Where are you visiting in NZ? I live about 30 min from downtown Auckland --
in the middle of no where. We have just subdivided 4.6 hectares in to 5
lots -- you can see one for sale at ...
http://www.open2view.com/Property/68811?cntImg=7&mid=674&offset=&
Joerg, Rx only will do the pacific islands no favours... the volume would
be very little on a worldwide basis and, besides, that would simply be
giving in to bureaucratic thuggery. It would only put more pressure on
other regulators such as NZ to restrict kava sales -- please don't
compromise -- you'll be doing great harm... what next? Echinacea? Black
Cohosh? ?????
Kava is no more of a risk than acceptable de minimis risk levels associated
with food additives, so why capitulate?
My understanding is that Germany and several other countries have banned
kava illegally under EU law -- why not take that route? If they have
regulated kava off the market illegally, then kava is in fact not banned --
it's merely perceived to be banned. As Wales have revoked their regs, so
you should be pushing for France, Germany, etc to revoke theirs.
Please look at the attached graph -- Kava, even if accepting all deaths as
caused by kava -- which of course would be a total nonsense -- would at
worst sit below the de minimis level which is 46 times more risky than a
typical dietary supplement. I'm repeating this chart for other countries,
and the same sort of relative risk keeps coming up -- in fact these
relative risks are based on the creation of a death in NZ tagged against
dietary supplements, simply to get a denominator.
Please don't sell industry down the river... that won't be good for anyone
other than big business, and especially Mr Bush's pharma masters. He'll be
smiling at the outcome of Rx -- he know's it's as good as a ban in most
countries.
Regards
Ron
Relative Rish Meteor
Back to top of Document
