By Dionisia Tabureguci
The rise of a kava extract market overseas has increased the urgency of protecting the word “kava” as a product known by Pacific islanders and defined in the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius, said Timothy Tumukon, director general of Vanuatu’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity and chair of the Regional Kava Development Strategy Working Group under the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS).
He said kava exports for the kava drinking market, specifically to cater for the Pacific islands diaspora, has levelled off and the growth is now fueled by kava extracts.
“The kava bars that are cropping up in the U.S and beyond are using kava extracts. It is not purely the kava as we know it. And this is where the concerns arise. That we need to very quickly define that space, define what it is. It’s being mixed with other products and that really is not kava. It’s something else.”
Among kava producing countries in the Pacific, only Vanuatu has enacted laws – the Vanuatu Kava Act – to protect its kava industry but even this is not enough protection given the rapid change happening in how kava is being used overseas, especially in kava extracts.
Tumukon said last December alone, Vanuatu exported more than 100 tonnes of kava to China, where the extraction of kavalactone, the active ingredient in the kava plant, is being done and then re-exported to the U.S.
“Kava as we know it is a plant. And kava as we know it is a drink. It is what is prepared using water extraction. With the extract business that is happening now, they’re not using water anymore. They’re using solvents, they’re using CO2, and that, whatever it is they get from that, should be called something else. This is why regulations and legislations need to keep up to define what that is.”
He said this is sorely needed in order to avoid a repetition of the famous kava ban in the early 2000 by Germany, where kava extracts, not kava, were the substances that were being referred to by the German health authorities as harmful to human health.
The Fiji Times spoke to Tumukon on some issues around kava.
FT: The conversation here is confined to the urgency of Geographical Indication (GI) to protect kava in the Pacific and also getting some sort of uniformity in regulations across the Pacific’s kava growing countries. Vanuatu is a leader in the Pacific in terms of laws to protect its kava. How important is that for us?
Tumukon: Well just using Vanuatu’s experience, we have come a long way in terms of protecting our kava business, kava as a product itself, as a commodity and we believe there’s a lot more to be done, especially in the GI space because we are closely monitoring the trade. It’s evolving so much that regulations have not kept up, even for Vanuatu. And this is why I made suggestion that we need to review the Kava Act to accommodate for the evolution of marketing of kava and kava products. Why I’m saying this is because now with kava extracts, it’s not kava anymore. It should be called something else because kava as we know it as defined under our Kava Act (Vanuatu) is that kava is recognised as a plant and also in the product stage, it’s kava prepared using water extraction. Now with the extract business that is happening now, they’re not using water anymore. They’re using solvents, they’re using CO2, and that, whatever it is they get from that, should be called something else. This is why regulations and legislations need to keep up to define what that is. And so, defining that will help to avoid probably us repeating another kava ban in that we will have a name or have several names for the products that are now developed from kava using other technologies. That needs to be done and that needs to be recognised under this regional strategy. Kava as a we know it is a plant. And kava as we know it is a drink. It is what is prepared using water extraction. Anything else shouldn’t be called kava. It should be called something else with an extract of kava added to it. That to me is the essence of the story from here on. We need to be very, very clear on that to avoid repeating the same story that we had previously in the ban (German kava ban in the early 2000).
FT: How important is that moving forward – to separate the definition of kava as we know it and other products that have been extracted from kava using solvents and not water?
Tumukon: The critical point here is that kava as we know it has been defined under the regional CODEX standards (FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius) which has defined it as a food, taken in the form of beverage. Now, kava as an extract and kava as a pharmaceutical product – that is not a food according to the definition of food. That’s something else. And rightly so, we need to diversify our products or derivatives of kava but we need to create additional regulation to recognise that and we need to develop international standards that recognise these pathways of the development of kava. So that should any such issue that we had encountered before come up, we will be very clear in pinpointing where the trade of such commodity aligns itself, whether in the kava as a food or kava as another commodity. So there need to be some regulation guiding the region or individual countries and guiding us in terms of moving forward in the kava trade.
FT: How developed is the kava extracts market – has it become a lucrative industry?
Tumukon: With the kava consumption as a beverage, the trade of that has levelled off. It’s mainly in the Pacific diaspora, both in the Pacific including Australia and New Zealand and also similarly in the US. The kava bars that are dropping up in the US and beyond are using kava extracts. It is not purely the kava as we know it. And this is where the concerns arise. That we need to very quickly define that space, define what it is. It’s being mixed with other products and that really is not kava. It’s something else. And this is where my concerns lie. We need to thrash all these issues up and have them recognised under the Regional Strategy so that we can get additional assistance to develop regulation or develop standards around them moving forward.
FT: So whose responsibility is it to develop these regulations?
Tumukon: I think we should start with country specific regulations. Vanuatu will be moving in that direction to amend its Kava Act to recognise the importance of the kava trade in this space (extracts) but at the same time regionally, we need to have a concerted effort to see how we can address this as well. But people need to be very, very clear that what is extracted using anything else other than water is actually not kava. It is something else. And it’s very, very important that we acknowledge that. And then put mechanisms around that to define what it is.
FT: Exports of kava into China has been growing. What’s the story there?
Tumukon: With the Vanuatu kava, China is extracting the kavalactone (active ingredient in kava) and re-exporting somewhere else. So it’s basically value adding to the product through kavalactone extraction. In the case of Vanuatu, in December alone, we exported over 100 tonnes of kava to China and it’s not for Chinese consumers to consume. It’s for kavalactone extraction and then shipped to the U.S.
FT: They can’t do that here?
Tumukon: Vanuatu has ventured into that. There’s a company doing it now, at the testing/research stage. It has set up business in Vanuatu, extracting kavalactone, so we’re moving into that space, to bring everything onshore. But this is where, again, I’m re-emphasising the need for regulation to come quickly to recognise what’s happening. Because it’s already happening in the private
sector and regulation need to be up there and catching up as soon as possible to make sure they run in parallel.
FT: Kava is now being grown and harvested on the American mainland – is that a concern?
Tumukon: Well, our concern is the use of the word kava. As expressed by our lead researcher in Kava, Vincent Lebot, it shouldn’t be called kava. Sure they are cultivating it but they shouldn’t be calling it kava.
FT: It’s a kava plant.
Tumukon: Yes but what variety is it under? That is a whole conversation on its own and the Americans are privy to the world media to tell their story, we too have our own story to tell. In Vanuatu, the kava that we have stated in our Kava Act is actually the kava that we know. And in the FAO/WHO CODEX, those are listed there under Noble varieties. Anything else that is not listed there, you could argue your case that it’s not kava.
FT: They have explained in detail what they did in order to get their new “variety”, which they say is resistant to Cucumber Mosaic Virus…
Tumukon: Yes but if we go back along the scientific path, where did the original material come from? Hawaii? So it’s the Hawaii variety that should have that name instead of another name. The original genetic material is from a Hawaiian variety, so to me, it’s not a new variety, it’s a clone or manipulation of genetic matter. But even then, if we go along the line of genetic modification, or GMO-type, that is still not kava, and we can have a whole debate on that and I believe they know that.
FT: We’re also hearing a lot about Geographical Indication for kava. What is that and how will it help?
Tumukon: No country in the Pacific has passed its legislation on Geographical Indication but they see the need because then, it will protect our particular variety by countries, for example Fiji has around five. We can develop regulation around that but we have to use a national legislation to pitch that onto and then use that to request the World Intellectual Property Office to protect that. So we need the Geographical Indication Bills to be passed. We have ours (Vanuatu) in the pipeline, it’s drafted, we are having some discussions on it. But we are also very concerned that it’s slow, we need it passed as soon as possible so we can protect our genetic materials (of kava). So the Geographical Indication law will protect the piracy of genetic material and the name. All our varieties have specific names. Right now there are companies in the U.S who are trying to patent our names, even the Fijian variety names, and so that is being done without consulting us. So, we need to protect both the genetic materials and the names. These have commercial values.
FT: Without these specific kava laws, what are we exposing our kava industry to?
Tumukon: You’re exposing yourself to every commercial risks that’s out there that surrounds the kava trade. And there’s so much interests out there. And we should know this, that some of our traditional names, they hold a lot of commercial values in the global market and people are interested to patent those, to have copyright over those. We came across that last month with a couple of those names and we are working with the Government to see how we can derail the process of registration in the US. What we’re trying to tell the U.S Intellectual Property Office is that this is a traditional Vanuatu kava variety name and it’s for public use, not for commercial use by a particular company or for commercial benefit. And that’s the process we’re currently in.
FT: What is the main purpose of this workshop in relation to the Regional Kava Strategy?
Tumukon: This workshop is about developing the implementation component of the actual strategy. The action plan has come up recently. You need to develop your strategy first and then develop an action plan or implementation plan to be attached to it, so, this is part of the whole process.
FT: What timelines are we looking at?
Tumukon: We’re looking at having it hopefully done by July when we should have an Implementation Plan for the Regional Kava Strategy. Then the Forum Trade Ministers will then decide how the implementation will be rolled out, whether collectively or individually (by country).
