In a concerning development, certain manufacturers of botanical extracts are piling pressure on various stakeholders in the natural products and nutraceutical industry to evaluate botanical ingredients by the same criteria applied to single-molecule drugs or pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by KSM-66: Ashwagandha
This is viewed as a worrisome trend by many observers – and with good reason. Chiefly, treating herbal ingredients as close to drugs somewhat negates the key motivation that both consumers and practitioners of herbal remedies alike have in opting for botanicals in the first place: that is, the desire for powerful natural ingredients that have co-evolved with humans over millennia to harmoniously support their health and wellbeing.
Indeed, driven by a growing concern that conventional pharmaceuticals are often synthesised compounds not seen in nature and lacking the comparable long-term histories of safety and efficacy that botanicals boast, modern consumers are increasingly seeking out botanical ingredients as an effective alternative to drugs.
Broadly speaking, the industry recognises this key consumer driver – alongside the scientific argument – for favouring natural ingredients and full spectrum bioactive extracts. Nonetheless, as the botanicals category matures and the level of competition continues to heat up, the pressure is clearly now on for newer market players to claim brand advantages as they attempt to ramp up sales. The reality is that such assertions are invariably marketing fanfare, the impact of which is to shift attention away from the fundamental objective of the industry, thus undermining what it is striving to deliver to customers.
Certain manufacturers are pushing for practitioners to evaluate herbal ingredients by the same specifications applied to single-molecule drugs or pharmaceuticals – and the dominant criterion being forced to the foreground is the very high concentration of certain molecules or chemicals. This practice of boosting the concentration of specific molecules and espousing on how these chemicals are the herb’s most prized aspect should be a trend of great concern to the botanicals segment. Certainly, the increasingly prevalent practice is seen in myriad superlative marketing claims bandied about by certain ingredient suppliers, with boasts about the concentration or "potency" levels or the "bioavailability" of specific molecules. Lamentably, such manifestations in the lab and later in the marketing realm are to the detriment of the botanicals segment in the main, given the considerable potential of such an approach to erode core values that the industry has long striven to uphold, alongside diminishing the key driver in terms of why people seek out herbal ingredients in the first place.
There are two important reasons why consumers may view with suspicion a botanical ingredient that features very high concentrations of a specific molecule.
The first reason is that such a product might well be viewed as a distortion of the herb’s natural essence. The beauty of botanicals – and their value for many consumers – is their inherently natural format, featuring a combination of naturally-occurring compounds that work in tandem to deliver health benefits. Ergo, an attempt to dramatically ramp up the concentration of specific molecules or chemicals found within this balanced structure is arguably an approach that skews the true essence of such natural remedies and potentially diminishes their therapeutic impact.
The second important reason why consumers could prove wary of ingredients with unnaturally potent levels of a particular molecule is that such concentrated forms are invariably much out of kilter with the traditional use of the botanical. The traditional use case for a herbal remedy is typically grounded in knowledge of its efficacy and safety stemming from the ingredient’s natural composition. Indeed, it is oftentimes the myriad concerns around the safety and compatibility of synthesised compounds with the human body that drives consumers and natural-remedy practitioners alike to seek out herbal ingredients as an alternative to synthetic drugs in the first place. Manufacturers who misguidedly adopt the approach of evaluating botanical ingredients using criteria designed for single-molecule drugs run the risk – albeit unwittingly – of disregarding the traditional knowledge that have guided the safe and efficient use of these oft-remarkable remedies for centuries.
The case of leading Ayurvedic herb ashwagandha serves as a prime example of this kind of erroneous marketing fanfare and hype, as upstart ingredient producers and suppliers seek to claw in a portion of this flourishing market segment.
Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) has been a mainstay in traditional Indian medicine for more than 4,000 years. However, it is important to note that only the plant’s root features in traditional use – and only the root has been extensively documented for its highly beneficial and multifaceted impact on health and wellbeing. Indeed, it is the unique ratio of bioactive compounds found in the root that is believed to contribute to its impressively diverse array of health-promoting properties.
However, a clear challenge has emerged in recent years, in tandem with the ever-expanding demand for ashwagandha root supplements across the globe: to get noticed in an increasingly crowded market, certain ingredient producers and suppliers have resorted to shaky marketing claims for their extracts that champion inflated levels of molecules like withanolides. Such producers will often bump up the withanolide content by also extracting this chemical from other inferior components of the plant, including the leaves – an undesirable practice for numerous compelling reasons.
Certainly, those producers marketing extracts based on inflated levels of molecules like withanolides invariably trumpet the higher "bioavailability" of such molecules – yet this, as a factor, may not even be the ultimate driver when it comes to the herb’s efficacy. Root-derived withanolides are likely important phytochemicals, yet it is nonetheless vital to comprehend how they form just one part of the holistic mix that makes ashwagandha so uniquely effective and safe.
It follows that a highly inflated presence of such molecules in the body may not necessarily result in the ingredient being safe and more effective to health and wellbeing.
Certainly, it is also worth emphasising that the quality and health benefits of withanolides found in the root should not be conflated with the chemical equivalent found in other parts of the plant like the leaves. The take-home message here is that turbo-charging the concentration of specific molecules like withanolides does not necessarily lead to a superior product – and likewise, extracting such molecules from inferior leaf product is not likely to result in an end-product as effective or safe as the natural ashwagandha root extract that has been consumed for centuries.
Indeed, thousands of years of traditional practice have focused solely on using ashwagandha’s roots (not leaves) for internal consumption, while all but one (246 of 247) independent published clinical trials to date have focused solely on root-based formulations. Beyond this, there are significant regulatory factors in play that should act as a deterrent regarding the use of ashwagandha leaves, with not only the government of India having strictly advised to refrain from using this part of the plant, but likewise pharmacopeias across the world, as well as various globally-accredited bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), all recognising only the root part of the plant, not the leaves.
All the above should serve to highlight to manufacturers and formulators the importance of preserving the integrity of natural ingredients, as opposed to treating them like drugs by concentrating them into specific molecules. If nothing else, the ever-expanding demand for natural products from increasingly well-informed consumers should influence this ethos.
Producers, suppliers, formulators, and consumers alike should remain sceptical of the current marketing fanfare that obsesses over high withanolide content (particularly when that content derives from non-standard parts of the plant, like the leaves). All parties should likewise be incredibly wary of any marketing promise that the chemical resulting from such an approach can produce effects on the human body with the same high degree of safety and efficacy as a well-defined, full spectrum ashwagandha root extract.
