not the interagation

" He was just playing nice by providing these CoAs. Really they're made for when the FDA comes a knockin', not for scrutinizing forum members."

I really don't find this helpful for the way in which we are going as a community.. ECSPECIALLY for extracts of ANY kind.. if a vendor cannot afford to get a COA then that's one thing as the case with @Squanch72 since he's a small timer, but if he were to HAVE COAS and then choose not to share them that's another issue entirely ... I don't think we take for granted the access we have to vendors such as yourself, it's an amazing thing we have going on here and COA access is a very essential and unique aspect to what we're doing here.. I don't want at anytime COAs to become some kind of privelage rather than a right. that just doesn't seem right...
That is how everyother organization like ciggaretes works... the FDA can see what's their but we can't ? that's not right.

Scrutiny is very helpful ... just do it in a positive and beneficial way. Excess negativity in the posts is obviously the problem not the interagation

I totally agree about the CoAs, and must assume that so does ROH, which is why they their CoAs here, and why we at Bula Kava House happily provide them when asked. *We have new ones for our products being created right now. All the tests are done and we're compiling the information. Once they're finished I'll post them on our products page. If you have a good product a CoA is a great selling point, but their best function is to make sure we are doing our due diligence for quality control, and so we can prove that to the FDA or whoever. Because if we can't we might be saying bye bye to our sacred root. I don't think not being able to afford to test is a great excuse though. I'm all for small timers, we once were one, but they need to be working quickly toward being compliant, otherwise it's a danger to the industry as a whole. I, or @Tyler at the AKA, who knows more about this stuff than I do, would be happy to talk to any small vendor about trying to find an affordable way to be compliant. All they have to do is ask.

As for scrutiny, I'm also for all that. Like you, I just think it should be done in a friendly and unbiased manner.

Thanks for the level headed input, @Mrbinx69.

 

[verticity]

I totally agree about the CoAs, and must assume that so does ROH, which is why they their CoAs here, and why we at Bula Kava House happily provide them when asked. *We have new ones for our products being created right now. All the tests are done and we're compiling the information. Once they're finished I'll post them on our products page. If you have a good product a CoA is a great selling point, but their best function is to make sure we are doing our due diligence for quality control, and so we can prove that to the FDA or whoever. Because if we can't we might be saying bye bye to our sacred root. I don't think not being able to afford to test is a great excuse though. I'm all for small timers, we once were one, but they need to be working quickly toward being compliant, otherwise it's a danger to the industry as a whole. I, or @Tyler at the AKA, who knows more about this stuff than I do, would be happy to talk to any small vendor about trying to find an affordable way to be compliant. All they have to do is ask.

As for scrutiny, I'm also for all that. Like you, I just think it should be done in a friendly and unbiased manner.

Thanks for the level headed input, @Mrbinx69.

That's great, but how can ROH prove anything to the FDA using a document that they created themselves? I know in your case the AKA is a third party relative to BKH, but in the case of ROH it is not.

 

[Bula Kava House]

That's great, but how can ROH prove anything to the FDA using a document that they created themselves? I know in your case the AKA is a third party relative to BKH, but in the case of ROH it is not.

Good question. The AKA is an independent 501c3 non-profit so with regards to the FDA and ROH, this would be a valid document. If the FDA wanted to they could request the raw data from the labs, which would be provided.

 

[kasa_balavu]

@Bula Kava House If a vendor is falsely advertising their product, should they be called out for it?
I'd like to know if you're against exposing bad behavior by vendors in general, or only against doing so in an impolite manner.

The AKA is an independent 501c3 non-profit so with regards to the FDA and ROH, this would be a valid document

On paper, yes. In practice ROH employees sell and market the product, and ROH employees fill out the COA's issued under the letterhead of the AKA. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

EDIT 1: Even the signature of Cory Sitter (the "QA Manager" supposedly signing off on all these AKA COA's), who as far as I can tell is a consultant, appears to be copy-pasted into all the COA's.

EDIT 2: It is entirely possible that this Cory Sitter has a surgeons hand-eye coordination and all his signatures match up pixel-perfectly, in which case I would be wrong about the above (see EDIT 1).

 

[TheKavaSociety]

@Bula Kava House
EDIT 1: Even the signature of Cory Sitter (the "QA Manager" supposedly signing off on all these AKA COA's), who as far as I can tell is a consultant, appears to be copy-pasted into all the COA's.

EDIT 2: It is entirely possible that this Cory Sitter has a surgeons hand-eye coordination and all his signatures match up pixel-perfectly, in which case I would be wrong about the above (see EDIT 1).

Well, to be fair I think it's a pretty standard practice for organisations, politicians, etc paste the same scan of their signature into all of their paperwork. As long as there's a different date and they do stand by the signed papers, there's nothing wrong with it. I mean, we all work with computers, I don't think it would be environmentally desirable for all the certificates to be physically printed, physically signed and then scanned and uploaded again.
And even when people do physically print their documents, they sometimes use such machines as this one:



(I've just seen this machine here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4835480/ it's an excellent series!)

 

[verticity]

@Bula Kava House If a vendor is falsely advertising their product, should they be called out for it?
I'd like to know if you're against exposing bad behavior by vendors in general, or only against doing so in an impolite manner.


On paper, yes. In practice ROH employees sell and market the product, and ROH employees fill out the COA's issued under the letterhead of the AKA. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

EDIT 1: Even the signature of Cory Sitter (the "QA Manager" supposedly signing off on all these AKA COA's), who as far as I can tell is a consultant, appears to be copy-pasted into all the COA's.

EDIT 2: It is entirely possible that this Cory Sitter has a surgeons hand-eye coordination and all his signatures match up pixel-perfectly, in which case I would be wrong about the above (see EDIT 1).

To be fair, the "QA" person who signed the document appears to be an independent consultant, not an ROH employee. Although he is a consultant who works for the AKA, which is run by Tyler. So, he is basically employed the AKA, which is run by Tyler, and Tyler also owns ROH. I'm sure it's perfectly legal, and I am not alleging it is not or anything. But calling the document a "third party" document is questionable. If ROH did publish the real COAs from the actual labs that do the analysis, that would be better IMO.

 

[TheKavaSociety]

I think the mere fact that Tyler manages AKA doesn't mean that his certificates are by default invalid or unreliable. It may however create an impression of a conflict of interest. And not only when it comes to the credibility of ROH, but, for instance, if AKA was to publish COAs of the products sold by ROH's competitors. When they show great results, everyone's happy but perhaps some vendors might be reluctant to join or trust a system with strong links to their competitor. I don't know. I suppose it's a matter of trust and personal interactions between different members. In any case, I think that the very fact that ROH has access to the testing equipment and has invested so much in the whole testing system suggests to me that they do not want to sell crap. It would be incredibly stupid to invest in the whole set up and then sell shitty stuff backed up by fake test results. This would literally be a death sentence to the credibility of both ROH and AKA.
At the same time, I do think that those who want to run a testing organisation or those who want to make claims to specific properties of their products should be open to answering all questions from potential customers and the wider kava community. Just my opinion.

 

[verticity]

Well, to be fair I think it's a pretty standard practice for organisations, politicians, etc paste the same scan of their signature into all of their paperwork. As long as there's a different date and they do stand by the signed papers, there's nothing wrong with it. I mean, we all work with computers, I don't think it would be environmentally desirable for all the certificates to be physically printed, physically signed and then scanned and uploaded again.
And even when people do physically print their documents, they sometimes use such machines as this one:

View attachment 7151

(I've just seen this machine here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4835480/ it's an excellent series!)

I noticed that too, and don't consider it an issue at all. The guy is a lab consultant, whose services are probably not cheap, he has better things to be doing than hand signing papers, and then scanning them in. And I'm sure he is a legitimate consultant; I'm not questioning that.

 

[verticity]

I think the mere fact that Tyler manages AKA doesn't mean that his certificates are by default invalid or unreliable. It may however create an impression of a conflict of interest. And not only when it comes to the credibility of ROH, but, for instance, if AKA was to publish COAs of the products sold by ROH's competitors. When they show great results, everyone's happy but perhaps some vendors might be reluctant to join or trust a system with strong links to their competitor. I don't know. I suppose it's a matter of trust and personal interactions between different members. In any case, I think that the very fact that ROH has access to the testing equipment and has invested so much in the whole testing system suggests to me that they do not want to sell crap. It would be incredibly stupid to invest in the whole set up and then sell shitty stuff backed up by fake test results. This would literally be a death sentence to the credibility of both ROH and AKA.
At the same time, I do think that those who want to run a testing organisation or those who want to make claims to specific properties of their products should be open to answering all questions from potential customers and the wider kava community. Just my opinion.

Agreed. And let us just reflect upon what kind of suspicions would arise if @Deleted User were to sell his own brand of kava, in addition to running True Kava. The fact is True Kava is independent of any vendor, and the AKA is not.

 

[verticity]

... the very fact that ROH has access to the testing equipment and has invested so much in the whole testing system ...

Does the AKA actually have an in-house lab? I thought they just shipped samples out to third-party labs.

 

[kasa_balavu]

Well, to be fair I think it's a pretty standard practice for organisations, politicians, etc paste the same scan of their signature into all of their paperwork. As long as there's a different date and they do stand by the signed papers, there's nothing wrong with it. I mean, we all work with computers, I don't think it would be environmentally desirable for all the certificates to be physically printed, physically signed and then scanned and uploaded again.
And even when people do physically print their documents, they sometimes use such machines as this one:

View attachment 7151

(I've just seen this machine here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4835480/ it's an excellent series!)

Good point, @Henry, thanks.

I think that the very fact that ROH has access to the testing equipment and has invested so much in the whole testing system suggests to me that they do not want to sell crap. It would be incredibly stupid to invest in the whole set up and then sell shitty stuff backed up by fake test results.

AFAIK they don't do any testing themselves. The AKA sends off it's samples to labs that do the testing. This QA manager is just signing off on the fact that AKA/ROH/Tyler is correctly copying the data from the lab results into an AKA template. Or is that no longer the case, @Tyler? Do you now have testing equipment?

 

[verticity]

...This QA manager is just signing off on the fact that AKA/ROH/Tyler is correctly copying the data from the lab results into an AKA template. ...

It sounds more like the QA guy is a consultant who gets the reports from the labs, and copies the data from them to the AKA COA. Obviously he is not just like a secretary, but certainly is someone who is knowledgeable about lab science, so that he can interpret and compile the data correctly, which I would imagine comes from different labs in different formats. That's what is sounds like. I could be wrong, obviously.

 

[TheKavaSociety]

Agreed. And let us just reflect upon what kind of suspicions would arise if @Deleted User were to sell his own brand of kava, in addition to running True Kava. The fact is True Kava is independent of any vendor, and the AKA is not.

Yep. Hence the need for extreme transparency, in my humble opinion.
Ultimetely though it will be up to the consumers to determine what level of certification and transparency is sufficient for them. I agree that many people might find a completely independent third party organisation more "kosher", but I am sure others may also be inclined to trust an "in-house" testing system provided it's transparent there are no indications that such reports could be unreliable.

 

[verticity]

...There is one minor detail here that might add fuel to the fire but bears consideration. Every ROH and AKA COA that I have seen carries the disclaimer shown below. I'll leave it to you folks to decide how this applies to the discussion.

Disclaimer: The test results listed are accurate to the best of our knowledge and are based upon reputable labs and industry standard testing methods. These results
should not be used as a final determination for use in a finished product. It is recommended that you verify these test results with an in-house quality control
department or obtain an additional independent third party lab to verify that this material meets specifications. The American Kava Association, its board of
directors, contract laboratories, employees, and affiliates are held harmless from any loss or damages resulting from the use or misuse of this document. The
appropriate use of this product is the sole responsibility of the user of the purchasing party.
​

Hmmm... That appears to be meaningless legal gibberish that does not apply to this discussion. (The legal equivalent of a Kosher seal). Ass coverage, basically. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[kasa_balavu]

I think we can all agree that an AKA COA like this one is just fine and dandy so long as the vendor is willing to provide the source documents issued by 3rd party labs on request. That doesn't currently seem to be the case, at least for Root of Happiness.

 

[verticity]

I think we can all agree that an AKA COA like this one is just fine and dandy so long as the vendor is willing to provide the source documents issued by 3rd party labs on request. That doesn't currently seem to be the case, at least for Root of Happiness.

I wouldn't say that unless you have actually requested the source documents and been denied.

 

[Krunkie McKrunkface]

Obviously it's too late to ask a follow-up question, but since you'll be in Tonga next, ask farmers if they'd be OK with you labeling their kava as Samoan kava because you think that Samoan kava will sell better than Tongan kava. Pay close attention when you ask though. Personally I'd swallow my pride and let you call it whatever you want if you were going to pay me more than I can get at the local market.

Fwiw I am like the waitress who doesn't really care one way or another, but I recently got some RoH Samoan, out of curiosity and I like headies. The thing that struck me from the moment I opened the package was "this smells like a Tongan kava." As I was prepping it everything screams Tongan. The taste was Tongan and the effects were pleasantly Tongan. Classically and almost stereotypically Tongan.

Now don't get me wrong, this is a good kava, forgetting everything that you or I or anyone else might think or say about Tyler and RoH and his hair or their business practices, it's a fairly excellent kava. Doesn't make a lick of difference to me whether or not it is actually Samoan or Tongan. But could it be Tongan being passed off as Samoan for marketing purposes? With the proviso that I don't care as long as the kava is good and this is, I could see that. In fact, the thought did occur to me before delving back and finding this thread. Of course, as I say, I don't care. It's just interesting discussion. Kind of like the idea that Chris is guilty of importing "cheap and inferior" (?????) Vanuatu root and somehow, with his magic grinding machine, making it look, taste and feel exactly like great Hawaiian awa, as good as the real thing: I don't care at all, but it is interesting, though the Samoan/Tongan thing is also more plausible.