P. wichmannii
hkobayashi Does anybody know a person who has P. wichmannii in US? I would be interested in acquiring seeds, but I haven't come across with any source.
yee For scientific purposes?... The majority of our collection comprises Hawaiian varieties, but perhaps not the so called P. wichmannii. My understanding of V. Lebot's book, Kava, the pacific elixir, is that P. wichmannii & P. methysticum are the same, but that "P. wichmannii" is a seeding variety, and one not favored in drinking. Vincent, where are you? [:)] In addition, until the kava industry and native peoples arrive at consensus on the kava plant export business or a scientific protocol, there is a self-imposed embargo on all live kava plants & propagules to areas where kava is not indigenous, and esp. to geographics areas outside of Oceania. This is also considered a way to prevent the further spreading of diseases. It would be nice if you could do your studies here. There's quite a few students studying 'awa at the University of Hawai'i. And you're welcome to visit our facilities. [:)] Mahalo, Jonathan
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
Does anybody know a person who has P. wichmannii in US? I would be interested in acquiring seeds, but I haven't come across with any source.
hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
For scientific purposes?...
More or less, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
In addition, until the kava industry and native peoples arrive at consensus on the kava plant export business or a scientific protocol, there is a self-imposed embargo on all live kava plants & propagules to areas where kava is not indigenous, and esp. to geographics areas outside of Oceania.
Currently, kava cultivation has been considered in Viet Nam with tissue cultured plants. I understand the stance on the current embargo although I can argue many of crops grown in Hawaii are not indigeneous. In fact, I thought people in Hawaii are actively seeking for new crops [?]
quote:
Originally posted by yee
This is also considered a way to prevent the further spreading of diseases.
Cucumber Mosaic Virus has one of the widest host range. There may be different serotypes, but I am afraid inhibiting export to non-native countries won't likely do much.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
It would be nice if you could do your studies here. There's quite a few students studying 'awa at the University of Hawai'i. And you're welcome to visit our facilities. [:)]
Thank you. You are also welcome to visit facilities at my university, too.
yee Yes, many crops are not indigenous to Hawai'i. In fact, in botanic classification, Hawaiian kava ('awa) is considered a native introduction - one of the 24 canoe plants (e.g., ti, olena, etc.) brought from Kahiki. And it is notable that Hawaiians have had a long tradition of perpetuating and perhaps developing over 30 varieties of 'awa, of which around 14 can be distinctly identified. The native Hawaiian farmers were experts, second to none, even having a track record of having the most developed kalo (taro) knowledge and varieties in the entire Pacific, if not, the world. One can argue about the merits of exporting live kava plants to Vietnam, Guatamala, and other countries that have no kava tradition, or even the merits of globalization. However, such exports, I believe, would hurt Hawai'i farmers in the long run. This is because 'awa farming is still in its infancy. How much more detrimental at this stage perhaps if we go through the New Zealand experience... My understanding from a top kiwifruit farmer in New Zealand is that they regret having lost control of the kiwifruit (a non-native fruit from China [;)]) business once propagules were exported. Moreover, given the horrible exploitation and suppression of Hawaiian culture and resources in the past by foreign powers, I think it is certainly provocative to Hawaiian cultural sensitivities to accelerate further exploitation of 'awa by live plant export. Your points are interesting and well taken. Is this a right or wrong stance to take?... Is there value in diversity? Will this change? Perhaps these kinds of questions would belong in another topic. [:)] Mahalo, Jonathan
hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
One can argue about the merits of exporting live kava plants to Vietnam, Guatamala, and other countries that have no kava tradition
But as I mentioned many crops are not native to Hawaii. For example, neither sugar canes or pineapples naturally occur in Hawaii. I understand your point. But when Hawaiian farmers and researchers are actively introducing foreign species (coffee, vanilla, etc), I am not sure how much of restriction on kava plant export can be justified. Speaking of a cultural tie, Hawaii is not the place where rich culture on coffee drinking or Aztec tradition of vanilla originated. I do not think that is the case, but one can argue it is a form of exploitation.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
My understanding from a top kiwifruit farmer in New Zealand is that they regret having lost control of the kiwifruit (a non-native fruit from China [;)]) business once propagules were exported.
Yes. I don't know how much they can complain about the loss of control when they obtained seeds or other forms of propagules of kiwi fruit from China whether legally or illegally.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Moreover, given the horrible exploitation and suppression of Hawaiian culture and resources in the past by foreign powers, I think it is certainly provocative to Hawaiian cultural sensitivities to accelerate further exploitation of 'awa by live plant export.
Again, I understand your point, and it will likely happen eventually. The solution may not be self imposing restriction, but rather production of superior products.
yee
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
One can argue about the merits of exporting live kava plants to Vietnam, Guatamala, and other countries that have no kava tradition
But as I mentioned many crops are not native to Hawaii. For example, neither sugar canes or pineapples naturally occur in Hawaii. I understand your point. But when Hawaiian farmers and researchers are actively introducing foreign species (coffee, vanilla, etc), I am not sure how much of restriction on kava plant export can be justified. Speaking of a cultural tie, Hawaii is not the place where rich culture on coffee drinking or Aztec tradition of vanilla originated. I do not think that is the case, but one can argue it is a form of exploitation.
From this aspect, yes, this point does not follow what may be considered reciprocity. In Peru, I'm sure they're growing other conventional crops, too, yet, as I last heard, the Peruvian government has banned the export of live maca to rest of the world in order to protect their industry. And of course they have their laundry list of rational to back up this stance.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
My understanding from a top kiwifruit farmer in New Zealand is that they regret having lost control of the kiwifruit (a non-native fruit from China [;)]) business once propagules were exported.
Yes. I don't know how much they can complain about the loss of control when they obtained seeds or other forms of propagules of kiwi fruit from China whether legally or illegally.
Plainly this is what happened. They made considerable effort in developing new varieties, and cultivating practices that were an improvement over the original stock, and lost what might be termed "intellectual property" rights by a few who decided to export these propagules. Obviously, people will complain if such perceived rights, legacy, or heritage was so easily lost by a few, perhaps greedy, profiteers.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Moreover, given the horrible exploitation and suppression of Hawaiian culture and resources in the past by foreign powers, I think it is certainly provocative to Hawaiian cultural sensitivities to accelerate further exploitation of 'awa by live plant export.
Again, I understand your point, and it will likely happen eventually. The solution may not be self imposing restriction, but rather production of superior products.
Yes, this may be the case for eventuality. But perhaps it's to buy time, to be one step ahead of the game, to be on more solid footing - economic, cultural, and otherwise, so that Hawai'i has a decent chance to participate and exercise its heritage fairly. I won't disagree though that one solution may cause another kind of problem - it works both ways - for example, though, if genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are suggested to achieve "superior" products I think that's another dilemma one equally faces. Another issue, perhaps, repeated more than enough, is cultural sensitivity. Perhaps not now, but maybe later. Isn't it better to ask your boss for a raise when he/she is in a good frame of mind? Are they prepared for it or what will it take to prepare them for this? I'd add that scientific logic doesn't always apply to that realm. Does that make it "wrong"?... If there is a perception of exploitation, there is no trust, and without trust, one can't expect much in the way of exchange but perhaps face local outrage. How would one be viewed if one were to just sell out without regard to the local industry, let alone without a return benefit for native peoples who developed and discovered the properties of this plant? Is there some benefit to applying, formal or de facto, copyright or patent concepts to such cultural plants? Is that even possible? If one were to sell out or exploit as such, How would one deal with a consequent outrage - another wild card? Some interesting abstracts perhaps may be found in this link: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/traditionalknowledge/1997/sessio5.htm Seems that we're straying off topic from P. wichmannii. [:)] Perhaps a thread under another topic or placed in another category? Mahalo, Jonathan
hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
the Peruvian government has banned the export of live maca to rest of the world in order to protect their industry.
How about seeds? Is maca sterile like kava? Besides, this does not mean what the Peruvian government is doing is right, wrong or even applicable to the case with kava.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Plainly this is what happened. They made considerable effort in developing new varieties, and cultivating practices that were an improvement over the original stock, and lost what might be termed "intellectual property" rights by a few who decided to export these propagules. Obviously, people will complain if such perceived rights, legacy, or heritage was so easily lost by a few, perhaps greedy, profiteers.
Umm. That sounds a little odd. Those new cultivars could have been patented, and patenting of new cultivars is freely done. Kiwi cultivars such as 'Hayward' and 'Monty' have been in existence in Japan since '70, I believe. Was information on kiwi culture freely available in the country? Cultural practices or new techniques help or improve the quality of crops, but largely it would be up to a grower. There is a wealth of information on cultivation of many crops. New ideas originate in cultivation of some crops, and it may spread to others. I think it is a quite natural process, and that's how we improve.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Yes, this may be the case for eventuality. But perhaps it's to buy time, to be one step ahead of the game, to be on more solid footing - economic, cultural, and otherwise, so that Hawai'i has a decent chance to participate and exercise its heritage fairly.
So in reality being a step ahead of the game is the real reason/ground to restrict exportation of kava propagule even for a scientific research, not because kava is foreign to outside of “native” habitat or possibility of disseminating Kava Dieback.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
if genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are suggested to achieve "superior" products I think that's another dilemma one equally faces.
Researchers at University of Hawaii are working on hairy roots of kava, It is not the same thing as GMOs, but genetically modified nonetheless.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
If there is a perception of exploitation, there is no trust, and without trust, one can't expect much in the way of exchange but perhaps face local outrage.
This remotely sounds like a threat to me.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
How would one be viewed if one were to just sell out without regard to the local industry, let alone without a return benefit for native peoples who developed and discovered the properties of this plant? Is there some benefit to applying, formal or de facto, copyright or patent concepts to such cultural plants? Is that even possible? If one were to sell out or exploit as such, How would one deal with a consequent outrage - another wild card?
It gets back to my point. If we are going to a return a benefit to native people who developed (it was a spontaneous mutation, so there really wasn't a room for development IMHO) kava cultivars, shouldn't we do the same thing who "created" bread wheat, corn, rice, etc? Where did pineapples or vanilla come from? I don't understand why kava would be an exception. Also you cannot expect too much what other people do. It's usually better to prepare for the worse than to engage in cryptic tactics to avoid the adversity.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Seems that we're straying off topic from P. wichmannii. [:)]Perhaps a thread under another topic or placed in another category?
That's ok because that's what happens at the discussion board. But you are the one who began a discussion on restriction on kava plant export.
yee
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
the Peruvian government has banned the export of live maca to rest of the world in order to protect their industry.
How about seeds? Is maca sterile like kava? Besides, this does not mean what the Peruvian government is doing is right, wrong or even applicable to the case with kava.
Maca, as I understand it, has fertile seeds. Exactly, this point, and simply this was an example that stuff like this does go on.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Plainly this is what happened. They made considerable effort in developing new varieties, and cultivating practices that were an improvement over the original stock, and lost what might be termed "intellectual property" rights by a few who decided to export these propagules. Obviously, people will complain if such perceived rights, legacy, or heritage was so easily lost by a few, perhaps greedy, profiteers.
Umm. That sounds a little odd. Those new cultivars could have been patented, and patenting of new cultivars is freely done. Kiwi cultivars such as 'Hayward' and 'Monty' have been in existence in Japan since '70, I believe. Was information on kiwi culture freely available in the country? Cultural practices or new techniques help or improve the quality of crops, but largely it would be up to a grower. There is a wealth of information on cultivation of many crops. New ideas originate in cultivation of some crops, and it may spread to others. I think it is a quite natural process, and that's how we improve.
This goes into unfamiliar territory so I can't go further than what I could understand from the kiwifruit farmer. Yet in business sometimes patents aren't the answer (expiration, cost, rejection) so tradesecrets substitute. I don't disagree that this is perhaps one method of improvement.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Yes, this may be the case for eventuality. But perhaps it's to buy time, to be one step ahead of the game, to be on more solid footing - economic, cultural, and otherwise, so that Hawai'i has a decent chance to participate and exercise its heritage fairly.
So in reality being a step ahead of the game is the real reason/ground to restrict exportation of kava propagule even for a scientific research, not because kava is foreign to outside of “native” habitat or possibility of disseminating Kava Dieback.
It's perhaps one reason. I wouldn't discount that for research which has a protocol that respects this. It does buy time as mentioned.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
if genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are suggested to achieve "superior" products I think that's another dilemma one equally faces.
Researchers at University of Hawaii are working on hairy roots of kava, It is not the same thing as GMOs, but genetically modified nonetheless.
ok.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
If there is a perception of exploitation, there is no trust, and without trust, one can't expect much in the way of exchange but perhaps face local outrage.
This remotely sounds like a threat to me.
Not personal, but that's what perhaps everybody, including me, is potentially faced with.
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
How would one be viewed if one were to just sell out without regard to the local industry, let alone without a return benefit for native peoples who developed and discovered the properties of this plant? Is there some benefit to applying, formal or de facto, copyright or patent concepts to such cultural plants? Is that even possible? If one were to sell out or exploit as such, How would one deal with a consequent outrage - another wild card?
It gets back to my point. If we are going to a return a benefit to native people who developed (it was a spontaneous mutation, so there really wasn't a room for development IMHO) kava cultivars, shouldn't we do the same thing who "created" bread wheat, corn, rice, etc? Where did pineapples or vanilla come from? I don't understand why kava would be an exception. Also you cannot expect too much what other people do. It's usually better to prepare for the worse than to engage in cryptic tactics to avoid the adversity.
I don't have answer for that, but that is what is being debated. As kava being not being an exception, so you believe everybody owes everyone an answer? I think that's their choice, rightly or wrongly or not, with respect to one's values. In the context, too, of cultural sensitivity, is it possible that formerly horribly treated, oppressed people might be a little concerned? I think that's human nature. I don't know if the previous link referring to traditional knowledge was a helpful indicator... If I'm cryptic, thanks for pointing out that assertion. I guess my point needs to get across better, or perhaps taken from a view point that maybe the truth is vast, this discussion is long, and none of us have been willing to give up. Well, that's okay, maybe that's why bodies of knowledge know no diet. [:)].
quote:
Originally posted by hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
Seems that we're straying off topic from P. wichmannii. [:)]Perhaps a thread under another topic or placed in another category?
That's ok because that's what happens at the discussion board. But you are the one who began a discussion on restriction on kava plant export.
To start, perhaps. To the extent, I think us both. Another topic, perhaps. At this point, probably not critical. Mahalo, Jonathan
hkobayashi
quote:
Originally posted by yee
I don't have answer for that, but that is what is being debated. As kava being not being an exception, so you believe everybody owes everyone an answer? concerned? I think that's human nature. I don't know if the previous link referring to traditional knowledge was a helpful indicator...
Not necessarily you need to answer everything, but when Hawaiian people actively seek for foreign crops for their socio-economic advantage, I am not sure the restriction of exporting living kava propagules can be justified on the ground of past or present oppression. After all, Hawaii is a part of US, and its economic gain from agricultural products may have attained at the expense of other countries.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
If I'm cryptic, thanks for pointing out that assertion. I guess my point needs to get across better, or perhaps taken from a view point that maybe the truth is vast, this discussion is long, and none of us have been willing to give up. Well, that's okay, maybe that's why bodies of knowledge know no diet. [:)].
Your statement or logic may not be cryptic, but the approach you suggest to keep Hawaiian kava industry ahead of others is not quite direct.
quote:
Originally posted by yee
To start, perhaps. To the extent, I think us both. Another topic, perhaps. At this point, probably not critical.
My question was availability of P. wichimanii seeds, nothing on P. methysticum. However, you managed to direct the discussion to where we are now. I share the responsibility nonetheless.
Yummm Interesting topic people. I'm of the opinion people should definetly be concerned about protecting their indigenous biological wealth. Biopiracy is a serious problem. Corporations patenting inigenous wealth left and right. I'm of the opinion, patenting (as suggested earlier) biological wealth is a bad idea.... even possibly the root of the problem. I mean, then it becomes a race only won by those who apply for a patent the fastest, not neccisarily the local population. I believe the sui generis system via the TRIPS protocol(Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS procotcol) is potentially a better gaurantor of agricultural and medicinal plant biodiversity and anti-biopiracy than is the patent system. I know of at least once case in which it has been used successfully to resist biopiracy. In 1996, the small Indian village of Pattuvam, in SE state of Kerala in india, declared it's absolute ownership over all genetic resources within its jurisdiction under the sui generis option of TRIPS.
Jürgen Kerschbaumer Yumm, Yee...I must agree. Biopiracy is a serious theat to intellectual property rights of peoples previously politically downtrodden, and now subject to intellectual and economical discrimination. I also agree that patenting of medicinal or culinary botanicals is an absurd assertion of property rights (all the more so if the patenting takes place 1000's of miles away from its origin. Let's put things into some perspective by way of a couple of examples: Hoodia, Kougoed (Sceletium), Buchu, Rooibos all plants native to South Africa. In the case of Hoodia and Sceletium, research was done by some of the leading local ethno(sic)botanists in conjuntion with local scientific/academic organisations, and subsequent to the research sold to external pharmaceutical interests. In the case of Hoodia the unfortunate (culturally almost exterminated) bushmen from whom the knowledge originated, got word of the sale. Understandably these semi nomadic, desperately (finacialy) poor peoples demanded their share of the pie. With SA's relatively liberal standards, they fortunately found an ear for their cause. Sadly the uncomplicated individuals involved settled on the following deal: a portion (if I recall correctly 2%) of profits out of the sale IF a synthesized drug is to be manufactured from the research. Thus ONLY once a profit is shown, they stand to gain a pittance, nothing more than a gesture, probably to be accounted for as charitable work by the company, creating a tax benefit rather than truly affecting payment for knowledge acquired. All this aside from the suggestion I have had from other botanists that the intended use is out of context and likely to be unsuccesful at best or possibly harmful. In the case of sceletium, that in my mind shows even greater promise as a medicinal plant, (and certainly for a more noble cause than simply combatting the effects of simply gluttony), there has been no public outcry. Live material is being exported via the internet and other methods with no consideration for a potential that should benefit the peoples and country of origin. Local companies are also prohibited (although I know it does take place below the radar) from marketing and selling this "product", awaiting the iminent arrival of an externally produced (possibly syntesized) product. Here I have to at least give some credit to the researchers in that they ackowledged the harm that could come from unchecked wildcrafting, and initiated propagation projects (within their exclusive sphere). Buchu, a wonderful aromatic plant, used as food ingredient and medicinally (2 diff species), fetches astronomical prices, with the local goverment recently introducing propagating plans for those who have had land-claims fulfilled. (The landclaims have done enormous damage to the previously productive citrus industry, but that is a different discussion) I seriously doubt whether the well-intended programme took into account the sale of Buchu seed on significant sale (as i understand) to countries like Australia, some number of years ago, which should put severe pressure on the market price of raw and distilled Buchu products. (Exactly the same happened with Protea's - an indigenous cut-flower of great value in which the poor small landowner was encouraged to farm, only to find the market usurped by Australia. This resulted in severve debt problems for the same individuals who were meant to gain finacial independance but now some lost their land!) Equally absurd is the instance of Rooibos tea (Rooibos=red bush, an Afrikaans word). Recently receiving huge boosts due to studies confirming high anti-oxidant content and varied applications and health benefits, exporters found themselves at a loss when faced with a patent on the common name of the plant, and not being able to market it accordingly in the US. I believe the matter is still not concluded and that the local industry is contesting the legality of this opportunistic patent. If it is not clear enough already, let me state again that I too feel there is a treat especially to third world countries in terms of the current application of patents and intellectual property rights. Although I don't believe that the ban on sale of live material is a solution to this threat, it seems a sensible precaution. I don't believe it will neccesarily benefit the 30 000 species of medically active plants which are estimated to be threatened by overharvesting. That will however become the concern of a nation if they feel the benefit of their indigenous intellectual property, not so?