HAWAII GINGER ROOT

Hawaii’s ginger root farmers harvested 4.3 million pounds during the 2005-2006 season, down 16 percent from the 2004-2005 season and the smallest crop since the 1981-1982 harvest. The average farm price is estimated at 70.0 cents per pound during the 2005-2006 season, down 13 percent from the previous season?s farm price of 80.0 cents per pound. Total farm value of the 2005-2006 harvest is estimated at $3.0 million, down 26 percent from the 2004-2005 season.

Ginger root growers harvested 100 acres during the 2005-2006 season, down 17 percent from the previous season and the lowest total in 24 years. The decline in harvested acreage more than offset an increase in yields due to improved weather conditions. Bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum), rootknot nematodes (Meloidogyne javanica), and relatively low farm prices have contributed to the reduction in acreage.

?

?

http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat-21.pdf

Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003

NASS
Hawaii Agricultural Statistics
Fact finding for agriculture

HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
1428 S. KING STREET
HONOLULU, HI 96814-2512
(808) 973-9588
FAX: (808) 973-2909
picture of State

Hawaii Ag-Tourism Released: October 18, 2004

Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003

The value of Hawaii’s ag-tourism related activities (see definition below) is pegged at $33.9 million for 2003, up 30 percent from the $26.0 million generated in 2000. There were 187 farms Statewide that had ag-tourism related income during 2003, a 48 percent increase from 2000 as more farmers in Hawaii have opened-up their operations to the public; exposing visitors to the farm experience. Interest in ag-tourism appears to be strong as an additional 145 farms either started ag-tourism activities in 2004, or planned to in the future.The distribution of ag-tourism throughout the State has become more concentrated during the past four years as Hawaii county now accounts for 48 percent of the farms with ag-tourism and 37 percent of the total value. Maui county accounted for 23 percent of the farms and 20 percent of the value. Honolulu county had 16 percent of the farms and 25 percent of the value while Kauai county accounted for the remaining 13 percent of the farms and saw a boost in value to 18 percent of the total.?


County Total farms Farms with
ag-tourism activity
Value of
ag-tourism
($1,000)
Farms intending
to conduct ag-tourism
activities in the future
2000 2003 2000 2003 2000 2003 2000 2003
Hawaii 3,300 3,300 60 89 8,875 12,562 47 65
Honolulu 900 900 19 31 7,777 8,586 15 23
Kauai 500 500 16 24 2,103 5,949 6 20
Maui 800 800 31 43 7,288 6,772 16 37
State 5,500 5,500 126 187 26,043 33,869 84 145

Ag-tourism is a commercial enterprise on a working farm conducted for the enjoyment, education, and/or active involvement of the visitor, generating supplemental income for the farm. Activities such as producing and selling products directly from the farm, operating a bed and breakfast, conducting educational farm tours, offering horseback riding, festivals, concerts, and many other on-farm activities qualify as ag-tourism.


Hawaii and Kauai counties show big gains
Compared to four years ago, the county of Hawaii increased the value of ag-tourism by 42 percent, the second largest gain among all counties. A 48 percent increase in the number of farms with ag-tourism activity contributed to Hawaii county’s rise in value. Honolulu county saw a 63 percent increase in farms with ag-tourism and an increase in value of 10 percent. Kauai county registered the largest percentage increase by nearly tripling its ag-tourism value to $5.9 million in 2003. Maui county registered the only decline in the State during this 4-year period as receipts from ag-tourism decreased from $7.3 million in 2000 to $6.8 million in 2003, a 7 percent decline.Large operations generate most of ag-tourism’s value
Farms of all sizes conducted ag-tourism activities during 2003. These ag-tourism farms ranged from those with total farm sales of less than $2,500 a year to those well over $1 million per year. Large operations ($250,000 or more in total annual farm sales), however, accounted for most of the dollar value of ag-tourism. The top 20 percent of all farms with ag-tourism generated 91 percent of the total revenue.?

Although only approximately 3 percent of all Hawaii’s farms engaged in ag-tourism during 2003, the 48 percent increase in the number of ag-tourism operations between 2000 and 2003 is evidence that many see this as an opportunity to supplement their income and manage the risks inherent in farming.


Total value of
all farm sales
Total number
of farms 1/
Number of farms
with ag-tourism
Value of
ag-tourism
($1,000)
Average value of
ag-tourism per farm
(Dollars)
Less than $2,500 1,402 49 44 898
$2,500 to $4,999 715 4 14 3,616
$5,000 to $9,999 914 15 108 7,182
$10,000 to $24,999 1,060 21 188 8,934
$25,000 to $49,999 506 22 416 18,891
$50,000 to $249,999 563 38 2,447 64,395
$250,000 to $499,999 105 7 1,298 185,429
$500,000 to $999,999 62 8 3,218 402,250
$1,000,000 or more 71 23 26,137 1,136,376
State Total 5,398 187 33,869 181,115

1/ 2002 Census of Agriculture.


Sale of farm products leading source of ag-tourism income
Revenue from ag-tourism, which includes many various activities, was broken down into several categories. On-farm sales direct to farm visitors was the leading category, with $13.5 million, followed by retail sales (products from other farms or souvenir items), outdoor recreation, accommodations (bed and breakfast, meeting rooms, etc.), education, entertainment, and others.


?

Item Type of ag-tourism activity Totals 3/
Outdoor recreation Educational tourism On-farm
sales
Retail
sales 1/
Accommo-
dations 2/
Entertain-
ment
Other
Farms ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2000 28 30 83 29 27 8 8 126
2003 34 30 103 38 33 8 6 187
Value ($1,000) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2000 5,875 353 8,444 6,700 2,252 775 1,644 26,043
2003 5,019 1,177 13,479 9,083 2,490 1,061 1,560 33,869

1/ Products from other farms or souvenir items. 2/ Bed and breakfast, meeting rooms, etc. 3/ Unduplicated total number of farms.


Most ag-tourism operations plan to maintain or expand activities in the future
Seventy-nine percent of all ag-tourism operations in 2003 were planning to maintain or expand their operations in the future. Only 4 percent, or 8 farms, of the total indicated that they will discontinue or reduce their ag-tourism activities in the future. The 2003 Ag-tourism survey also showed that flower and/or nursery operations remained the most popular type of ag-tourism operation. Coffee and fruit farms were tied at a distant second.


?

Year Future ag-tourism plans Total
Expand ag-tourism activities Remain at
current level
Discontinue or reduce
ag-tourism activities
Uncertain
? Number of ag-tourism farms
2000 60 41 7 18 126
2003 61 86 8 32 187
Year Type of farm 1/ Total
Fruit Vegetable Coffee Macadamia
nut
Flower/ Nursery Livestock Other
? Number of ag-tourism farms
2000 12 8 25 5 35 30 11 126
2003 30 18 30 14 38 26 31 187

1/ A predominate commodity was designated for farms reporting more than one commodity.


Additional features of Hawaii’s 2003 ag-tourism industry


Busiest time of the year. . .slightly more than half, 51 percent, of the operations that reported ag- tourism activity in 2003 said that business was the same year round. Of the remaining responses, winter and summer were identified as the most significant peak periods, at 22 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Spring came in at 4 percent and fall at 2 percent.- Where do ag-tourism visitors come from?. . .mainland visitors constituted the highest percentage of ag-tourism visitors, at 53 percent, followed by Hawaii residents at 35 percent, and international visitors at 12 percent.?

Problems faced by ag-tourism operators. . .farmers were asked to rank problems or obstacles they faced in start-up or operation of ag-tourism activities. Funding was ranked as the number one problem, followed by conflicts/interference with on-going farm activities. Marketing was the third most common problem, and liability issues and insurance was fourth. Other problems ranking in order were zoning restrictions, labor, building permits, signage restrictions and community/cultural oppositions.

Point of sale…many operations received orders for products related to ag-tourism after the visitors returned home. Out of these, 74 percent of operations reported 0-25 percent of their sales from off-site orders, 21 percent of operations reported 26 to 50 percent, and 5 percent said that over 50 percent of their ag-tourism related sales came from off-site orders.


The Hawaii Agricultural Statistics office conducted a special survey of Hawaii’s farmers to obtain the results used in this report. We appreciate the cooperation of Hawaii’s agricultural producers who completed the survey questionnaire. A special note of thanks goes to the Agricultural Development Division of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the University of Hawaii’s College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for their support on this project.


?

Ethanol facility tax credit.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol04_Ch0201-0257/
HRS0235/HRS_0235-0110_0003.htm

?235-110.3 Ethanol facility tax credit. (a) Each year during the credit period, there shall be allowed to each taxpayer subject to the taxes imposed by this chapter, an ethanol facility tax credit that shall be applied to the taxpayer’s net income tax liability, if any, imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which the credit is properly claimed.

For each qualified ethanol production facility, the annual dollar amount of the ethanol facility tax credit during the eight-year period shall be equal to thirty per cent of its nameplate capacity if the nameplate capacity is greater than five hundred thousand but less than fifteen million gallons. A taxpayer may claim this credit for each qualifying ethanol facility; provided that:

(1) The claim for this credit by any taxpayer of a qualifying ethanol production facility shall not exceed one hundred per cent of the total of all investments made by the taxpayer in the qualifying ethanol production facility during the credit period;

(2) The qualifying ethanol production facility operated at a level of production of at least seventy-five per cent of its nameplate capacity on an annualized basis;

(3) The qualifying ethanol production facility is in production on or before January 1, 2012; and

(4) No taxpayer that claims the credit under this section shall claim any other tax credit under this chapter for the same taxable year.

(b) As used in this section:

“Credit period” means a maximum period of eight years beginning from the first taxable year in which the qualifying ethanol production facility begins production even if actual production is not at seventy-five per cent of nameplate capacity.

“Investment” means a nonrefundable capital expenditure related to the development and construction of any qualifying ethanol production facility, including processing equipment, waste treatment systems, pipelines, and liquid storage tanks at the facility or remote locations, including expansions or modifications. Capital expenditures shall be those direct and certain indirect costs determined in accordance with section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to uniform capitalization costs, but shall not include expenses for compensation paid to officers of the taxpayer, pension and other related costs, rent for land, the costs of repairing and maintaining the equipment or facilities, training of operating personnel, utility costs during construction, property taxes, costs relating to negotiation of commercial agreements not related to development or construction, or service costs that can be identified specifically with a service department or function or that directly benefit or are incurred by reason of a service department or function. For the purposes of determining a capital expenditure under this section, the provisions of section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code shall apply as it read on March 1, 2004. For purposes of this section, investment excludes land costs and includes any investment for which the taxpayer is at risk, as that term is used in section 465 of the Internal Revenue Code (with respect to deductions limited to amount at risk).

“Nameplate capacity” means the qualifying ethanol production facility’s production design capacity, in gallons of motor fuel grade ethanol per year.

“Net income tax liability” means net income tax liability reduced by all other credits allowed under this chapter.

“Qualifying ethanol production” means ethanol produced from renewable, organic feedstocks, or waste materials, including municipal solid waste. All qualifying production shall be fermented, distilled, gasified, or produced by physical chemical conversion methods such as reformation and catalytic conversion and dehydrated at the facility.

“Qualifying ethanol production facility” or “facility” means a facility located in Hawaii which produces motor fuel grade ethanol meeting the minimum specifications by the American Society of Testing and Materials standard D-4806, as amended.

(c) In the case of a taxable year in which the cumulative claims for the credit by the taxpayer of a qualifying ethanol production facility exceeds the cumulative investment made in the qualifying ethanol production facility by the taxpayer, only that portion that does not exceed the cumulative investment shall be claimed and allowed.

(d) The department of business, economic development, and tourism shall:

(1) Maintain records of the total amount of investment made by each taxpayer in a facility;

(2) Verify the amount of the qualifying investment;

(3) Total all qualifying and cumulative investments that the department of business, economic development, and tourism certifies; and

(4) Certify the total amount of the tax credit for each taxable year and the cumulative amount of the tax credit during the credit period.

Upon each determination, the department of business, economic development, and tourism shall issue a certificate to the taxpayer verifying the qualifying investment amounts, the credit amount certified for each taxable year, and the cumulative amount of the tax credit during the credit period. The taxpayer shall file the certificate with the taxpayer’s tax return with the department of taxation. Notwithstanding the department of business, economic development, and tourism’s certification authority under this section, the director of taxation may audit and adjust certification to conform to the facts.

If in any year, the annual amount of certified credits reaches $12,000,000 in the aggregate, the department of business, economic development, and tourism shall immediately discontinue certifying credits and notify the department of taxation. In no instance shall the total amount of certified credits exceed $12,000,000 per year. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(e) If the credit under this section exceeds the taxpayer’s income tax liability, the excess of credit over liability shall be refunded to the taxpayer; provided that no refunds or payments on account of the tax credit allowed by this section shall be made for amounts less than $1. All claims for a credit under this section must be properly filed on or before the end of the twelfth month following the close of the taxable year for which the credit may be claimed. Failure to comply with the foregoing provision shall constitute a waiver of the right to claim the credit.

(f) If a qualifying ethanol production facility or an interest therein is acquired by a taxpayer prior to the expiration of the credit period, the credit allowable under subsection (a) for any period after such acquisition shall be equal to the credit that would have been allowable under subsection (a) to the prior taxpayer had the taxpayer not disposed of the interest. If an interest is disposed of during any year for which the credit is allowable under subsection (a), the credit shall be allowable between the parties on the basis of the number of days during the year the interest was held by each taxpayer. In no case shall the credit allowed under subsection (a) be allowed after the expiration of the credit period.

(g) Once the total nameplate capacities of qualifying ethanol production facilities built within the State reaches or exceeds a level of forty million gallons per year, credits under this section shall not be allowed for new ethanol production facilities. If a new facility’s production capacity would cause the statewide ethanol production capacity to exceed forty million gallons per year, only the ethanol production capacity that does not exceed the statewide forty million gallon per year level shall be eligible for the credit.

(h) Prior to construction of any new qualifying ethanol production facility, the taxpayer shall provide written notice of the taxpayer’s intention to begin construction of a qualifying ethanol production facility. The information shall be provided to the department of taxation and the department of business, economic development, and tourism on forms provided by the department of business, economic development, and tourism, and shall include information on the taxpayer, facility location, facility production capacity, anticipated production start date, and the taxpayer’s contact information. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(i) The taxpayer shall provide written notice to the director of taxation and the director of business, economic development, and tourism within thirty days following the start of production. The notice shall include the production start date and expected ethanol fuel production for the next twenty-four months. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(j) If a qualifying ethanol production facility fails to achieve an average annual production of at least seventy-five per cent of its nameplate capacity for two consecutive years, the stated capacity of that facility may be revised by the director of business, economic development, and tourism to reflect actual production for the purposes of determining statewide production capacity under subsection (g) and allowable credits for that facility under subsection (a). Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this information shall be available for public inspection and dissemination under chapter 92F.

(k) Each calendar year during the credit period, the taxpayer shall provide information to the director of business, economic development, and tourism on the number of gallons of ethanol produced and sold during the previous calendar year, how much was sold in Hawaii versus overseas, feedstocks used for ethanol production, the number of employees of the facility, and the projected number of gallons of ethanol production for the succeeding year.

(l) In the case of a partnership, S corporation, estate, or trust, the tax credit allowable is for every qualifying ethanol production facility. The cost upon which the tax credit is computed shall be determined at the entity level. Distribution and share of credit shall be determined pursuant to section 235-110.7(a).

(m) Following each year in which a credit under this section has been claimed, the director of business, economic development, and tourism shall submit a written report to the governor and legislature regarding the production and sale of ethanol. The report shall include:

(1) The number, location, and nameplate capacities of qualifying ethanol production facilities in the State;

(2) The total number of gallons of ethanol produced and sold during the previous year; and

(3) The projected number of gallons of ethanol production for the succeeding year.

(n) The director of taxation shall prepare forms that may be necessary to claim a credit under this section. Notwithstanding the department of business, economic development, and tourism’s certification authority under this section, the director may audit and adjust certification to conform to the facts. The director may also require the taxpayer to furnish information to ascertain the validity of the claim for credit made under this section and may adopt rules necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section pursuant to chapter 91. [L 2000, c 289, ?2; am L 2004, c 140, ?2]

Note
The 2004 amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003. L 2004, c 140, ?4.

UH scientists may have solved kava mystery

honadv
By Kevin Dayton
Advertiser Big Island Bureau
HILO, Hawai’i — A team of University of Hawai’i scientists may have solved the mystery of why some Europeans who used products containing kava extract suffered severe liver damage, prompting a number of nations to ban sales of the herbal supplement.

The culprit may be a compound found in the stem peelings and leaves of the kava plant — known in Hawai’i as ‘awa — but not in the roots that are used to make the traditional kava drink consumed by Pacific Islanders.

Just to be safe, people should avoid tea or anything else made from the leaves or stems of the plant, according to C.S. Tang, professor of molecular biosciences and biosystems engineering at UH-Manoa.

Bans in Singapore, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere wiped out pharmaceutical sales of kava and virtually destroyed it as an export crop in Hawai’i. While kava supplements are not banned in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration issued an advisory in March 2002 warning of the potential risk of severe liver injury from dietary supplements containing kava.

The health alarms left farmers in Hamakua and elsewhere with crops that were hardly worth harvesting.

READ COMPLETE STORY

Analysis of Kava Side Effects Reports Concerning the Liver–Causal relationship probable at monograph-conforming dosage

Translation to English by Lindenmaier M and Brinckmann J
31. December 2001

Analysis of hepatotoxic reactions listed by the BfArM (German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices)

From the original 32 suspected cases, there are only 4 cases with probable causality to kava that remain after substraction of the double entries, the cases unrelated to kava as well as the improbable or doubtful ones. Of these 4 cases, only one is related to a monograph-conforming dosage regimen (Strahl et al. 1998). The remaining 3 cases should be therefore classified as usages associated with overdosages. In the only kava side effect case associated with recommended use and a somewhat causal certainty, there seems to be an existing relationship to an immunoligical condition in combination with a congentical cytochrom P450-2D6 deficency. A comparable cause could also possibly be related to one case associated with overdosage (IKS-Nr. 2000-0014; see below).

Read Complete Article Here

Analysis of Kava Side Effects Reports Concerning the Liver–Literature

Translation to English by Lindenmaier M and Brinckmann J
31. December 2001

Analysis of hepatotoxic reactions listed by the BfArM (German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices)

[1] Anonym. Konsequenzen f?r Kava-Pr?parate in der Schweiz. Pharm Ztg 2000; 145(42):3494.

[2] Arzneimittelkommission der Deutschen Apotheker. Kava-Kava und Kavain-haltige Arzneimittel. Pharm Ztg 2001; 146(46):4017.

[3] Arzneimittelkommission der Deutschen Apotheker. Kava-Pr?parate und Kavain-haltige Arzneimittel. Dtsch Apoth Ztg 2001; 141(46):5412.

[4] Barrio J, Castiella A, Cosme A, Lopez P, Fernandez J, Arenas JI. [Hepatotoxicity caused by cloxacillin]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 1997; 89(7):559-560.

[5] Barrio J, Castiella A, Lobo C, Indart A, Lopez P, Garcia-Bengoechea M et al. [Cholestatic acute hepatitis induced by amoxycillin-clavulanic acid combination. Role of ursodeoxycholic acid in drug-induced cholestasis]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 1998; 90(7):523-526.

[6] Bauer TM, Bircher AJ. Drug-induced hepatocellular liver injury due to benzylpenicillin with evidence of lymphocyte sensitization. J Hepatol 1997; 26(2):429-432.

[7] Beeley L, Gourevitch A, Kendall MJ. Jaundice after oral penicillin. Lancet 1976; 2(7998):1297.

[8] Benichou C. Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders. Report of an international consensus meeting. J Hepatol 1990; 11(2):272-276.

[9] Bint AJ. Esters of penicillins–are they hepatotoxic? J Antimicrob Chemother 1980; 6(6):697-699.

[10] Bralet MP, Zafrani ES. [Hepatitis caused by the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid combination. An example of drug-induced biliary hepatotoxicity]. Ann Pathol 1996; 16(6):425-429.

[11] Brauer R-B, Pfab R, Becker K, Berger H, Stangl M. Fulminantes Leberversagen nach Einnahme des pflazlichen Heilmittels Kava-Kava. Z Gastroenterol 2001; 39:491.

[12] Bustamante BM, Perez AF, Rayon MM, Garcia HA, Berenguer LJ. [Cholestatic hepatitis caused by amoxycillin-clavulanic acid. Report of a new case]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997; 20(4):187-189.

[13] Caballero Plasencia AM, Valenzuela BM, Martin Ruiz JL, Guilarte Lopez-Manas J. [Hepatotoxicity caused by amoxicillin, clavulanic acid or both?]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997; 20(1):45-46.

[14] Escher M, Desmeules J. Hepatitis associated with Kava, a herbal remedy for anxiety. Br Med J 2001; 322(20.01.01):139.

[15] Farrell GC. Drug-induced hepatic injury. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997; 12(9-10):S242-S250.

[16] Galindo C, Buenestado J, Rene JM, Pinol MC. [Acute pancreatitis associated with hepatotoxicity induced by amoxicillin-clavulanic acid]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 1995; 87(8):597-600.

[17] George DK, Crawford DH. Antibacterial-induced hepatotoxicity. Incidence, prevention and management. Drug Saf 1996; 15(1):79-85.

[18] Goland S, Malnick SD, Gratz R, Feldberg E, Geltner D, Sthoeger ZM. Severe cholestatic hepatitis following cloxacillin treatment. Postgrad Med J 1998; 74(867):59-60.

[19] Goldstein LI, Ishak KG. Hepatic injury associated with penicillin therapy. Arch Pathol 1974; 98(2):114-117.

[20] Hautekeete ML. Hepatotoxicity of antibiotics. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 1995; 58(3-4):290-296.

[21] Hewitt J, Hammond L. Adverse hepatic events associated with drug therapy. Med J Aust 1996; 165(6):347, 350.

[22] Kraft M, Spahn TW, Menzel J, Senninger N, Dietl K-H, Herbst H et al. Fulminantes Leberversagen nach Einahme des pflanzlichen Antidepressivums Kava-Kava. Dtsch med Wschr 2001; 126(36):970-972.

[23] Kurowski V. [Cholestatic jaundice induced by amoxicillin and clavulanic acid]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1996; 121(12):390-391.

[24] Larrey D, Palazzo L, Benhamou JP. Terfenadine and hepatitis. Ann Intern Med 1985; 103(4):634.

[25] Mizoguchi Y, Iwasaki M, Tsutsui H, Kobayashi K, Monna T, Morisawa S. Preparation of a drug-induced allergic hepatic disorder model with penicillin as hapten. Osaka City Med J 1991; 37(2):133-140.

[26] Olans RN, Weiner LB. Reversible oxacillin hepatotoxicity. J Pediatr 1976; 89(5):835-838.

[27] Onate J, Montejo M, Aguirrebengoa K, Ruiz-Irastorza G, Gonzalez dZ, Aguirre C. Hepatotoxicity associated with penicillin V therapy. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20(2):474-475.

[28] Paine TF, Jr. Updating the side effects of the penicillins. Zhonghua Min Guo Wei Sheng Wu Xue Za Zhi 1978; 11(3):104-109.

[29] Perman E. [A severe adverse effect of penicillin on the liver. Drug insurance covered the compensation]. Lakartidningen 1998; 95(34):3536.

[30] Russmann S, Escher M, Stoller R, Lauterburg BH. Hepatotoxicity of Kava Kava (Piper methysticum) containing herbal drugs. Recent cases in Switzerland and investigations regarding the mechanism. J Exp Klin Pharmakol Toxicol 2001; 363(4):S40.

[31] Russmann S, Lauterburg BH, Helbling A. Kava hepatotoxicity. Ann Int Med 2001; 135(1):68-69.

[32] Sahai A, Villeneuve JP. Terfenadine-induced cholestatic hepatitis. Lancet 1996; 348(9026):552-553.

[33] Sa? M, Schnabel S, Kr?ger J, Liebe S, Schareck WD. Akutes Leberversagen durch Kava-Kava – eine seltene Indikation zur Lebertransplantation. Z Gastroenterol 2001; 39:491.

[34] Silvain C, Fort E, Levillain P, Labat-Labourdette J, Beauchant M. Granulomatous hepatitis due to combination of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid. Dig Dis Sci 1992; 37(1):150-152.

[35] Stoller R. Lebersch?digungen unter Kava-Extrakten. Schweiz ?rzteztg 2000; 81(24):1335-1336.

[36] Strahl S, Ehret V, Dahm HH, Maier KP. Nekrotisierende Hepatitis nach Einnahme pflanzlicher Heilmittel. Dtsch med Wschr 1998; 123:1410-1414.

[37] Weber E. Taschenbuch der unerw?nschten Arzneimittelwirkungen. 2 ed. Stuttgart, New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1988.

[38] Westphal JF, Vetter D, Brogard JM. Hepatic side-effects of antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33(3):387-401.

[39] Yusoff IF, Nairn P, Morgan CA. Multiple organ failure related to pantoprazole. Aust N Z J Med 1999; 29(6):833-834.

Read Complete Article Here