To address:
"With no specific criteria, we could call anything "noble", but the word as it relates to kava includes a specific group of cultivars from Vanuatu ONLY. " -BKH
But there ARE criteria. Lebot specified the criteria that makes a kava a good kava. (I will post a video further expounding on this again soon, as it seems to be important, even thought I thought we were already past this.) So, you could not call anything "noble" as there are indeed criteria. Lactone content, for instance, with a higher proportion of K and DHK. Basically, I would say that according to Lebot's estimation, anything in the Codex Alimentarius Comission E from the WHO, regardless of nation of origin, could be considered "noble," as they have been deemed safe, are sterile, somatic cultivars, lack the soluble solids in other kavas - including flavokavains, etc. My understanding is that every safely drinkable kava from every producing nation has been laid out in that paper. Thus, they could all be called noble, and it is a shame that a semantic issue is being made out of something where safety should be a concern.
Frankly, It is not like there are kavas out there waiting to be discovered. We know what kavas exist that are drinkable, and there are a finite number of them. Lebot, as well as Roxanne Naylor pretty much cataloged the kavas out there over the years, they are noble (regularly drinkable) tudei/medicinal and wichmanaii varieties, and cultures of origin also recognize them as such. To split hairs does a disservice, as does making up chemotypes that may or may not exist. chemotypes are genertically determined, and we know which ones are out there per which cultivar, per the organs of that cultivar. As per " it would still be a set of guidelines known only to a small set of people, and wouldn't include the hundreds of kava farmers who have had the growing and use of this sacred plant in their blood and culture for centuries." I m quite sure that the Codex for kava was formulated with their input, as well as that of scientists.
As per the soluble solids that make up the color of the final tincture not being known - that is true; however we know that if you wind up with an orange/amber color, or a brown one, it is not a noble (or otherwise drinkable kava, to continue to split hairs) and that it will more than likely contain a significant amount of FKB. The other kavas on the Codex should tincture yellow as well. The peer review should be published on this particular conundrum by the end of the year, and then there should be much less to debate over. Frankly, I do not understand the point of muddying the water. Shouldn't accountability be valued over efficiency in this case, and safety over a desired long-lasting head buzz?
Lastly, the cytotoxicity of FKB in the Zhou study has been shown to be both in vitro AND in vivo - both in HepG3 and L-02 cells. Rats were colonized with the cell lines, and FKB administered to them, with toxicity displayed in both the cell line obtained from a hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG3), and also the immortalized fetal cell line (L-02.) There is much more to that study than simply the abstract. I know the stuff (tudei) has a "cult" following here (in the US), but why does there seem to be such a strong desire to defend the consumption of tudei kava, when the safety is not proven? Every expert on the subject that I am aware of says that it should not be used as a drinking kava. If you want a long lasting buzz - just have another shell of something! Not to mention, the molecules that provide for a long-lasting buzz are generally the same ones that cause nausea anyway.
I have uploaded a copy of the Codex of kava for your enjoyment. I will also stick it in the science section.
Cheers!
~Iahi
"With no specific criteria, we could call anything "noble", but the word as it relates to kava includes a specific group of cultivars from Vanuatu ONLY. " -BKH
But there ARE criteria. Lebot specified the criteria that makes a kava a good kava. (I will post a video further expounding on this again soon, as it seems to be important, even thought I thought we were already past this.) So, you could not call anything "noble" as there are indeed criteria. Lactone content, for instance, with a higher proportion of K and DHK. Basically, I would say that according to Lebot's estimation, anything in the Codex Alimentarius Comission E from the WHO, regardless of nation of origin, could be considered "noble," as they have been deemed safe, are sterile, somatic cultivars, lack the soluble solids in other kavas - including flavokavains, etc. My understanding is that every safely drinkable kava from every producing nation has been laid out in that paper. Thus, they could all be called noble, and it is a shame that a semantic issue is being made out of something where safety should be a concern.
Frankly, It is not like there are kavas out there waiting to be discovered. We know what kavas exist that are drinkable, and there are a finite number of them. Lebot, as well as Roxanne Naylor pretty much cataloged the kavas out there over the years, they are noble (regularly drinkable) tudei/medicinal and wichmanaii varieties, and cultures of origin also recognize them as such. To split hairs does a disservice, as does making up chemotypes that may or may not exist. chemotypes are genertically determined, and we know which ones are out there per which cultivar, per the organs of that cultivar. As per " it would still be a set of guidelines known only to a small set of people, and wouldn't include the hundreds of kava farmers who have had the growing and use of this sacred plant in their blood and culture for centuries." I m quite sure that the Codex for kava was formulated with their input, as well as that of scientists.
As per the soluble solids that make up the color of the final tincture not being known - that is true; however we know that if you wind up with an orange/amber color, or a brown one, it is not a noble (or otherwise drinkable kava, to continue to split hairs) and that it will more than likely contain a significant amount of FKB. The other kavas on the Codex should tincture yellow as well. The peer review should be published on this particular conundrum by the end of the year, and then there should be much less to debate over. Frankly, I do not understand the point of muddying the water. Shouldn't accountability be valued over efficiency in this case, and safety over a desired long-lasting head buzz?
Lastly, the cytotoxicity of FKB in the Zhou study has been shown to be both in vitro AND in vivo - both in HepG3 and L-02 cells. Rats were colonized with the cell lines, and FKB administered to them, with toxicity displayed in both the cell line obtained from a hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG3), and also the immortalized fetal cell line (L-02.) There is much more to that study than simply the abstract. I know the stuff (tudei) has a "cult" following here (in the US), but why does there seem to be such a strong desire to defend the consumption of tudei kava, when the safety is not proven? Every expert on the subject that I am aware of says that it should not be used as a drinking kava. If you want a long lasting buzz - just have another shell of something! Not to mention, the molecules that provide for a long-lasting buzz are generally the same ones that cause nausea anyway.
I have uploaded a copy of the Codex of kava for your enjoyment. I will also stick it in the science section.
Cheers!
~Iahi
