"We are very, very close to having a regional standard for kava"

[Kojo Douglas]

Coffee and caffeine pills exist side-by side in the market. Caffeine overdoses kill people every now and then, but this has never prompted legislative action against coffee.
I'm hopeful that this is a step towards that for the kava industry.

I’m not going to go down this rabbit hole too far, but I would comment that things like coffee and booze are embedded in mainstream American culture, while Kava definitely isn’t.

Again, I feel like the community has mostly found a good place. I don’t think much is going to change - and that’s good.

Bula!

 

[SelfBiasResistor]

The caffeine/coffee to KLs/kava is not an apples to apples comparison. Caffeine is known to be produced by more than 50 plants, KLs are produced by kava. Most products with added caffeine use synthetic caffeine. Caffeine extracted from coffee is often sold as "coffee bean extract". I understand the desire to separate water extracted kava from the other extraction methods but claiming KL extracts are not a kava product is just going to confuse people, since it is in fact a kava/p. methysticum product. That's the last thing we need if we consider kava legality and availability in the US.

 

[verticity]

I think August 2019 was the last time the Draft was distributed.

I found this document from August with comments on the proposed standard (by searching the FAO's public web site). I'll upload it and the July draft here so everyone can see them easily.

(So to answer @Zaphod's question, yes the comment in Section 8 of the August document by "USA" does sort of indirectly address my concerns in that thread you brought up. "USA" actually has a number of good comments. So I will be curious to see what makes it into the final version. I would imagine the public comments are probably the tip of the iceberg as far as what is being talked about..)

My opinion in general is that this progress toward getting kava into the Codex is a very good thing however the details eventually shake out, so I'm hopeful they will really get it done..

 

[verticity]

@Zaphod Update: The specific technical thing that I expressed concern about here:
http://kavaforums.com/forum/threads...oble-tudei-situation.13851/page-2#post-154940
has apparently been made explicit in a new draft released today, and my concern is not in any way addressed (See Section 8, methods of Analysis and Sampling)

I'll reiterate again that my concern is specific and technical and overall I do support the efforts to get kava into the Codex.

Source: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCNASWP&session=15

 

[verticity]

To be clear, I'm talking about this part of the draft. I've explained previously why I believe absorbance at 440nm is not a very good way to distinguish noble kava. I do think it is good that the standard is for noble kava only. However I think the limitations of the testing method should be acknowledged, and in my opinion a testing method that comes with the caveats this one does might be useful as a rough screening tool, but I question whether it should be written into an international standard.

(click to enlarge)

 

[Alia]

To be clear, I'm talking about this part of the draft. I've explained previously why I believe absorbance at 440nm is not a very good way to distinguish noble kava. I do think it is good that the standard is for noble kava only. However I think the limitations of the testing method should be acknowledged, and in my opinion a testing method that comes with the caveats this one does might be useful as a rough screening tool, but I question whether it should be written into an international standard.

(click to enlarge)
View attachment 10135

To be clear, I'm talking about this part of the draft. I've explained previously why I believe absorbance at 440nm is not a very good way to distinguish noble kava. I do think it is good that the standard is for noble kava only. However I think the limitations of the testing method should be acknowledged, and in my opinion a testing method that comes with the caveats this one does might be useful as a rough screening tool, but I question whether it should be written into an international standard.

(click to enlarge)
View attachment 10135

My understanding is that the Kava standard made it to Step 5 on the 19th. I understand that there were some major edits to some sections. I do not know what the edits are yet but there is still work and the whole issue will go in to 2020.

 

[verticity]

My understanding is that the Kava standard made it to Step 5 on the 19th. I understand that there were some major edits to some sections. I do not know what the edits are yet but there is still work and the whole issue will go in to 2020.

The pdfs are from the list of documents here:
http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCNASWP&session=15

The edits that were made are apparent by comparing draft pdfs from yesterday Sept 19 vs. the one from July 11. There are also some comments about the changes that were made in the document titled "Draft report CCNASWP15". Of note was that the numeric standard for FK levels was removed, although the reference to the HPTLC method for measuring said levels was retained, and the language about the color test at 440nm was added. Also, all language about testing for noble variety was removed from the "Raw materials" section with the only method explicitly mentioned being "morphological characteristics". However the lab test methods are still included in section 8, so that's a bit confusing. Also the advice from the "USA" commenter to use validated testing methods rather than methods based on a single study was not heeded.. As long as I'm noticing little things I might as well also mention that the standard for KL content says "3.5 g/kg minimum" which would be 0.35% w/w and can't possibly be right.. I assume it should say 3.5 g/ 100 g ?

 

[Alia]

The pdfs are from the list of documents here:
http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCNASWP&session=15

The edits that were made are apparent by comparing draft pdfs from yesterday Sept 19 vs. the one from July 11. There are also some comments about the changes that were made in the document titled "Draft report CCNASWP15". Of note was that the numeric standard for FK levels was removed, although the reference to the HPTLC method for measuring said levels was retained, and the language about the color test at 440nm was added. Also, all language about testing for noble variety was removed from the "Raw materials" section with the only method explicitly mentioned being "morphological characteristics". However the lab test methods are still included in section 8, so that's a bit confusing. Also the advice from the "USA" commenter to use validated testing methods rather than methods based on a single study was not heeded.. As long as I'm noticing little things I might as well also mention that the standard for KL content says "3.5 g/kg minimum" which would be 0.35% w/w and can't possibly be right.. I assume it should say 3.5 g/ 100 g ?

Understood, but the (latest) comments from the 19th (yesterday) are not out yet. I agree that "the advice from the USA" was not resolved (validated testing methods) . It will be interesting to read the reaction. It will be interesting to read all the latest comments. I have heard that there will be a Circular Letter for comments soon . However since the whole issue does not go back on the Docket until July of 2020..."soon" is an open question. Honestly I wish we could just get the FDA to differentiate 1- kava as a "Dietary Supplement" (extact of kavalactones) from 2- kava as a traditional beverage which is safe for daily drinking. At least for the unique cultivars of 'awa from Hawai'i, as we have no tudei, that would be a good step and help us get away from the stigma of liver failure. That said- it would be selfish, so best to get all traditional kava growing regions involved in the process. But really...it is remarkable that folks from these regions have been drinking this beverage for a over a thousand years and the FDA does not see the difference from a capsule full of KL and a coconut shell full of aqueous beverage.

 

[Kojo Douglas]

Understood, but the (latest) comments from the 19th (yesterday) are not out yet. I agree that "the advice from the USA" was not resolved (validated testing methods) . It will be interesting to read the reaction. It will be interesting to read all the latest comments. I have heard that there will be a Circular Letter for comments soon . However since the whole issue does not go back on the Docket until July of 2020..."soon" is an open question. Honestly I wish we could just get the FDA to differentiate 1- kava as a "Dietary Supplement" (extact of kavalactones) from 2- kava as a traditional beverage which is safe for daily drinking. At least for the unique cultivars of 'awa from Hawai'i, as we have no tudei, that would be a good step and help us get away from the stigma of liver failure. That said- it would be selfish, so best to get all traditional kava growing regions involved in the process. But really...it is remarkable that folks from these regions have been drinking this beverage for a over a thousand years and the FDA does not see the difference from a capsule full of KL and a coconut shell full of aqueous beverage.

Thankfully there are no proven cases of liver failure. That would be a better place to start from.

 

[Alia]

Thankfully there are no proven cases of liver failure. That would be a better place to start from.

Yes, I agree-- "No proven cases" would be a better start but today we still have-
"FDA Issues Consumer Advisory for Dietary Supplements Containing Kava
On March 25, 2002, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory notifying consumers that kava-containing dietary supplements may be associated with severe liver injury. The FDA reported that kava-containing products have been associated with liver-related injuries, including hepatitis, cirrhosis, and liver failure, in over 25 reports of adverse events in other countries. In the U.S., FDA received a report of a previously healthy young female who required liver transplantation, as well as several reports of liver-related injuries".

 

[Kojo Douglas]

Again, all Kava is safe. No reason to push the “Tudei is dangerous” narrative. It’s a danger to all Kava, regardless of what specific governments and technocrats say.