I agree, Vanuatu has been talking about this for a long time - twelve years, in fact - ever since the Kava Act of 2002 was enacted. But this news article says they now might actually
do something, and that is what we are hoping for.
I take no offense, I never claimed to be a "real" lab, whatever that may be. But I am taking the greatest possible pains to ensure accurate results, and leaving plenty of latitude for interpretation. More on that will be explained below, but first let's address your statements that the acetone method is a "
flawed test which is inconclusive" and that "
Dr. Lebot admits as much below in his email".
I heartily disagree with these statements, and personally interpret his email as the same basic message that I have received and included in many of my posts: The test has given no false positives or negatives, but official colorimetric standards will have to be developed before acceptance can be universal. According to my latest correspondence, this development is currently underway.
Further evidence of the validity of the test is shown by its inclusion in Vanuatu COA's, beginning last year and continuing to date. Below are two examples; the first is from Andrew Procyk, the second will remain private at the request of the provider:
Note that while the first COA shows testing by NIRS and thus does not include FK determination, it nevertheless includes the qualitative acetone test and deems one of the samples to be "two day". Though chemotype may have been a factor in this judgement, the acetone test was certainly considered.
The second COA is from 2014; note that this test is by HPTLC and states FK content, but continues to include the acetone test. To me, this is rather solid evidence that Vanuatu does not consider the acetone test "flawed and inconclusive", nor does Dr. Lebot.
About your suppliers: I can understand and sympathize with your faith in them, but you must understand that this sort of "evidence" isn't what I expect from a vendor, and is not very useful to us as consumers. There are many vendors who claim their product is absolutely noble, and plenty of those have been proven wrong by both my "not a real lab" and by anecdotal experience from consumers. I believe that statements such as "
There was almost no euphoria, just a very heavy, drunken feeling. After sleeping for a long time, i'm still feeling gravity more than usual. In fact, even typing this isn't easy." and "
Became too much for me, wasnt at all what I'm looking or in kava.", combined with my admittedly unofficial tests carry more weight than mere claims, regardless of how heartfelt.
Also on the topic of Vanuatu COA's, I find it rather disturbing that the few that have been offered have all had the most pertinent data blacked out, often under the guise of concealing their suppliers.
These certificates have no real value to the consumer (or the FDA, for that matter), but do serve to illustrate that good suppliers are extremely scarce! This further reinforces the fact stated by Dr. Lebot himself, that much of the kava currently shipping from Vanuatu is adulterated with two day.
Getting even more specific, I offer a detailed explanation of my methodology and how it relates to GKE kava. Below is a portion of my most current test results -
note the reading for BKH Koniak marked in red. According to Mr. Procyk, this is the kava that appears in the first COA above. I have personally tested three different Koniak samples (including one I personally bought), but these two will suffice for example. Both are known to be from the same batch, and both are decidedly orange when compared to known nobles.
Now note their relation to the two GKE products marked in green, and the fact that I have designated this category "25-50% adulteration possible". Yes, that says "
possible" - it does not say "
absolutely". Nor is even the next category absolute - I have labeled these kavas as "likely" adulterated, despite the fact that all within these categories are clearly orange when compared to those in my "noble" category. My point is this:
These ratings are extremely liberal, and basically just reinforce the reviews and anecdotal evidence. It is only when a kava tests at or above the coloration of known two day that I declare it as absolutely "not noble".
I didn't start off looking for adulteration, this factor was introduced by Dr. Lebot himself when he offered it as the very likely reason for inexplicable results.
He recommended particular reference standards for noble and two day, and they are precisely what I am using.
Bearing all of this in mind, what do you propose? Where do you think the line for "absolutely noble" should be, and on what grounds? Should I move it to 578.3? Shall we go back to believing every claim any vendor makes?
Or shall we continue to move forward?
Personally, I wish to move forward. I am currently working with a USA based, FDA certified laboratory that will soon be able to offer the full range of tests necessary for FDA cGMP compliance, as well as chemotype and FK analysis. We are coordinating methods and standards with Vanuatu and other kava producing countries, and hope to begin tests soon on samples purchased from vendors by an independent agency, rather than vendor-supplied. This, along with spot-checking by colorimetric assay when standards are released, will provide an impartial database for consumers, and a valuable resource for vendors wishing to comply with FDA requirements and better meet consumer needs.
Are you interested in being involved?
Thank you,
Garry
