https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/deleg5/st030130/30130s01.htm
Some of my favourite quotes:
"Mr. Tredinnick: I am trying not to go through all the cases, but there is something strange about the majority of them. The 86-year-old male was, I think, the only person who died; according to the American survey, he drank the tea and never woke up. He took a single cup of a herbal tea containing Siberian ginseng, camomile, kava-kava and vitamin C. Are we really suggesting that he drank one cup of tea and dropped dead? That is weak evidence.
In another case, a 70-year-old female blacked out, felt drugged and dizzy, and had unclear vision, flaccid muscles and a pounding headache. Any hon. Member who has been through an all-night sitting in the House would have experienced some of those symptoms. There is not sufficient evidence to ban these products. Even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is nodding at that.
The bank of evidence that is being used to ban the product is very weak. It is conservatively estimated that more than 250 million doses of kava extract have been sold during the past decade, and only one death has been associated with kava use with any degree of certainty. The figure for consumption does not include the even larger number of cups of tea containing kava.
(...)
Kava-kava is a stress management agent and fits well into the category. If we are not careful, we will remove it from the market, and those who would have used it will end up taking valium and similar medicines instead. There is dependency to consider, and the Minister should think long and hard about that. Kava-kava has been used for thousands of years. There is hardly any evidence that it has caused problems. Such evidence as exists is disputed, and the number of cases is very small. Will the Minister reconsider the matter?"
and
"Tim Loughton:
As hon. Members have said, when debating such a subject, we should take an evidence-based approach, and the evidence from relevant cases should be placed in the public domain. Ultimately, we need a proportionate response. That is why we prayed against the instruments. We query whether the Government's decision is proportionate to the risk that they perceive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth is a much greater expert on these substances than any of us. He has told us that kava-kava can be used not only as a food but as a medicine. Indeed, it is a stress-management agent, which benefits many people. Its benefits are scientifically unquantifiable, but it seems from the ''evidence'' that we have been given that the risks are rather less scientifically quantifiable. As part of a risk assessment, one would like to know the substitutes to which the Government think kava-kava users will turn. Will they use other herbal remedies? If so, we may be discussing a ban in similar circumstances this time next year. Will they use prescribed drugs such as Valium, which can have many other side effects and a far greater cost? That would not be a beneficial outcome of our debate.
It concerns me that information on the treatment of kava-kava in other countries was not available from the Food Standards Agency or the medical authorities. Instead, people in the industry had to go to the United States for information about the drug's medical benefits or disbenefits, and for Professor Waller's report, which several hon. Members have cited. I want to quote from the report's conclusion, which we must take seriously. Professor Waller states:
'It is my opinion, based on currently available information, that kava when taken in appropriate doses for reasonable periods of time has no scientifically established potential for causing liver damage. However as with any pharmacologically active agent, there is always the possibility of drug interactions, pre-existing disease conditions and idiosyncratic or hypersensitivity reactions, which can exacerbate the toxicity of any such agent.
"
Some of my favourite quotes:
"Mr. Tredinnick: I am trying not to go through all the cases, but there is something strange about the majority of them. The 86-year-old male was, I think, the only person who died; according to the American survey, he drank the tea and never woke up. He took a single cup of a herbal tea containing Siberian ginseng, camomile, kava-kava and vitamin C. Are we really suggesting that he drank one cup of tea and dropped dead? That is weak evidence.
In another case, a 70-year-old female blacked out, felt drugged and dizzy, and had unclear vision, flaccid muscles and a pounding headache. Any hon. Member who has been through an all-night sitting in the House would have experienced some of those symptoms. There is not sufficient evidence to ban these products. Even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is nodding at that.
The bank of evidence that is being used to ban the product is very weak. It is conservatively estimated that more than 250 million doses of kava extract have been sold during the past decade, and only one death has been associated with kava use with any degree of certainty. The figure for consumption does not include the even larger number of cups of tea containing kava.
(...)
Kava-kava is a stress management agent and fits well into the category. If we are not careful, we will remove it from the market, and those who would have used it will end up taking valium and similar medicines instead. There is dependency to consider, and the Minister should think long and hard about that. Kava-kava has been used for thousands of years. There is hardly any evidence that it has caused problems. Such evidence as exists is disputed, and the number of cases is very small. Will the Minister reconsider the matter?"
and
"Tim Loughton:
As hon. Members have said, when debating such a subject, we should take an evidence-based approach, and the evidence from relevant cases should be placed in the public domain. Ultimately, we need a proportionate response. That is why we prayed against the instruments. We query whether the Government's decision is proportionate to the risk that they perceive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth is a much greater expert on these substances than any of us. He has told us that kava-kava can be used not only as a food but as a medicine. Indeed, it is a stress-management agent, which benefits many people. Its benefits are scientifically unquantifiable, but it seems from the ''evidence'' that we have been given that the risks are rather less scientifically quantifiable. As part of a risk assessment, one would like to know the substitutes to which the Government think kava-kava users will turn. Will they use other herbal remedies? If so, we may be discussing a ban in similar circumstances this time next year. Will they use prescribed drugs such as Valium, which can have many other side effects and a far greater cost? That would not be a beneficial outcome of our debate.
It concerns me that information on the treatment of kava-kava in other countries was not available from the Food Standards Agency or the medical authorities. Instead, people in the industry had to go to the United States for information about the drug's medical benefits or disbenefits, and for Professor Waller's report, which several hon. Members have cited. I want to quote from the report's conclusion, which we must take seriously. Professor Waller states:
'It is my opinion, based on currently available information, that kava when taken in appropriate doses for reasonable periods of time has no scientifically established potential for causing liver damage. However as with any pharmacologically active agent, there is always the possibility of drug interactions, pre-existing disease conditions and idiosyncratic or hypersensitivity reactions, which can exacerbate the toxicity of any such agent.
"
Last edited by a moderator:
