A Dose of Common Sense is All That's Needed to Use Herbs and Supplements Safely
http://www.healityourself.com/articlelive/articles/123/1/A-Dose-of-Common-Sense-is-All-Thats-Needed-to-Use-Herbs-and-Supplements-Safely/Page1.html
By Steven H Horne
Published on June 20, 2009
Just prior to the turn of this past century, herbs were enjoying some very positive press. When I wrote this article, a period of favorable coverage of herbs and natural healing in the press had just ended. The media praise botanical medicines enjoyed in the late 1990s turned negative again. This is a revision of an article I wrote several years ago on the safety of herbs and supplements. I think the information is still useful, especially since we continue to encounter some very negative publicity from time to time. The article is several pages long, so be sure to look through all of it.
Herb and Supplement Safety: An Eclectic Point of View
Just prior to the turn of this past century, herbs were enjoying some very positive press. When I wrote this article, a period of favorable coverage of herbs and natural healing in the press had just ended. The media praise botanical medicines enjoyed in the late 1990s turned negative again. I firmly believe that the only reason we were receiving the positive attention in the first place was because the pharmaceutical companies had decided to cash in on the growing popularity of botanical medicine. Having failed to win the market share and develop the profits they desired, the media, which relies on heavy pharmaceutical advertising, are now slamming herbal products again.
Even when the media reports were favorable, they emphasized the importance of standardized herbal products, which are produced primarily by European phytopharmaceutical companies. In other words, most of the gains we received from the media attention did not improve public awareness of real herbal medicine. Instead, the pharmaceutical companies have created a hybridization of herbalism and pharmaceutical medicine.
Eclectic Medicine at the Turn of the Twentieth Century
From my point of view hybrid isn’t entirely bad, but then, my views on the subject are very eclectic. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, I’m alluding to the Eclectic medical movement that started in the mid-1800s and died out in the early part of the twentieth century. In fact, most Americans are completely unaware that the Eclectics were the dominant school of medicine at the turn of the 20th century. If large sums of money from wealthy men with vested interest in synthetic drugs had not been pumped into squelching the Eclectic movement, we would already have an integrated system of healthcare, adopting the best of both modern biomedicine and alternative systems.
This is because the Eclectic doctors were pragmatic. They were careful observers, concerned with what actually worked in clinical practice, not defending a particular philosophical viewpoint. This commendable openness allowed them to blend the diagnostic and therapeutic methods of orthodox medicine, such as surgery and drugs, with herbalism, homeopathy, and naturopathic practices.
At the beginning of this new millennium, we are witnessing a resurgence of the Eclectic point of view. Doctors who are seeking to utilize herbs, homeopathics, massage, meditation and other natural methods in conjunction with drugs and surgery are eclectic in their thinking. Unfortunately, some of the principles and practices that make natural health care powerful and effective get lost in the process of integration. Still, I think that the process must continue and will continue, in spite of unrelenting economic opposition from powerful pharmaceutical interests.
Just the Facts, Please
It is ironic that the side effect warnings so clearly stated in numerous advertisements for drugs on TV and in magazines are virtually ignored, while the contraindications and other issues associated with herbs are exaggerated. But people have been known to “strain at gnats while swallowing camels” for a long time.
Let’s start with some negative reports about St. John’s wort failing to relieve severe depression. This negative publicity blatantly ignores two facts. First, St. John’s wort was never recommended for severe depression in the first place, and secondly, the placebo performed better than both the drug and the herb in the study. What the headline should have said is “Zoloft and St. John’s wort fail to relieve serious depression.” Somehow, the fact that Zoloft didn’t do any better than St. John’s wort was omitted from the story.
Of course, I was never happy with the media hype about St. John’s wort in the first place. St. John’s wort is only one of many herbs available to help depression. In a recent article in the Journal of the American Herbalists Guild, David Winston listed 21 other herbs that can be used as antidepressants, plus ten additional plants that can be used as adjunctive therapy. Each of these herbs can be used to effectively treat different kinds of depression, depending on the cause and nature.
The rest of our herbs for depression are largely ignored because they have never received media attention, demonstrating that Paul Bergner (editor of Medicinal Herbalism) was right when he stated that modern medicine is impoverishing herbalism. The public has been “trained” to accept biomedical research as the “truth” or only acceptable evidence, while ignoring the basic premise of the Eclectics: “what actually works in clinical practice.”
A similar situation arose with kava, an herb that has been safely used by Polynesians for centuries. Kava has been accused of causing liver damage. The evidence that kava can cause liver damage is scanty. It appears that in rare cases, it may cause stress to the liver (hepatotoxicity). And, those cases all tend to involve strong concentrates, distributed in Europe, and used with other hepatotoxic drugs. Further, to put this into perspective, lots of things that Americans regularly consume are hepatotoxic. Alcohol is a leading example. One of the worse offenders is acetaminophen (sold as Tylenol), which is known to destroy both liver and kidney tissue, but you don’t see any warnings in the press about that.
If we were to compare the relative safety and effectiveness of kava kava and popular drugs used to treat anxiety, I’m certain we would find that kava kava is just as effective and much safer. But, this discussion is not “allowed” because kava is not FDA approved for the treatment of anxiety. We have created a system of regulation that favors the powerful economic interests of the drug companies, and disfavors the use of whole plants.
In between extremes of “herbs are dangerous” and “it can’t hurt you, it’s natural” lies the truth. A dose of reason and common sense is needed to clear up the muddied waters of public opinion. So, in an effort to shed some light on this subject, this article will address the issues of herbal toxicity and standardization.
Even when the media reports were favorable, they emphasized the importance of standardized herbal products, which are produced primarily by European phytopharmaceutical companies. In other words, most of the gains we received from the media attention did not improve public awareness of real herbal medicine. Instead, the pharmaceutical companies have created a hybridization of herbalism and pharmaceutical medicine.
Eclectic Medicine at the Turn of the Twentieth Century
From my point of view hybrid isn’t entirely bad, but then, my views on the subject are very eclectic. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, I’m alluding to the Eclectic medical movement that started in the mid-1800s and died out in the early part of the twentieth century. In fact, most Americans are completely unaware that the Eclectics were the dominant school of medicine at the turn of the 20th century. If large sums of money from wealthy men with vested interest in synthetic drugs had not been pumped into squelching the Eclectic movement, we would already have an integrated system of healthcare, adopting the best of both modern biomedicine and alternative systems.
This is because the Eclectic doctors were pragmatic. They were careful observers, concerned with what actually worked in clinical practice, not defending a particular philosophical viewpoint. This commendable openness allowed them to blend the diagnostic and therapeutic methods of orthodox medicine, such as surgery and drugs, with herbalism, homeopathy, and naturopathic practices.
At the beginning of this new millennium, we are witnessing a resurgence of the Eclectic point of view. Doctors who are seeking to utilize herbs, homeopathics, massage, meditation and other natural methods in conjunction with drugs and surgery are eclectic in their thinking. Unfortunately, some of the principles and practices that make natural health care powerful and effective get lost in the process of integration. Still, I think that the process must continue and will continue, in spite of unrelenting economic opposition from powerful pharmaceutical interests.
Just the Facts, Please
It is ironic that the side effect warnings so clearly stated in numerous advertisements for drugs on TV and in magazines are virtually ignored, while the contraindications and other issues associated with herbs are exaggerated. But people have been known to “strain at gnats while swallowing camels” for a long time.
Let’s start with some negative reports about St. John’s wort failing to relieve severe depression. This negative publicity blatantly ignores two facts. First, St. John’s wort was never recommended for severe depression in the first place, and secondly, the placebo performed better than both the drug and the herb in the study. What the headline should have said is “Zoloft and St. John’s wort fail to relieve serious depression.” Somehow, the fact that Zoloft didn’t do any better than St. John’s wort was omitted from the story.
Of course, I was never happy with the media hype about St. John’s wort in the first place. St. John’s wort is only one of many herbs available to help depression. In a recent article in the Journal of the American Herbalists Guild, David Winston listed 21 other herbs that can be used as antidepressants, plus ten additional plants that can be used as adjunctive therapy. Each of these herbs can be used to effectively treat different kinds of depression, depending on the cause and nature.
The rest of our herbs for depression are largely ignored because they have never received media attention, demonstrating that Paul Bergner (editor of Medicinal Herbalism) was right when he stated that modern medicine is impoverishing herbalism. The public has been “trained” to accept biomedical research as the “truth” or only acceptable evidence, while ignoring the basic premise of the Eclectics: “what actually works in clinical practice.”
A similar situation arose with kava, an herb that has been safely used by Polynesians for centuries. Kava has been accused of causing liver damage. The evidence that kava can cause liver damage is scanty. It appears that in rare cases, it may cause stress to the liver (hepatotoxicity). And, those cases all tend to involve strong concentrates, distributed in Europe, and used with other hepatotoxic drugs. Further, to put this into perspective, lots of things that Americans regularly consume are hepatotoxic. Alcohol is a leading example. One of the worse offenders is acetaminophen (sold as Tylenol), which is known to destroy both liver and kidney tissue, but you don’t see any warnings in the press about that.
If we were to compare the relative safety and effectiveness of kava kava and popular drugs used to treat anxiety, I’m certain we would find that kava kava is just as effective and much safer. But, this discussion is not “allowed” because kava is not FDA approved for the treatment of anxiety. We have created a system of regulation that favors the powerful economic interests of the drug companies, and disfavors the use of whole plants.
In between extremes of “herbs are dangerous” and “it can’t hurt you, it’s natural” lies the truth. A dose of reason and common sense is needed to clear up the muddied waters of public opinion. So, in an effort to shed some light on this subject, this article will address the issues of herbal toxicity and standardization.
Toxicity: From Foods to Drugs
On
one side of the toxicity discussion we have those who naively claim,
“it’s natural, it can’t hurt you.” On the other side we have those who
claim that everything is toxic, it’s only a matter of dose. The truth
is somewhere in the middle.
For instance, there are people who have drunk so much carrot juice that their skin actually turned orange from it, but this does not appear to have done them any harm. What is the toxic dose of mother’s milk for a baby? Clearly, some substances are completely safe to consume in whatever quantities we desire because they are completely wholesome influences. Sure, if we abandon all common sense, we might be able to do harm to our bodies with these things, but you’d have to really work at it.
Of course, some foods that are completely safe for one person may be toxic to someone else. Some people are highly allergic to peanuts for example. In fact, peanuts have killed a number of people. So, there are some individual genetic variations in how our bodies react to certain foods. But, just because a few people react to a particular substance is no reason why it should be inaccessible to everyone. We don’t outlaw peanuts because some people have life-threatening allergies to them.
At the other extreme, there are natural substances that are highly poisonous. There are herbs that may kill you with a single dose, such as hemlock, belladonna, and gelsemium. Some of these toxic botanicals can still be used as medicines, provided the practitioner is skilled enough to understand how to use them safely, but they are poisonous just the same.
In between the extremes of food substances and toxic botanicals are medicinal herbs of varying strength. Various schools of traditional medicine have all had systems for classifying the relative “strength” of botanical medicines. Unfortunately, this concept is largely missing in modern Western herbal medicine, so people tend to see things as being black and white (either harmless foods or poisonous drugs).
Four Degrees of Action
At Tree of Light, we developed and use a model with four degrees of action. Our latest version of this model is shown below. The center of the “target” is green, which then shifts to yellow and then to read, suggesting that some things are very safe and others are dangerous. Our system for classifying degrees of action is less esoteric than the systems used in traditional medicine. It’s based primarily on safety, not on physiological effect.
The first degree of action is foods. Foods are substances that can be consumed daily, and in large quantities. Although foods have physiological effects and can be used as a form of medicine, a food isn’t going to poison someone unless that person has a specific allergy to it. The green on the chart indicates you can use foods freely to maintain your health.
The second degree of action is medicinal foods. Medicinal foods are substances which can be used regularly as medicine, flavoring agents or garnishes, but are not consumed in large quantities. Lemon is a very good example. While most of us might eat oranges and grapefruits as food, few of us would eat lemons. Instead, we use lemon juice for flavoring. Lemon is also more medicinal than most foods. For example, the juice of four lemons in a gallon of purified water will help to dissolve and pass kidney stones. Other examples of medicinal foods would include parsley, garlic, capsicum, ginger, bilberries, hawthorn berries and ginger. All of these substances have medicinal value, but are also consumed regularly as food substances, but seldom in large quantities. These are the herbs that are safe for long term use and hence, this section is also green.
The third degree of action is medicines. We define these jokingly as “herbs we would never eat in a salad.” Herbs that are medicines are not eaten as foods. On the other hand, they are not seriously toxic either, meaning they won’t kill you or do serious damage to your body. They can, however, have unpleasant or even harmful effects when consumed in large quantities or over extended periods of time.
Medicinal herbs should be used when the body is out of balance and needs extra help to bring it back into balance. Once the problem or imbalance has been corrected the medicine should be discontinued, and foods or medicinal foods should be used to maintain that balance. If they are needed over a longer period of time to correct a chronic or constitutional imbalance, then they should be used in very small doses. Cascara sagrada, senna, lobelia, golden seal, Korean ginseng, white oak bark and yarrow would all be examples of herbs that should be thought of as medicines.
This section is colored yellow, indicating caution. These substances should be used with an understanding of what they are for and in appropriate doses.
Toxic botanicals belong to the fourth degree category. These are plants that can kill you or do serious damage to your body if not used with a high degree of skill. Belladonna, aconite, lily of the valley, nightshade, Scotch broom and foxglove are examples of herbs that fit into this category. Most essential oils belong to this category when used internally. For instance, oregano oil can seriously damage liver tissue and even cause death. In other words, these very natural substances can cause damage to your body just like prescription drugs. In fact, they are drugs, botanical drugs, which require a comprehensive understanding of their actions and toxicity and extremely skilled administration. This is why this section is colored red.
It is interesting to note that modern medicine tends to regard stronger medicinal effects as superior medicine. However, in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), the opposite is true. Strong medicines like cascara sagrada and goldenseal and toxic botanicals would be considered “inferior” medicines, while mild tonic herbs that can be used long term to nourish and rebuild the system would be “superior” medicines.
For instance, there are people who have drunk so much carrot juice that their skin actually turned orange from it, but this does not appear to have done them any harm. What is the toxic dose of mother’s milk for a baby? Clearly, some substances are completely safe to consume in whatever quantities we desire because they are completely wholesome influences. Sure, if we abandon all common sense, we might be able to do harm to our bodies with these things, but you’d have to really work at it.
Of course, some foods that are completely safe for one person may be toxic to someone else. Some people are highly allergic to peanuts for example. In fact, peanuts have killed a number of people. So, there are some individual genetic variations in how our bodies react to certain foods. But, just because a few people react to a particular substance is no reason why it should be inaccessible to everyone. We don’t outlaw peanuts because some people have life-threatening allergies to them.
At the other extreme, there are natural substances that are highly poisonous. There are herbs that may kill you with a single dose, such as hemlock, belladonna, and gelsemium. Some of these toxic botanicals can still be used as medicines, provided the practitioner is skilled enough to understand how to use them safely, but they are poisonous just the same.
In between the extremes of food substances and toxic botanicals are medicinal herbs of varying strength. Various schools of traditional medicine have all had systems for classifying the relative “strength” of botanical medicines. Unfortunately, this concept is largely missing in modern Western herbal medicine, so people tend to see things as being black and white (either harmless foods or poisonous drugs).
Four Degrees of Action
At Tree of Light, we developed and use a model with four degrees of action. Our latest version of this model is shown below. The center of the “target” is green, which then shifts to yellow and then to read, suggesting that some things are very safe and others are dangerous. Our system for classifying degrees of action is less esoteric than the systems used in traditional medicine. It’s based primarily on safety, not on physiological effect.
The first degree of action is foods. Foods are substances that can be consumed daily, and in large quantities. Although foods have physiological effects and can be used as a form of medicine, a food isn’t going to poison someone unless that person has a specific allergy to it. The green on the chart indicates you can use foods freely to maintain your health.
The second degree of action is medicinal foods. Medicinal foods are substances which can be used regularly as medicine, flavoring agents or garnishes, but are not consumed in large quantities. Lemon is a very good example. While most of us might eat oranges and grapefruits as food, few of us would eat lemons. Instead, we use lemon juice for flavoring. Lemon is also more medicinal than most foods. For example, the juice of four lemons in a gallon of purified water will help to dissolve and pass kidney stones. Other examples of medicinal foods would include parsley, garlic, capsicum, ginger, bilberries, hawthorn berries and ginger. All of these substances have medicinal value, but are also consumed regularly as food substances, but seldom in large quantities. These are the herbs that are safe for long term use and hence, this section is also green.
The third degree of action is medicines. We define these jokingly as “herbs we would never eat in a salad.” Herbs that are medicines are not eaten as foods. On the other hand, they are not seriously toxic either, meaning they won’t kill you or do serious damage to your body. They can, however, have unpleasant or even harmful effects when consumed in large quantities or over extended periods of time.
Medicinal herbs should be used when the body is out of balance and needs extra help to bring it back into balance. Once the problem or imbalance has been corrected the medicine should be discontinued, and foods or medicinal foods should be used to maintain that balance. If they are needed over a longer period of time to correct a chronic or constitutional imbalance, then they should be used in very small doses. Cascara sagrada, senna, lobelia, golden seal, Korean ginseng, white oak bark and yarrow would all be examples of herbs that should be thought of as medicines.
This section is colored yellow, indicating caution. These substances should be used with an understanding of what they are for and in appropriate doses.
Toxic botanicals belong to the fourth degree category. These are plants that can kill you or do serious damage to your body if not used with a high degree of skill. Belladonna, aconite, lily of the valley, nightshade, Scotch broom and foxglove are examples of herbs that fit into this category. Most essential oils belong to this category when used internally. For instance, oregano oil can seriously damage liver tissue and even cause death. In other words, these very natural substances can cause damage to your body just like prescription drugs. In fact, they are drugs, botanical drugs, which require a comprehensive understanding of their actions and toxicity and extremely skilled administration. This is why this section is colored red.
It is interesting to note that modern medicine tends to regard stronger medicinal effects as superior medicine. However, in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), the opposite is true. Strong medicines like cascara sagrada and goldenseal and toxic botanicals would be considered “inferior” medicines, while mild tonic herbs that can be used long term to nourish and rebuild the system would be “superior” medicines.
When Does a Supplement Stop Being Natural?
Having established that natural things can be toxic, let’s move to the other side of the discussion—what is natural? These days, the “natural” products industry is promoting a wide variety of highly refined substances as “natural” remedies. Of course, if we take the viewpoint that everything has to be completely natural, then we should only be chewing on fresh herbs, because everything else has been processed in some way.
Again, there are two extremes here. Eating a sprig of fresh parsley is the one end of the spectrum. It is using the plant exactly as it exists in nature. On the other end of the spectrum are the synthetic drugs. These are patent chemicals that were invented in a laboratory. They never existed in nature. Almost all drugs developed since the 1960s fall into this category. We could safely call these substances unnatural.
In between we have a whole continuum of processing. For example, if we make an herbal infusion (tea) or decoction, we are not getting everything found in the original plant. So, is this natural? Since we are extracting a whole complex of substances using just water, I think we’re safe in saying these preparations are natural.
Moving farther away from the whole plant, we have tinctures and extracts of various kinds. These involve solvents other than water, like glycerin and alcohol. But, are alcohol and glycerin natural?
Alcohol is a natural product of fermentation (or decay), but the kind of alcohol used in tinctures has been distilled and “purified.” Glycerin is a derivative of fats and a by-product of making soap. Neither of these extraction mediums is found in their isolated form in nature. They both have to be manufactured. So, tinctures and extracts are a little farther removed from the whole natural state, but they are still complex mixtures of chemicals and thus qualify as being “natural” to a certain extent.
There have always been standards for making tinctures and extracts, too. The term standardization simply refers to making products according to a specified standard. When you see the initials “USP” it means it has been made according to the standard found in the United States Pharmacopeia. Older versions of the United States Pharmacopeia contained numerous USP standards for botanical medicines. These standards included information about when the plant is to be harvested, what part, what marker compounds it should contain, what percentage of water and alcohol should be used to extract the herb, and how long the extraction should take. So standards have been around for a long time.
There is nothing wrong with establishing standards for botanical medicines. It is absolutely necessary for the practice of herbal medicine, and the more toxic the botanical, the more important standardization is. We need to have a method of assuring some consistency in the end product so that we can depend on it to have the effect we desire. Roy Upton, vice-president of the American Herbalists Guild is spearheading the project of creating a modern pharmacopeia for herbal medicines—a project that will benefit the entire industry.
Isolation of “Active Components”
Of course, at this level of standardization, the actual compounds present in the plant will have variations from batch to batch and from year to year. This is very unsettling for scientists steeped in our mechanistic scientific paradigm. What they want is something that is exactly the same from batch to batch. That’s why they search for specific chemicals that they can isolate. They call these chemicals “actives,” giving the false impression that they are the only part of the plant which has any effect on the body.
In the modern herbal world, many companies are pushing for standardization based on “actives.” This is often called guaranteed potency. For some herbs, there are clear chemicals that are primarily responsible for the plant’s effect. This is the case with kava kava. The kavalactones it contains are largely responsible for its effects, so making certain that a certain percentage of kavalactones are present makes some sense.
There are two ways of making these kinds of products. One is to extract the herb using a variety of chemical solvents that favor the constituents which are desired. The level of these constituents is then measured (assayed) in the finished extract and the extract is concentrated or diluted to the desired “potency.”
Another method of doing this is to extract and isolate the specific chemical substances that are desired and then add them back into a base of the whole herb to achieve the desired potency. In essence, we make an herbal “drug” by isolating specific chemical substances and then mix that “drug” back into the herbal base.
There are a couple of problems with this last approach. First of all, it is often the synergy of many ingredients that accounts for the effect of an herb, so how do you guarantee the potency of the product? Second, many of these guaranteed potency herbs actually are less effective in clinical practice. The original study with feverfew involved chewing on whole leaves. None of the “standardized” preparations of feverfew have been able to obtain the same clinical results as chewing on the leaves. So, from the eclectic point of view, “standardized” doesn’t automatically mean better.
The third issue, and the one that concerns me the most, is that we are calling isolated plant chemicals natural. If this is the case, many modern drugs are natural, too. Digitalis, for instance, comes from a plant, so it is a natural drug, derived from a toxic botanical. Ephedrine is found in many over-the-counter cold medicines. It is also a natural drug, derived from ephedra. So, if we are going to call these isolated extracts natural, then a large percentage of our OTC and prescription drugs are natural as well. I just can’t make this leap.
To me, if we isolate and concentrate any compound from a plant, we have created a drug. In that light, I personally consider refined sugar a drug—there is nothing “natural” about it. If we put an isolated chemical back into a base of the whole plant, that’s like taking refined sugar (sucrose), mixing it with some raw sugar and calling the whole thing natural. It just doesn’t cut it for me.
Again, there are two extremes here. Eating a sprig of fresh parsley is the one end of the spectrum. It is using the plant exactly as it exists in nature. On the other end of the spectrum are the synthetic drugs. These are patent chemicals that were invented in a laboratory. They never existed in nature. Almost all drugs developed since the 1960s fall into this category. We could safely call these substances unnatural.
In between we have a whole continuum of processing. For example, if we make an herbal infusion (tea) or decoction, we are not getting everything found in the original plant. So, is this natural? Since we are extracting a whole complex of substances using just water, I think we’re safe in saying these preparations are natural.
Moving farther away from the whole plant, we have tinctures and extracts of various kinds. These involve solvents other than water, like glycerin and alcohol. But, are alcohol and glycerin natural?
Alcohol is a natural product of fermentation (or decay), but the kind of alcohol used in tinctures has been distilled and “purified.” Glycerin is a derivative of fats and a by-product of making soap. Neither of these extraction mediums is found in their isolated form in nature. They both have to be manufactured. So, tinctures and extracts are a little farther removed from the whole natural state, but they are still complex mixtures of chemicals and thus qualify as being “natural” to a certain extent.
There have always been standards for making tinctures and extracts, too. The term standardization simply refers to making products according to a specified standard. When you see the initials “USP” it means it has been made according to the standard found in the United States Pharmacopeia. Older versions of the United States Pharmacopeia contained numerous USP standards for botanical medicines. These standards included information about when the plant is to be harvested, what part, what marker compounds it should contain, what percentage of water and alcohol should be used to extract the herb, and how long the extraction should take. So standards have been around for a long time.
There is nothing wrong with establishing standards for botanical medicines. It is absolutely necessary for the practice of herbal medicine, and the more toxic the botanical, the more important standardization is. We need to have a method of assuring some consistency in the end product so that we can depend on it to have the effect we desire. Roy Upton, vice-president of the American Herbalists Guild is spearheading the project of creating a modern pharmacopeia for herbal medicines—a project that will benefit the entire industry.
Isolation of “Active Components”
Of course, at this level of standardization, the actual compounds present in the plant will have variations from batch to batch and from year to year. This is very unsettling for scientists steeped in our mechanistic scientific paradigm. What they want is something that is exactly the same from batch to batch. That’s why they search for specific chemicals that they can isolate. They call these chemicals “actives,” giving the false impression that they are the only part of the plant which has any effect on the body.
In the modern herbal world, many companies are pushing for standardization based on “actives.” This is often called guaranteed potency. For some herbs, there are clear chemicals that are primarily responsible for the plant’s effect. This is the case with kava kava. The kavalactones it contains are largely responsible for its effects, so making certain that a certain percentage of kavalactones are present makes some sense.
There are two ways of making these kinds of products. One is to extract the herb using a variety of chemical solvents that favor the constituents which are desired. The level of these constituents is then measured (assayed) in the finished extract and the extract is concentrated or diluted to the desired “potency.”
Another method of doing this is to extract and isolate the specific chemical substances that are desired and then add them back into a base of the whole herb to achieve the desired potency. In essence, we make an herbal “drug” by isolating specific chemical substances and then mix that “drug” back into the herbal base.
There are a couple of problems with this last approach. First of all, it is often the synergy of many ingredients that accounts for the effect of an herb, so how do you guarantee the potency of the product? Second, many of these guaranteed potency herbs actually are less effective in clinical practice. The original study with feverfew involved chewing on whole leaves. None of the “standardized” preparations of feverfew have been able to obtain the same clinical results as chewing on the leaves. So, from the eclectic point of view, “standardized” doesn’t automatically mean better.
The third issue, and the one that concerns me the most, is that we are calling isolated plant chemicals natural. If this is the case, many modern drugs are natural, too. Digitalis, for instance, comes from a plant, so it is a natural drug, derived from a toxic botanical. Ephedrine is found in many over-the-counter cold medicines. It is also a natural drug, derived from ephedra. So, if we are going to call these isolated extracts natural, then a large percentage of our OTC and prescription drugs are natural as well. I just can’t make this leap.
To me, if we isolate and concentrate any compound from a plant, we have created a drug. In that light, I personally consider refined sugar a drug—there is nothing “natural” about it. If we put an isolated chemical back into a base of the whole plant, that’s like taking refined sugar (sucrose), mixing it with some raw sugar and calling the whole thing natural. It just doesn’t cut it for me.
The Best of Both Worlds
Mixing drugs and herbs may be useful sometimes. Many years ago, when I toured China for Nature’s Sunshine Products, I learned that the Chinese were taking Western drugs and mixing them into herbal bases to help counteract their side effects. It seems like a perfectly legitimate option to me. Again, there is that eclectic viewpoint asserting itself. While I personally avoid drugs, I realize that sometimes they are necessary. So, why not use herbs to mediate their side effects? It’s something I find myself doing quite frequently for people anyway.
However, it still upsets me when people call products like IGF-1, DHEA, Sam-e, etc. “natural.” I’m not saying they are necessarily bad—they are probably safer than the purely synthetic drugs. It’s just that once we’ve reached that stage of processing, I think we’ve left nature behind. Nature never presents us with a singular chemical substance—it always presents us with a kind of chemical “soup”—a mixture of hundreds or thousands of substances.
Is it Still Safe?
Now, we come to the million-dollar question: are these isolates safe? When used properly, of course they can be. There are times when isolates are necessary. The more out of balance our body is, the more it may need something strong and concentrated to stabilize it. So, such substances may be therapeutically useful. But should they be taken long term as a permanent solution? Probably not. They should be used to stabilize the situation while we tackle it from a deeper level with nutrition, lifestyle changes and milder herbs so we can bring the body back into a more permanent state of balance.
I think the Paw Paw Cell Reg product marketed by Nature’s Sunshine is a good example. It’s a partial extract of paw paw, not the whole plant material, but it is still a complex extract containing multiple chemicals. I’ve reviewed the research on paw paw extract, and it appears to be safe to take as a medicine (3rd degree remedy), meaning it has no serious toxicity, but wouldn’t be something you’d consume regularly for food. I really like this product because it can be effective against cancer, and some other serious health problems. Since the presence of cancer indicates a very serious imbalance in the body, a standardized extract of a stronger medicine—paw paw extract— is very appropriate here.
Will paw paw extract correct the underlying lifestyle and nutritional imbalances that lead to the development of cancer in the first place? Absolutely not. And that’s the whole point of this article. The more serious the imbalance, the more we may need strong remedies (3rd and 4th degree medicines) and perhaps even isolates, but that isn’t really dealing with the cause. Everyone needs to learn to use foods and medicinal foods more regularly (in their more whole and natural forms) to keep one’s body strong in the first place.
That’s the beauty of having an Eclectic viewpoint. One can take the best that’s out there and explore options. Too often we try to make everything black and white and judge things arbitrarily without examining all the facts and all the options. We need to drink deeply from the spring of knowledge, for as a wise philosopher once stated, “shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, while drinking deeply largely sobers us up again.”
However, it still upsets me when people call products like IGF-1, DHEA, Sam-e, etc. “natural.” I’m not saying they are necessarily bad—they are probably safer than the purely synthetic drugs. It’s just that once we’ve reached that stage of processing, I think we’ve left nature behind. Nature never presents us with a singular chemical substance—it always presents us with a kind of chemical “soup”—a mixture of hundreds or thousands of substances.
Is it Still Safe?
Now, we come to the million-dollar question: are these isolates safe? When used properly, of course they can be. There are times when isolates are necessary. The more out of balance our body is, the more it may need something strong and concentrated to stabilize it. So, such substances may be therapeutically useful. But should they be taken long term as a permanent solution? Probably not. They should be used to stabilize the situation while we tackle it from a deeper level with nutrition, lifestyle changes and milder herbs so we can bring the body back into a more permanent state of balance.
I think the Paw Paw Cell Reg product marketed by Nature’s Sunshine is a good example. It’s a partial extract of paw paw, not the whole plant material, but it is still a complex extract containing multiple chemicals. I’ve reviewed the research on paw paw extract, and it appears to be safe to take as a medicine (3rd degree remedy), meaning it has no serious toxicity, but wouldn’t be something you’d consume regularly for food. I really like this product because it can be effective against cancer, and some other serious health problems. Since the presence of cancer indicates a very serious imbalance in the body, a standardized extract of a stronger medicine—paw paw extract— is very appropriate here.
Will paw paw extract correct the underlying lifestyle and nutritional imbalances that lead to the development of cancer in the first place? Absolutely not. And that’s the whole point of this article. The more serious the imbalance, the more we may need strong remedies (3rd and 4th degree medicines) and perhaps even isolates, but that isn’t really dealing with the cause. Everyone needs to learn to use foods and medicinal foods more regularly (in their more whole and natural forms) to keep one’s body strong in the first place.
That’s the beauty of having an Eclectic viewpoint. One can take the best that’s out there and explore options. Too often we try to make everything black and white and judge things arbitrarily without examining all the facts and all the options. We need to drink deeply from the spring of knowledge, for as a wise philosopher once stated, “shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, while drinking deeply largely sobers us up again.”