Kava extracts found to cause strong antiproliferative and apoptotic (programmed cell death) effects in human bladder cancer cells and also suppresses tumor growth in mice.
Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003
Hawaii Ag-Tourism | Released: October 18, 2004 |
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.
– 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.
?
A study into the kava industry has found that there was no basis for the market recalls or restriction on kava
The Future of Hawaii’s commercial ‘Awa industry
STRATEGIES for saving Hawaii’s commercial kava industry
1) Promotion of Kava
- Put stories in the press about kava
- Participate in educational/tasting events, tell the kava story
- Hold annual kava festival
2) Increase public access to kava beverage
- Open more kava cafes- at least 6 in US (Honolulu, Hilo, Kona, Maui?, Eugene, OR, Baca Raton, FL
- Move into other food /beverage venues–cafes, Starbucks, Jamba juice, internet caf?
- Develop a Small business innovative research grant; for Kava beverage making machine because hand squeezing limits production, raises labor costs. Proposals have been submitted by AHA, Puu Hoku Ranch
- Develop a grant to develop a kava beverage that is shelf-stable product; (check with Lebot if he can share his formula particularly amylase enzyme use.
Final Environmental Assessment for a Fence Project to Protect The East Maui Watershed
Determination
Findings, and Reasons Supporting Determination
EA Preparation information
Determination
Build Phase I and Phase 2 Fences as Proposed
As outlined in Section 11-200-12 of the Hawaii Environmental Impact Statement Rules, no significant neptive impacts to the environment are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed activities.
Findings, and Reasons Supporting Determination
In the long term, all activities are expected to be beneficial, or to have no negative effect. The proposed fences are expected to benefit native species (including rare and endangered plants and animals), native natural communities, and important watershed on windward East Maui. By reducing browsing and ocher types 0f ungulate damage (including the spread 0f certain weeds), the proposed fences, and the control measures that will follow fence construction, will help promote a more stable water regime, and protect native plants and animals within the project area. These actions are also expected to allow passive restoration of native areas previousLy damaged by feral pigs.
The risk of significant negative impact is low. Through a rigorous cleaning and monitoring program, the introduction or spread of new weed species by humans is expected to be minimal. Management-related impacts on historical resources in the area will be avoided
Preparation information
This Environmental Assessment was prepared on behalf of the East Maui Watershed Partnership by:
Wendy Fulks, Project Manager
The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii
1116 Smith Street, Suite 201
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
(808) 5374508
Analysis of Kava Side Effects Reports Concerning the Liver
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)
The BfArM has recently informed industry and media about reported side effects that may be associated with the ingestion of kava preparations (2;3). In this preliminary information, it is stated that the Institute proposes to revoke marketing authorization for kava -containing drugs including homeopathic preparations with a final concentration of D6. Henceforth, the manufacturers have been given the opportunity, within 4 weeks time of receipt of the letter, to respond with its position concerning the proposed measures.Even though the announcements are rather serious, the need for urgency comes as a surprise: with regard to the drug safety protocol developed in Switzerland in 2000, of which the German health authorities also had knowledge of, the information status has not fundamentally changed. Yet on October 19, 2000, theGerman health authorities stated in a 10 part report that the BfArM had no intentions of conducting a new risk evaluation for kava products in Germany (1). ???
The announcement of a drug safety protocol through the BfArM was based on a listing of 24 cases of side effects in connection with serious hepatotoxic effects ranging up to liver failure, (cholestatic) hepatitis or cirrhosis of the liver. In 18 of these cases, the BfArM classified an association with kava as probable or possible. In one case, the adverse effect on the liver was fatal. Five cases were without any concomitant medication. Two reports couldnot be evaluated due a lack of clinical data. Also, in the cases involvingco-medication, the BfArM considered kava to be responsible for the side effect. Serological investigations, as far as they were carried out, were negative in all cases. Closer inspection of the presented cases provides, however, another outcome andraises considerable questions with regard to the BfArM accuracy or carefulness in association with sensible procedures. For example, the report regarding virus serology is misleading: such investigations were conducted in only the fewest of cases, and these were primarily the ones reported in Switzerland. The adverse event case reports from Switzerland are collectively characterized as being representative, while the evaluation of the listings bythe BfArM is far from compliance with the current standards required to fulfill relevant European guidelines. When one examines the reactions in detail, it appears that the BfArM’s classification of causality linked to kava, is, to a large extent, incomprehensible, and arbitrary. Moreover, in its evaluation of cases, the BfArM had not taken into consideration various existing pieces of information, for example those with regard to other possible causes. One extreme example may be concerning the aforementioned lethal case: in this instance, it was known to the Institute that the cause of liver failure was several years of alcoholabuse, and that kava was not involved in the genesis of the liver symptoms. The autopsy had shown that the cirrhotic process had already started long before the adminstration of kava began! The second, internal listing documented that this circumstance was known to the BfArM, but this listing has not been made accessible to the manufacturers for use in rebuttal statements regarding the notice of possible marketing revocation. This second listing contained a compilation of all known suspected cases (32 in all), including those reported in Switzerland and those published in the literature. This listing is indeed carefully conveyed as being an ?official? paper, however it still contains a range of obvious errors. Because the ?non-official? second listing of the BfArM is complete in regard to the sources referred to in this evaluation, the 24 reports of side effects initially reported by BfArM are consequently not being used as the basis of discussion, but rather the 32 cases that were entered into the second listing. In addition to the BfArM’s two listings, other sources of information for the present case evaluation include the Interkantonalen Kontrollstelle (IKS) der Schweiz (Swiss Intercantonal Agency for Control of Medicines), the pharmacovigilance databank of the WHO, as well as concerned product manufacturers.The listing of cases that are suspected to be kava-related by the Arzneimittelkomission der deutschen ?rzteschaft (AKD?) (Drug Commission of the German Physician’s Association) is not included. The AKD?’s listing of the most recent adverse event reports contains no indications of liver toxicity from kava products. Moreover, theAKD? does not release the product names publicly, which prevents a meaningful use of the data a priori.? |
Analysis of Kava Side Effects Reports Concerning the Liver–Total Listed Cases
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. Total Listed Cases
Referring to the non-official second listing of the BfArM as a foundation, there is a database of 32 side effect reports, including those reported by the Swiss health authorities (IKS), the WHO, as well as those cases described in the medical literature. The number of 32 reports is of course not synonymous to 32 cases of confirmed causality. The list contains duplicate reports and questionable classifications. When one collects all the available data for the individual cases, one arrives inevitably at another evaluation of the data.
2. Duplicate Entries
With a more accurate observation of the case reports listed by the BfArM, one finds a range of duplicate entries. Obviously, the duplicate entries were not reconciled against each other when the information was obtained from different sources. Therefore, the report of one and the same case can lead to a threefold entry, if, on the one hand, the event is reported directly from the patient, and on the other hand, the event is also reported via the manufacturer’s duty of notification, and finally, the treating phyisician also turns in a case report. These redundant data entries are not only difficult to recognize, but the inflated number of cases has led to a shift in the risk evaluation for a drug substance. In the case of the BfArM listings, mistakes in data transfer have exacerbated this situation.
READ COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE
Analysis of Kava Side Effects Reports Concerning the Liver–Causal relationship with concomitant medication probable
Causal relationship with concomitant medication probable
- In the causality evaluation of suspected cases of undesired drug effects, influences from the co-medication may possibly be involved. In its press release, the BfArM intentionally emphasized that 18 of the 24 cases were attributed to kava, in spite of a known causal relationship with the co-medication. Upon closer inspection, this assessment by the BfArM appeared to be arbitrary: After subtracting the above mentioned cases and duplicate reports, 11 suspected cases remain. Due to the concomitant circumstances and the ingestion of other medications with known liver damaging potential, there is considerable doubt in respect to an objective portrayal of risk, in contrast to how this was portrayed in the press release.In principle, the participation of kava can not be absolutely ruled out, even if the co-medication provides solid evidence for other causes. Hence, the following registered cases are classified as “improbable”.
Analysis of Kava Side Effects Reports Concerning the Liver–Doubtful Causality
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)
Three of the known suspected cases of kava-related hepatic side effects cannot be easily negated but a conclusive correlation is not possible. In the following cases, no co-medications, or only preparations without a known hepatotoxic potential, are listed. Based on the experiences from the previously listed cases, however, it should not be assumed that no suspicious co-medications were taken. The BfArM failed to list known co-medications in more than one case, but experiences with the handling of spontaneous side effect reports show that crucial information is often not obtainable due to poor cooperation by the patient. This dilemma of every drug safety protocol agent should, however, not automatically justify the classification of ?certain causality?, as it had been expressed by the BfArM in a press release.