Patented Micronization

[verticity]

That's essentially my point. The invention, really, is the nitrogen filled milling process; the recipe is intellectual property. Why share the recipe in a patent? You've already made anything micronized in that way a part of the patent, so why over share? Just curious.

I don't know, but the "recipe" is actually pretty general: add any of several food grade acids at a proportion of 1-20%. It's probably common knowledge in the beverage industry, so doesn't give much away, but bulks up the patent a bit.. Their exact formula that they actually use probably is proprietary.

 

[ApéroNoble]

I have read the thread a couple times & checked out the site... still having trouble understanding if their Micro / Instant has the Makas removed?

 

[verticity]

I have read the thread a couple times & checked out the site... still having trouble understanding if their Micro / Instant has the Makas removed?

My understanding is that the makas are not removed, but they have a special process for grinding them very finely.

 

[ApéroNoble]

My understanding is that the makas are not removed, but they have a special process for grinding them very finely.

ok, but my understanding is once the makas are in there, no matter how finely ground, it's too late. In other words it doesn't matter how finely ground the product is if the makas are not removed.

 

[verticity]

ok, but my understanding is once the makas are in there, no matter how finely ground, it's too late. In other words it doesn't matter how finely ground the product is if the makas are not removed.

Well, I haven't tried it, but @Steve Mariotti who is famous for his sensitive stomach reviewed it positively with no adverse effects only a bit of nausea:
http://kavaforums.com/forum/threads/vanuatu-instant.4995/

 

[ApéroNoble]

Well, I haven't tried it, but @Steve Mariotti who is famous for his sensitive stomach reviewed it positively with no adverse effects only a bit of nausea:
http://kavaforums.com/forum/threads/vanuatu-instant.4995/

my main concern is Dr. Lebot has said, "It is possible that Flavokavins are concentrated in these fibers, or undesirable kavalactones, causing nausea."

I don't want to ingest Flavokavins

According to the “Vanuatu Kava Act”, It is considered illegal to sell Kava with “makas”.

During the Kava boom, German companies were unfortunately buying the makas residue to make their kava products and that may be the reason for the unfavorable reports on Kava.

 

[verticity]

According to the “Vanuatu Kava Act”, It is considered illegal to sell Kava with “makas”.

That's not really true. Normal medium grind kava contains makas and is not illegal to sell. But if you are concerned there are other companies that make micronized with the makas removed (as we all know). But this thread is about welcoming Kava King, so..

 

[ApéroNoble]

That's not really true. Normal medium grind kava contains makas and is not illegal to sell. But if you are concerned there are other companies that make micronized with the makas removed (as we all know). But this thread is about welcoming Kava King, so..

"But this thread is about welcoming Kava King, so" - wasn't trying to step on any ones toes. I was actually going to place an order because I am going out of town & needed a quick shipment for ready to go kava.

Regarding the legality thing, I believe perhaps that's applied to folks selling rtd kava with makas in there. When we strain the medium grind it eliminates the makas

 

[verticity]

Here is the kava act
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/html/van38473.htm
It only prohibits exporting non-nobles. (And requires organic farming)

 

[ApéroNoble]

Here is the kava act
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/html/van38473.htm
It only prohibits exporting non-nobles. (And requires organic farming)

from The Kava Library - According to the “Vanuatu Kava Act”, It is considered illegal to sell Kava with “makas”. >>>http://kavalibrarycom.homestead.com/Micronized_Kava.html

 

[verticity]

from The Kava Library - According to the “Vanuatu Kava Act”, It is considered illegal to sell Kava with “makas”. >>>http://kavalibrarycom.homestead.com/Micronized_Kava.html

I believe, my good Sir, that is a mistake in the Kava Library. That would make it illegal to sell anything other than instant or @Gourmet Hawaiian Kava micronized.
I see it still says DHK and DHM are "double bonded" too (not true)

 

[Kava Steve]

Hmmm seems the micro can be a quick trip to dermo... I had forgot about this thread before getting excited about a $43 for two pounds order darn it.

 

[Deleted User01]

Micronized is a quick trip to dermo land if it has Macas. I think some Members proved that when they got micronized Kava from a non-GHK vendor who will remain unnamed. I have been doing Micronized for 1.5 years with no dermo or stomach problems. I do have some dermatitis that flares up on certain parts of my face when I drink too much alcohol and on consecutive days. But Micronized doesn't have that effect on me. Be afraid of the Macas, be very afraid.

 

[Deleted User01]

@verticity, the article says, "It is considered Illegal" and I wonder if "considered" means there is leeway and the law is not really on the books. Perhaps they are trying to discourage Makas in micronized because of the bad side effects. @Deleted User, do you know if that is a law that is on the books or is it just something they discourage. You know, they frown upon Tuday also but you can get it very easily. I don't think they want to enforce the law to the point of causing financial damage to the farmers. They just shake a finger at you as you go about your crappy business.

 

[blindy107]

The Vanuatu blend tastes like a Boroguru. Nutty!

 

[kasa_balavu]

I must say that I think this sort of patent is patently ridiculous.
Modifying the atmosphere to avoid fire during powdering is a very old and common manufacturing technique. While this might be news to a layman, that isn't what the "obviousness" of patents should be measured against. Anyone skilled/trained/experienced in manufacturing of this sort would consider such a method obvious.

Take the humble bread-slicer. This machine takes in a loaf of bread, and spits out sliced bread. The method is using a row of parallel knives to cut through the bread.

Imagine going to USPTO and filing a patent for slicing cucumbers using a row of parallel knives. This idea might be the best thing since sliced bread, but it shouldn't be patentable.


--------

Your product seems to be popular and positively reviewed. I'm sure you put a lot of effort into it and I think it's great that customers who don't like the taste of kava can turn to products like yours. Still, I'm annoyed that you sought a patent in order to prevent other people from using this manufacturing method that has been in use for a very long time.

 

[verticity]

But our patented bread slicer is unique, in that it does not incorporate a row of knife blades. As the steel for the blades is expensive and wasteful to the environment, we have developed a unique, new bread slicer design that consists of only a single serrated knife blade, with an attachment ("handle", see Fig. 173) so that it may be wielded by an ordinary house wife or husband.

 

[verticity]

Your product seems to be popular and positively reviewed. I'm sure you put a lot of effort into it and I think it's great that customers who don't like the taste of kava can turn to products like yours. Still, I'm annoyed that you sought a patent in order to prevent other people from using this manufacturing method that has been in use for a very long time.

To be fair, I believe they bought the patent, or rights to it, from someone else, out of necessity. They did not create the patent themselves.

 

[Kimmer]

I must say that I think this sort of patent is patently ridiculous.
Modifying the atmosphere to avoid fire during powdering is a very old and common manufacturing technique. While this might be news to a layman, that isn't what the "obviousness" of patents should be measured against. Anyone skilled/trained/experienced in manufacturing of this sort would consider such a method obvious.

Take the humble bread-slicer. This machine takes in a loaf of bread, and spits out sliced bread. The method is using a row of parallel knives to cut through the bread.

Imagine going to USPTO and filing a patent for slicing cucumbers using a row of parallel knives. This idea might be the best thing since sliced bread, but it shouldn't be patentable.


--------

Your product seems to be popular and positively reviewed. I'm sure you put a lot of effort into it and I think it's great that customers who don't like the taste of kava can turn to products like yours. Still, I'm annoyed that you sought a patent in order to prevent other people from using this manufacturing method that has been in use for a very long time.

The patent is issued based on the claims, and since the claims include adding the organic acid and flavoring, IMHO that's where the strength of the patent is (I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV). The file wrapper isn't available online but the art cited goes back to 1931--a few of those patents relate to coffee grinders and preparation of other supplements.