My feeling is that there is a discourse that was created when Europe began banning Kava products. Pacific Island nations didn't want to lose an overseas market, so they created a safety standards protocol and a narrative anchored in tradition to support it. For a long time, the narrative was actually the opposite, that PI nations shouldn't export Nobel!
Sounds like a good idea. Bula!
Right, because nothing has proved to be more efficient than the free market.
How much do you actually know about the FDA? Salvia is still legal in the United States, did you know that? The danger with the FDA comes when they find something they can regulate. They certainly wouldn't want the public to regulate the safety of supplements.
What? No. I was responding to your comment that consumer demand will shape Kava vendors' behaviors. That's a free market/capitalistic assumption. Just look at how well that worked for environment, air quality, etc.
I actually don't understand the second paragraph here. What are you asking me? My position is that testing Kava as Noble or Tudei should be informal, open access, and not assume any kind of authority. At this point, the labeling and sanctioning of Kava seems to imply that you are gunning for authority. Informal regulation is bound to cause problems. Before this, we bought Kavas based on the names and descriptions, and then were able to make recommendations based on experience. Now, we are using scientific tests. But these tests don't seem to translate to much in the actual experience of drinking Kava. This is my problem.
I would prefer that you don't belittle me.
