Kava Kava is Safe and Should be Legalized Wherever it’s Been Banned

Several years ago, the herb kava kava was banned in Canada. Kava is simply the best treatment for anxiety out there, whether natural or pharmaceutical. The herb was banned by Health Canada allegedly for possible liver toxicity.

Now a new study adds to the already consistent and overwhelming evidence that kava is not dangerous for your liver or for anything. This kava safety study was placebo-controlled and double-blinded. It included 58 people with DSM-IV general anxiety disorder (GAD). The six week study gave either a placebo or kava kava providing 120mg of kavalactones. The dose was increased to 240mg a day if there was no responce by week three. . . .

There were no significant adverse events. No one suffered from withdrawl and no one developed an addiction. Most importantly, there was no significant difference in liver function, and no one developed a hepatic abnormality (though one person had an increase in GCT).

The researchers concluded that kava kava is safe for GAD. They added that these data may assist in the reintroduction of kava in restricted markets.

(Phtother Res 2013 [epub ahead of print].doi:10.1002/ptr.4916)

This study is an important addition to the large body. As we say in our book, Healthy Herbs: Your Everyday Guide to Medicinal Herbs and their Use:

According to an advisory posted on Health Canada’s website, kava has been banned based on a safety assessment that concluded, not that kava is dangerous, but that there was insufficient evidence that it is safe.

            Insufficient evidence? How about thousands of years of traditional use? How about over a dozen clinical studies and two meta-analyses which not only demonstrated kava’s effectiveness, but consistently marveled at its safety? How about at least eight toxicological studies on kava, not one of which showed any evidence of liver toxicity, including the most recent Duke University study (CNS Spectrums 2001)?

            Health Canada and others have responded to a scare stirred up by a series of case reports claiming that some people who have used kava have suffered liver toxicity. There were twenty-eight cases in Germany and Switzerland. But regulatory decisions should be based on science, not panic. And according to all the current scientific data we have, the conclusion being based on these reports is deeply flawed.

            At least four separate analyses of the case reports have now concluded that there is no evidence that the liver damage was caused by the kava and that kava is a safe alternative for the treatment of anxiety. Many of the cases can be explained by  preexistent liver disease and simultaneous use of alcohol or drugs that are known to be liver toxins.

            An American analysis of the reports by a toxicologist/pharmacologist at the University of Illinois, concluded that there was no clear evidence that the liver damage was caused by kava and that, when used properly, kava has no scientifically established potential for causing liver damage (Waller 2002). A German analysis said that connecting kava to the liver toxicity was not logical in the majority of cases and called the connection arbitrary (German Pharmacists Journal 2002).

            And how about the double standard? Kava is pulled from the shelves on weak and arbitrary evidence that it causes liver toxicity. Aspirin and Tylenol cause liver toxicity. Studies have proven that hormone replacement therapy causes breast cancer and heart disease, but no one is calling for its removal from the shelves. And, most relevant to the present case, one review of the kava cases compared the risk of using kava to the risk of using the conventional alternative, benzodiazepines, and concluded that, based on the adverse events caused by each, switching people from kava to the drugs would increase, not decrease, the risk (German Pharmacists Journal 2002). So where’s the science and the logic there? Or as another German reviewer put it, “In view of the current scientific knowledge, the hasty condemnation of Kava extracts appears neither logical nor justifiable. Professional judgment and correct risk/benefit analyses are lacking (German Pharmacists Journal 2002).”