Why the PISC TC-3 Standards must begin with defining kava

Abstract

Context: I am a kava health researcher of iTaukei (indigenous Fijian) ancestry, based at the University of Waikato, and leading a team of 40+ part-time kava health researchers across three countries inclusive of traditional knowledge experts, molecular biologists, toxicologists, ethnopharmacologists, clinical psychologists and more. For eight of the past 10 years, our work has been funded by the Aotearoa New Zealand Government through the Health Research Council Pacific. I (personally) have no financial interests in the kava industry. This is reasoned on an increasing level of unethical practice associated with ‘kava capitalism’ and the threat this poses to another kava ban. A lot our research addresses kava-related health mis- and dis-information, with the aim of safeguarding kava as a Pacific cultural keystone species and protecting smallholder Pacific kava farmer livelihoods and export earnings.

Attendees have been invited by the TC3 Committee lead to speak on kava initiatives in our area. For our team, this centres on research: supporting kava as a cultural icon, addressing misinformation and safety concerns through clinical trials, computational analysis and other approaches, all to aid kava’s ongoing availability for cultural purposes and as an income source for Pacific farmers. This also involves challenging cultural appropriation, greed-driven capitalists and ‘culture industry’a activities that threaten kava’s integrity and consumer safety. I will speak to kava initiatives from this research perspective.