Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 2.6.3 – Kava

The Standard organises a small set of legal concepts around three axes: definition, permission, and constraint. Each concept is textually minimal but carries operational consequences.

• Definition: “kava” and “kava root” are defined to limit the material that can be lawfully sold in the permitted forms. “Kava” is the species Piper methysticum (2.6.3,2). “Kava root” is not any root of that species; it must be the peeled root or peeled rootstock of a Noble variety of kava named in section 3.1 of the Regional Standard for Kava Products for use as a Beverage When Mixed with Water (CXS 336R-2020), adopted by the 43rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (2020) (2.6.3,2). The effect is to make the permissibility contingent on botanical variety and an external Codex listing.

• Exception to prohibition: The Code contains a standing prohibition on kava or substances derived from kava being ingredients in food (paragraph 1.1.1,10(5)(e)); Standard 2.6.3 creates an exception to that prohibition for two narrow categories: (a) cold-water aqueous suspension beverages prepared from kava root without any organic solvent, and (b) dried or raw kava root (2.6.3,3). The permitted beverage form is defined by the authorised process (aqueous suspension, cold water only, no organic solvents).

• Labelling obligations: For any food falling within the exception (2.6.3,3(a) or (b)), the Standard mandates two specific warning statements on the label: “Use in moderation” and “May cause drowsiness” (2.6.3,4). The Standard cross-references Standard 1.2.1 for labelling mechanics and 1.2.1,9(3)(f) for unpackaged kava.

• Composition restrictions: The Standard prohibits any ingredient or component that “was used as a food additive” or “was used as a processing aid” from being present in the permitted kava foods (2.6.3,5). The phrasing indicates a temporal or categorical identification: substances that have been used in those roles are excluded. The asterisks used in the text map to the Code’s definitions (see section 1.1.2,3 reference in the headnote to the Definitions clause), so the meaning of “food additive” and “processing aid” will be determined by the Code’s definitions.

Operationally, these concepts create checkpoints for the supply chain: botanical origin and variety documentation; process controls to ensure cold water aqueous suspension only; ingredients and components screening against the Code’s definitions of additives and processing aids; and labelling systems that capture the two mandatory warnings. The text also explicitly links the Standard to other legal instruments and to State/Territory restrictions (Note 4), making compliance a multi-jurisdictional exercise. The amendments recorded in the Standard’s history show that the definition (2.6.3,2) was substituted and the prohibition on additives and processing aids (2.6.3,5) was added by Amendment No. 206 on 23 March 2022, so the current composition constraint is recent in the instrument’s lifecycle.

The Standard identifies, implicitly and explicitly, a compact set of stakeholders whose legal positions are changed.

• Producers and processors of kava: Anyone producing beverages by aqueous suspension of kava root or selling dried or raw kava root is directly regulated. Producers must ensure the kava root is from a Noble variety listed in the Codex standard (2.6.3,2) and that the permitted beverage process uses cold water only and no organic solvent (2.6.3,3(a)). They must also avoid introducing any substance that was used as a food additive or processing aid (2.6.3,5). These are concrete production and formulation constraints.

• Importers and exporters: Note 4 instructs Australian stakeholders to consider this Standard together with the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth). Where Customs or State/Territory rules ban particular forms or imports, importers face an additional legal layer even if the Code permits a form. In New Zealand, the Standard is incorporated under the Food Act 2014 (NZ) (Note 2), so import/export actors operating between jurisdictions must navigate both national implementations of the Code.

• Retailers and food businesses: Retailers selling beverages made by aqueous suspension of kava root, or selling dried or raw kava root, must ensure labelling contains the two warnings stated in 2.6.3,4 and that no prohibited additives or processing aids are present (2.6.3,5). For unpackaged sales, the seller must comply with 1.2.1,9(3)(f), as noted in 2.6.3,4.

• Regulators and enforcement agencies: Food regulators in Australia (operating under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991) and in New Zealand (under the Food Act 2014) have the Standard as part of the Code to apply. The Standard explicitly links to State and Territory supply restrictions that “seek to minimise the detrimental effects associated with kava abuse” (Note 4), so State/Territory agencies also have a regulatory interest.

• Consumers: The legal availability of two specific forms of kava (cold-water aqueous beverages and dried or raw root) affects consumer choice, and the mandatory labels carry consumer-directed instructions (“Use in moderation” and “May cause drowsiness”) (2.6.3,4). The Standard therefore alters the information consumers receive and the range of products lawfully offered.

• Ancillary service providers: Laboratories, certifiers, and supply-chain auditors are affected implicitly because the Standard’s botanical qualification and composition prohibition create documentary and testing needs. The definition’s reliance on Codex CXS 336R-2020 section 3.1 (2.6.3,2) means suppliers will need provenance and variety documentation.

The distribution of duties is: the Code (through this Standard) decides permitted product forms and mandatory labels; producers, importers, packagers and retailers pay for compliance in the form of sourcing, process control, labelling and recordkeeping; State/Territory and Customs rules may impose additional constraints that also affect these actors (Note 4). The Standard creates a permission for narrowly specified kava products but also a compliance gate that requires provenance and recipe/process controls. The Standard’s amendments (particularly the 23 March 2022 substitution of the definition and added prohibition on additives/processing aids) may have introduced new documentary and formulation burdens for incumbents and entrants in the kava supply chain.

The Standard sets out specific legal duties for those handling kava as food, and it confers a limited right to supply specified forms. Below are the operative duties and the rights they create or restrict.

Rights granted

• A limited right to supply kava as a food exists where the product is within the exception to paragraph 1.1.1,10(5)(e). The exception permits: (a) a beverage obtained by aqueous suspension of kava root using cold water only, not using any organic solvent, and (b) dried or raw kava root (2.6.3,3). Where a product meets those exact conditions, it does not fall within the Code’s general prohibition referenced in 1.1.1,10(5)(e). That is an affirmative permission carved out from an otherwise prohibitive provision.

Duties imposed

• Source and variety duty: If a producer or supplier claims to sell “kava root” under the Standard, the material must be the peeled root or peeled rootstock of a Noble variety named in section 3.1 of the Codex Regional Standard (CXS 336R-2020) as adopted (2.6.3,2). This creates a duty to ensure botanical identification and provenance that aligns with the Codex listing.

• Process duty: For beverages, the aqueous suspension must use cold water only and must not use any organic solvent (2.6.3,3(a)). The duty is process-specific; use of organic solvents or non-aqueous processes will take the product outside the permitted category.

• Composition duty: A permitted food must not have as an ingredient or component any substance that was used as a food additive or that was used as a processing aid (2.6.3,5). This requires suppliers to screen all inputs against the Code’s additive and processing-aid classifications.

• Labelling duty: Foods falling within 2.6.3,3(a) or (b) must display the warning statements “Use in moderation” and “May cause drowsiness” (2.6.3,4). The Standard makes the labelling requirement subject to the labelling provisions set out in Standard 1.2.1, and refers to the unpackaged kava label requirement in 1.2.1,9(3)(f). Practically, the duty is to affix or provide those two statements in accordance with the Code’s labelling mechanics.

• Interjurisdictional compliance duty: In Australia, stakeholders must also consider Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) and State and Territory restrictions; where those rules apply, compliance with the Standard alone may not satisfy overall legal obligations (Note 4). In New Zealand, the Standard is incorporated in or adopted under the Food Act 2014 (NZ) (Note 2), imposing that jurisdiction’s statutory regime on permitted kava foods.

Duties of interpretation and updating

• Recordkeeping and verification: While the Standard does not prescribe recordkeeping mechanics, its requirements for botanical variety and absence of additives imply a duty to verify and document provenance, processing method, and ingredient status. The linkage to an external Codex list (2.6.3,2) creates a duty to monitor that list and to apply the current Codex section 3.1 as adopted.

• Keeping current with amendments: The Amendment History shows substantive changes, including substitution of the definition and addition of the composition prohibition on 23 March 2022 (Amendment No. 206). Businesses have a duty to track amendments to remain in compliance.

Who decides

• The Code (via Food Standards Australia New Zealand under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991) and the Standard decide the permitted product forms and mandated labels (Notes 1 and 3). State and Territory authorities decide on supply restrictions within their jurisdictions (Note 4). Customs decide on import prohibitions under separate regulations referenced by the Standard.

Where questions remain, the Code’s definitions (section 1.1.2,3) and labelling mechanics (Standard 1.2.1) supply the ancillary rules needed to operationalise the duties listed above. The Standard itself explicitly defers to those Code provisions for definitional and labelling mechanics (2.6.3,2 and 2.6.3,4).

The Standard’s text, as provided, does not itself set out penalty scales, offence provisions, or enforcement procedures. It operates within the broader structure of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and related national and subnational laws, and several notes in the instrument point to those other instruments as the loci for enforcement and complementary restrictions.

What the Standard says about enforcement context

• The Standard is made under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and forms part of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Notes 1 and 3). Enforcement of Code provisions generally falls to national, state and territory food authorities and, in New Zealand, to the implementation under the Food Act 2014 (NZ) (Note 2). The Standard itself does not include a clause that prescribes penalties or enforcement mechanics.

• The Standard directs Australian stakeholders to consider this instrument alongside the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) and certain State and Territory restrictions on supply that “seek to minimise the detrimental effects associated with kava abuse” (Note 4). Those external instruments contain the operative rules regarding import prohibitions and jurisdictional supply controls; enforcement powers and penalties for breaches will therefore be found in those instruments and in the enforcement provisions of the Food Standards Act and State/Territory legislation.

Implications from the Standard’s silence

• No standalone sanctions: Because the Standard itself does not state penalties, one cannot identify a specific monetary fine, criminal offence, or administrative sanction from the Standard alone. Enforcement consequences will depend on the provisions of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, the relevant state or territory food legislation, Customs law, or New Zealand’s Food Act 2014 as applicable.

• Compliance risk remains: Although penalties are not specified in this text, the Standard creates mandatory requirements (permitted forms, labelling, composition restrictions) that, if not met, will leave a product outside the Code’s permitted exception to paragraph 1.1.1,10(5)(e). A product outside that exception will be subject to the general prohibition in 1.1.1,10(5)(e) and to any enforcement or penalty regimes attached to the Code or other legislation cited in the notes.

Practical enforcement pointers (based on the Standard’s structure)

• Enforcement agencies will likely assess whether a product fits the defined exceptions in 2.6.3,3 and whether required labels (2.6.3,4) and composition restrictions (2.6.3,5) have been met. Evidence will therefore centre on provenance documentation (to show Noble variety), process records (to show only cold-water aqueous suspension), ingredient specifications (to show absence of substances used as food additives or processing aids), and label copy/placement (to show the two warnings).

• Where an operator in Australia relies solely on compliance with Standard 2.6.3 but ignores Customs import controls or State/Territory supply restrictions, the operator may face enforcement action under those separate instruments despite compliance with the Code.

Because the Standard does not specify enforcement details or penalty levels in its own text, practitioners must consult the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, the applicable State/Territory food laws, the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth), and in New Zealand the Food Act 2014 (NZ) for precise enforcement regimes and sanctions that will apply to breaches involving kava products.

Standard 2.6.3 is embedded in a network of legal instruments; the text itself flags specific cross-references and dependencies. Those interactions determine where responsibility, additional constraints, and procedural mechanics sit.

Direct Code cross-references

• General prohibition: The Standard operates as an exception to a Code prohibition in paragraph 1.1.1,10(5)(e), which generally forbids kava or substances derived from kava in foods unless expressly permitted by the Code (Note 3). The consequence is that the permissibility of a product is interpreted against the backdrop of the Code’s general prohibitions and definitions, not in isolation.

• Definitions and labelling: The Standard relies on the Code’s definition mechanics (section 1.1.2,3) for its operative definitions (2.6.3,2) and directs label mechanics to Standard 1.2.1 (2.6.3,4). For unpackaged kava, it points specifically to 1.2.1,9(3)(f). Thus, the Code’s general rules on how labels must be presented and how definitions apply will govern implementation.

Interaction with external Commonwealth and state laws (Australia)

• Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth): Note 4 expressly tells stakeholders in Australia to consider these Regulations. That indicates that importation may be separately controlled and that Customs rules could prohibit import of some or all kava forms even if the Code permits them. Compliance with Standard 2.6.3 does not negate any import prohibition under the Customs regulatory regime.

• State and Territory restrictions: Note 4 also references "certain State and Territory restrictions on the supply of kava which seek to minimise the detrimental effects associated with kava abuse." These supply restrictions are external to the Code and will vary by jurisdiction. A product lawful under the Code may still be restricted or subject to licensing or other controls at State or Territory level.

Interaction with New Zealand law

• Food Act 2014 (NZ): Note 2 states that the provisions of the Code that apply in New Zealand are incorporated in, or adopted under, the Food Act 2014 (NZ). That means that the Standard’s permissions and duties will be given effect under New Zealand’s domestic food law regime, subject to the implementation mechanisms of the Food Act.

Interaction with Codex standards

• Codex reference as operative criterion: The definition of “kava root” (2.6.3,2) conditions permissibility on the root being of a Noble variety named in section 3.1 of the Regional Standard for Kava Products for use as a Beverage When Mixed with Water (CXS 336R-2020) as adopted by the 43rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (2020). This imports an external international standard as an operative legal filter. That has two interaction effects: (1) the permitted varieties are determined by an external standard rather than solely by domestic regulators, and (2) businesses must monitor that Codex section to ensure ongoing conformity (and to identify whether the Codex list changes).

Operational interaction effects and risks

• Multi-layered compliance: A producer or importer must satisfy the Code’s content and labelling requirements (Standards 2.6.3 and 1.2.1), Customs import rules (if importing), and State/Territory supply controls (if operating in Australia). The Standard’s notes explicitly indicate that these other rules may impose further limits.

• Potential for inconsistent outcomes: Because the Standard creates a national/internationally referenced permission while State/Territory and Customs rules may differ, a product lawful under the Code may be banned or restricted at the point of importation or sale. The Standard flags this mismatch but does not resolve jurisdictional inconsistencies.

• Amendment interaction: The Amendment History shows that definitions and prohibitions in this Standard have been amended (notably substitution of the definition and addition of the prohibition in 2022). Changes to such provisions create contemporaneous interaction effects with other laws that may not be synchronised, requiring businesses and regulators to coordinate across instruments.

In sum, Standard 2.6.3 is not a self-contained legal regime; it operates as an exception inside the Code and as part of an overlay that includes Customs law, State/Territory supply rules in Australia, and the New Zealand Food Act, and it imports an external Codex listing as the botanical qualification for permissible root material.

The Standard includes a recorded amendment history that identifies when substantive textual changes were made and provides the Gazette and registration references. The compilation text here dates to 23 March 2022 and includes amendments up to Amendment No. 206. Key points from the Amendment History are:

• Original publication: Standard 2.6.3 was published in the Food Standards Gazette No. FSC96 on 10 April 2015 as part of Amendment 154 (F2015L00466 - 1 April 2015). That marks the instrument’s initial placement in the Code (Amendment 154 published 10 April 2015).

• Amendment No. 168 (13 April 2017): This amendment amended Note 3 to the Standard and section 2.6.3,3 by way of a cross-reference (A’ment No. 168; Gazette F2017L00414, FSC110, 13 April 2017). The Amendment History describes these changes as cross-references.

• Amendment No. 200 (3 June 2021): This amendment was listed as amending 1.2.8,1 by cross-reference (A’ment No. 200; Gazette F2021L00684, FSC141, 3 June 2021). It is included in the table but does not directly alter the core text of Standard 2.6.3 except insofar as it updated a cross-reference.

• Amendment No. 206 (23 March 2022): This amendment substituted the definition in 2.6.3,2 and added section 2.6.3,5 (prohibition on food additives and processing aids in kava). The Gazette registration is F2022L00308 and the FSANZ Notification Circular 195-22 is noted (Urgent Proposal). The amendment is recorded as commencing on 23 March 2022 and is shown in the compilation as “omit and substitute definition” for 2.6.3,2 and “ad” (added) for 2.6.3,5.

About the compilation

• The compilation here is No. 3 of Standard 2.6.3 as in force on 23 March 2022 (up to Amendment No. 206) and includes any commenced amendment affecting the compilation to that date. The compilation indicates whether uncommenced amendments might be reflected as shaded text in certain versions, but the present compilation is current to the date given.

Practical effects of the amendment history

• The substitution of the 2.6.3,2 definition and the addition of 2.6.3,5 on 23 March 2022 are substantive. The amended definition ties permissibility to a Codex list of Noble varieties, potentially narrowing or clarifying eligible raw material. The addition of the prohibition on inputs that “were used as a food additive” or “were used as a processing aid” (2.6.3,5) imposes a new composition constraint that was not in the original 2015 text. These changes shift sourcing, formulation and supply-chain verification burdens onto producers and importers post-23 March 2022.

• For compliance planning, operators should view the Standard as a living instrument and monitor FSANZ notifications and Gazette publications for further amendments that could alter permitted forms, labelling or composition restrictions.

The Amendment History in the compilation is the authoritative textual record for the Standard as of the date shown. It should be consulted alongside the Code’s other provisions and external instruments mentioned in the Standard’s notes when assessing compliance at a given point in time.

The provided compilation of Standard 2.6.3 contains no litigation history, case citations, or judicial commentary. The document records the statutory instrument, its definitions, operative permissions and prohibitions, labelling obligations, and amendment history, but it does not include any court decisions or administrative rulings interpreting the Standard.

What the compilation explicitly includes and omits

• Included: The Standard text, supporting headnotes, notes referencing the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and New Zealand’s Food Act 2014, cross-references to other Code provisions (for example, 1.1.1,10(5)(e), 1.2.1, and 1.1.2,3), and a detailed amendment table up to 23 March 2022 (Amendment No. 206).

• Omitted: Any reported decisions, tribunal rulings, litigation citations, or administrative enforcement determinations are not part of this compilation. Where the Standard refers to other instruments (for example, Customs Regulations or State/Territory supply rules), those instruments may contain litigation histories or case law but those are not reproduced here.

Implications for practitioners

• No judicial guidance in the text: Because no litigation history is included in this compilation, operators and advisers cannot rely on judicial interpretation of ambiguities in the Standard from this document alone. Questions such as the precise boundaries of “was used as a food additive” or the sufficiency of provenance documentation for a Noble variety may not have authoritative judicial answers contained in this text.

• External searches required: To find how courts or tribunals have interpreted the Code’s kava provisions, practitioners must search external legal databases, administrative rulings, and enforcement decisions beyond this compilation. The Standard’s own amendment history and explicit cross-references provide starting points but do not substitute for case law.

• Enforcement determinations not listed: Any administrative enforcement actions taken under the Food Standards Act, State/Territory laws, Customs regulations, or the New Zealand Food Act that relate to kava are not recorded in this compilation and must be located separately.

In short, the compilation provides the statutory text and amendment background but not litigation or adjudicative history. For dispute risk assessment, precedent research outside this document is necessary.

The Standard’s text contains several drafting choices and cross-references that create practical pitfalls for businesses and advisers. These are concrete, source-grounded issues to watch.

1. Codex list as an operative gatekeeper (2.6.3,2)

• Pitfall: The definition of “kava root” conditions permissibility on the root being the peeled root/rootstock of a Noble variety named in section 3.1 of Codex CXS 336R-2020. That means permissibility depends on an external document not reproduced in the Standard. Operators must obtain and apply the current Codex list to establish whether their botanical variety qualifies.

• Practical consequence: A supplier cannot rely on a generic “Piper methysticum” label; they need provenance and variety identification tied to the Codex listing. Changes to the Codex list could alter eligibility without further domestic amendment.

2. Process-specific permission for beverages (2.6.3,3(a))

• Pitfall: The beverage exception is tightly defined: aqueous suspension using cold water only, and not using any organic solvent. Use of warm or hot water, extracts, tinctures, or organic solvent-assisted processes will take the product outside the permitted category.

• Practical consequence: Many commercial extraction or concentration processes involve solvents or heat; those methods are excluded. Operators using non-cold-water processes risk rendering their product subject to the Code’s general prohibition.

3. Broad prohibition on inputs that were used as additives or processing aids (2.6.3,5)

• Pitfall: The Standard bars any ingredient or component that “was used as a food additive” or “was used as a processing aid.” The past-tense phrasing suggests any substance that has been used in those roles (at any time) is excluded, but the Code’s definitions (section 1.1.2,3) determine the exact scope.

• Practical consequence: Suppliers must audit all inputs, trace component origins, and ensure that nothing in the formulation or any component has ever been used as a food additive or processing aid. That could exclude otherwise common ingredients or carriers depending on how the Code’s definitions apply.

4. Labelling statements are minimal but mandatory (2.6.3,4)

• Pitfall: The Standard requires two short warning statements, “Use in moderation” and “May cause drowsiness.” However, the mechanics of placement, prominence and font are governed by Standard 1.2.1. Missing or incorrectly formatted warnings will render a product non-compliant.

• Practical consequence: Even small retail packers and vendors of unpackaged kava must follow the Code’s labelling mechanics; the cross-reference to 1.2.1,9(3)(f) for unpackaged kava means stallholders or on-site preparers must take specific steps to ensure compliance.

5. Compliance with other laws not guaranteed by Code compliance (Note 4)

• Pitfall: The Standard expressly tells Australian stakeholders to consider Customs and State/Territory restrictions. A product lawful under the Code may still be prohibited at import or sale under other laws.

• Practical consequence: Operators cannot assume Code compliance is sufficient. Importers must check Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth); sellers must check applicable State/Territory controls.

6. Amendment dynamics (Amendment No. 206)

• Pitfall: The substitution of the definition (2.6.3,2) and the addition of 2.6.3,5 on 23 March 2022 change eligibility and composition rules. Operators who relied on earlier formulations may now face compliance gaps.

• Practical consequence: Businesses must track FSANZ notices and Gazette registrations and update supply-chain documentation and labels accordingly.

7. Lack of enforcement detail in the Standard

• Pitfall: The Standard does not set penalties or enforcement procedures; it relies on other instruments. That creates uncertainty about the practical consequences of non-compliance and the likely enforcement approach.

• Practical consequence: Advisers must map enforcement regimes in the Food Standards Act, relevant State/Territory laws, Customs law, and the New Zealand Food Act to assess sanction risk.

8. Ambiguity around “was used” phrasing

• Pitfall: The phrase “was used as a food additive” or “was used as a processing aid” might be read broadly. Whether temporary historical uses or uses in different jurisdictions count is not resolved in the text.

• Practical consequence: Conservative compliance practice will require suppliers to show a clear chain demonstrating that no component has ever been used in those roles, but that may be practically difficult; a targeted legal interpretation of the Code’s definitions will be required.

These “gotchas” are concrete, source-based traps that arise from the Standard’s reliance on external lists, narrow process specifications, broad exclusions of inputs, cross-references to other instruments, and amendment-driven changes to scope. They point to where documentary proof, process controls, and inter-jurisdictional checks are necessary.

Compliance with Standard 2.6.3 requires coordinated steps across sourcing, processing, formulation, labelling and multi-jurisdictional legal checks. The following checklist is directly grounded in the Standard’s operative text and notes.

1. Verify botanical origin and variety (2.6.3,2)

• Obtain documentary evidence that the kava root is the peeled root or peeled rootstock of a Noble variety named in section 3.1 of CXS 336R-2020 as adopted by the 43rd Session of Codex (2020). Proofs may include supplier declarations, botanical variety test results, farm/plantation records, and chain-of-custody documentation.

• Keep records showing the Codex list consulted and the date, since the Codex list is externally maintained and can change.

2. Restrict processing to the permitted method for beverages (2.6.3,3(a))

• For beverage products, ensure the preparation is an aqueous suspension using cold water only and that no organic solvents are used at any stage. Assess and document the entire processing chain to confirm no solvent contact (including cleaning agents and shared lines).

• If using dried or raw kava root for sale (2.6.3,3(b)), document that the product is supplied as dried or raw root and that no processing transforms it into an unpermitted form.

3. Ensure composition excludes substances used as food additives or processing aids (2.6.3,5)

• Identify all ingredients and components in the product and obtain specifications showing whether any have ever been used as a food additive or processing aid. Use the Code’s definitions (see 1.1.2,3 referenced in the Standard) to determine status.

• Where there is any ambiguity about an ingredient’s prior use as an additive or processing aid, obtain legal or technical clarification or consider exclusion of that ingredient to avoid non-compliance.

4. Implement the required labelling (2.6.3,4 and Standard 1.2.1)

• Ensure labels for permitted foods include the two explicit warning statements: “Use in moderation” and “May cause drowsiness.” Make sure label placement, prominence, font size and format comply with the Code’s labelling mechanics as set out in Standard 1.2.1 and that unpackaged presentation complies with 1.2.1,9(3)(f).

• Maintain label proofs and artwork files to demonstrate compliance in audits.

5. Cross-check import and jurisdictional rules (Note 4)

• In Australia, check Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) before importing kava products. Verify whether the particular form or origin is permitted at the border.

• Check State and Territory restrictions on supply where the product will be sold. Obtain any required licences or approvals, or adjust distribution strategies to avoid jurisdictions with prohibitions.

• In New Zealand, verify the Standard’s incorporation under the Food Act 2014 (NZ) and ensure compliance with any specific implementation mechanics under that Act.

6. Maintain documentation and audit trails

• Keep provenance records, process logs (showing only cold water use where applicable), ingredient specifications, supplier declarations, and label proofs for at least the period required by relevant food law enforcement regimes.

• Because the Standard’s definition ties to an external Codex listing and the Standard has been amended in the past, maintain a compliance file that records the date-stamped Codex documents and the version of the Standard relied upon.

7. Monitor for amendments and regulatory notices

• The Standard has been amended (notably on 23 March 2022, Amendment No. 206, which substituted the definition and added 2.6.3,5). Regularly monitor FSANZ notifications, Gazette publications, and relevant government circulars for further amendments.

8. Seek targeted legal or technical advice for edge cases

• If an ingredient’s status as a former food additive or processing aid is unclear, or if a process involves borderline steps (for example, chill filtration, non-solvent extractions), obtain a professional legal or technical opinion that interprets the Code’s definitions and standards in the specific factual context.

9. Prepare for enforcement checks even where Code compliance is clear

• Since the Standard does not set penalties in its text and points to other instruments for import and supply controls, ensure readiness to demonstrate compliance to customs and State/Territory authorities through the same documentary package.

Summary compliance map tied to sections

• Source Noble variety evidence to satisfy 2.6.3,2.
• For beverages: document aqueous suspension with cold water only and absence of organic solvents to satisfy 2.6.3,3(a).
• For dried/raw root: document packaging or presentation consistent with 2.6.3,3(b).
• Exclude any substances “used as a food additive” or “used as a processing aid” to satisfy 2.6.3,5.
• Apply label statements “Use in moderation” and “May cause drowsiness” in line with 2.6.3,4 and Standard 1.2.1.
• Check Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) and State/Territory supply rules (Note 4) and New Zealand Food Act implementation (Note 2).

Following these steps aligns operational practices with the Standard’s text and minimises the risk that a product falls outside the narrow permission that Standard 2.6.3 creates.