Nature's Healers

Back to Articles Index

Who Benefits From Standardised Herbal

Products?

Evidence suggests that standardisation will benefit the

manufacturers more than consumers.

The aims of standardisation

The stated purpose of the European Union (EU) directive to standardise and regulate traditional herbal products is to guarantee quality and safety for the consumer.

Jo Barnes, Phd, MRPharmS, claims that consumers need to be protected against contamination and errors; specific quantities of active constituents must be guaranteed, and unwanted or toxic components removed. (1)

Michael Tierra, L.AC. O.M.D. of the American Herbalist Guild claims that standardised extracts are not superior to traditional herbal products. Extracts are concentrates of known active constituents -- many other effective components are left out. The action of herbs depends on the interaction and synergy of many unknown biochemical components. In this respect, non-standardised herbs are superior to standardised herbs. (2)

For example, concentrated ginkgo biloba extract is different in potency and tannin content, from the properties of the whole leaf. St John’s wort, turmeric, milk thistle and saw palmetto have many properties and uses, but standardised extracts are more limited in use and less effective. (2)

There can be no guarantee that companies will not sell products containing no active constituents, or use artificial chemicals in order to increase profitability. One example is Ephedra sinica (Ma Huang), used for respiratory conditions, such as asthma. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, M.D., ephedra has been replaced in medical practice by ‘pure, synthetic ephedrine,’ based on one of the plant’s active constituents. This causes adverse side effects, while tea made of the whole herb relieves asthma with ‘none or little of ephedrine’s toxicity.’ (2)

Sometimes the wrong ingredient or herb is used to create a false ‘marker compound identity’ with disastrous consequences. For example, the use of Aristolochia in place of non-toxic herbs in slimming products resulted in cancer and kidney failure. (1) For these reasons, in most cases it is cheaper, safer and more effective to use traditional herbal products such as tinctures. (2)

Standardisation encourages marketing opportunism. It enables drug companies to claim exclusive patents for processed herbs. Tierra describes how German companies invested in research and technology to make herbal products acceptable to conventional medical practice. Then they marketed standardised extracts of herbs such as garlic, St John’s wort, and ginkgo biloba, making massive profits worldwide. (2)

There is a glaring absence of research comparing the effects of standardised biochemical extracts with whole herbs. This is because there is more profit to be made from the sale of standardised extracts and synthetics, despite the enormous costs. (2)

The major proponents and beneficiaries of standardised extracts see herbs as a substitute for drugs. For example, The Ramnarain Ruia College of Arts and Science claims that standardisation is the only way that herbal medicines ‘will be accepted as drugs by drug control authorities in developed countries.’ (3) This approach is far removed from the traditional use of whole herbs.

Artificially processed, standardised herbs are like ‘phytopharmaceutical’ drugs -- they can only be manufactured into products by wealthy pharmaceutical companies, and distributed and sold under prescription by medical doctors. Medical doctors are less likely to be qualified in the proper use of herbs than herbalists. (2)

Toxic solvents such as hexane, benzene, methyl chloride and acetone are used to isolate constituents. It is impossible to remove all of these chemicals from the finished product. This needless use of chemicals will have unknown environmental consequences. (2)

Standardising to one biochemical compound requires the ecologically unsound production of huge quantities of inferior, cultivated herbs. This is wasteful and against the principles of traditional herbalists; it sacrifices quality for quantity, and damages the environment. (2)

Standardised products undermine our connection with nature, so we are less likely to recognise plants in our garden that make effective remedies. (2)

Standardisation of herbal products depends on animal experiments. For example, rabbits were used to measure the bioabsorbtion/elimination patterns of ‘herbal drug preparations’ by the Ramnarain Ruia College: ‘Hepatotoxicants were utilised to establish the efficacy of each species. Toxicity studies were also run on every species to assess its safety. The dosage regimen and dose frequency were also determined.’ (3)

Animal testing has never been a part of traditional herbal medicine. It is cruel, unnecessary and distasteful. There is no justification for using animals to test toxicity levels of herbal extracts. It has no part in a civilised society.

India has agreed to cooperate with EU regulation of the teaching and practice of Ayurvedic medicine. It claims that recognition of Ayurveda, as a ‘scientific system of medicine distinct and separate from herbal medicine’ is important to India's trade development and for global healthcare. (4)

Western and developing countries alike are motivated to back regulation and standardisation by the $60 billion annual global market for traditional, alternative and complementary medicines. The raw plant material exploited in developing countries provides the resources for this. (5)

The Nigerian government believes standardisation will provide cheap and affordable medicine for its people, (5) but in fact the prohibitive costs of standardisation will mean that the poor will be worse off in terms of health benefits, as the big multi-nationals push up prices. (2)

Standardisation and regulation of herbs cannot protect the consumer or guarantee quality or safety. Standardised herbal products are inferior to non-standardised herbs, and can contain artificial chemicals added by manufacturers.

Herbs and herbalists are blamed for contamination and poisoning when in fact manufactured products are adulterated with chemical substitutes by unscrupulous companies for the sake of profit.

Research is biased in favour of powerful medical and pharmaceutical institutions -- they control standardised herbs, but know very little about real herbs. This is because they see the chemical components of herbs as substitutes for drugs.

If herbs are classified as medicines or drugs, only pharmacies will be able to sell them, and many herbs will only be available on prescription from a medical doctor. Standardisation and regulation will take away the freedom, knowledge and rights to give and receive holistic healing.

The same laws that enable companies to patent herbal extracts also revokes the licenses of herbalists if they recommend simple home-made medicines such as dandelion vinegar or St. John's wort oil. The standardisation and regulation of herbs is a step towards the control of herbalists who will not be allowed to practice under the law. (6)

Finally, standardisation of herbal products is unethical. It damages the environment, causes chemical pollution, relies on animal experimentation and makes herbal medicines less affordable for the poor. It makes the poor poorer, the rich richer, and provides another means for multi-nationals to exploit the natural resources of developing countries.

Standardisation is more about making profits than healing people. It benefits the vested interests of pharmaceutical companies the most.

© Martha Magenta 2006.