|
|
|
Whole Herbs or Standardized Plant Constituents? |
|
|
|
by Linda Page, N.D., Ph.D.
Whole Herbs or Standardized Plant Constituents?
Vol 23 #4 2001
What is sacrificed when herbal constituents
are “standardized”? This
question is important as more and
more Americans are increasing their use of herbs
while standardized separate herbal constituents
are becoming popular as herbal manufacturers
enter drug-oriented health care markets.
Standardization is seen by some companies,
especially those whose main focus has been vitamins
or other partitioned supplements such as
amino acids, as a way for herb products to challenge
the mainstream drug company monopoly,
by measuring and assuring an “active constituent”
of a plant for medicinal use. Standardization is
also considered as a way to deal with FDA regulations
that require drug measurability and FDA
guidelines that require so-called “active” ingredients
to be stated on product labels. As herb companies
begin to educate the public about the
health benefits of herbs, a way must be found to
work with regulations that were never intended to
deal with the complexities or broad-based effects
of herbal healing.
Standardization attempts to isolate “active
constituents” for a very limited function.
Standardization procedures also allow the use of
substandard materials. Since only one “active constituent”
is measured, that constituent may be
boosted with a concentration of an isolated
element to reach the required standard, regardless
of the quality of the herb itself. No one
constituent, no matter how worthwhile, can do its
healing job without the right stuff from the rest of
the herb. For example, ginseng has become a
popular ingredient in many herbal products. One
laboratory test identified two of its 22 known constituents
(called Rb1 and Rb2) in an attempt to
isolate ginseng’s functions as an antioxidant and
for lowering cholesterol. Yet thousands of years of
worldwide, well-documented experience shows
that ginseng has dozens of other actions that control
disease and promote wellness—functions
entirely missed by this test. Should we deny
people the ultimate value and effectiveness of ginseng’s
activity simply because a laboratory hasn’t
tested for every one of its functions yet?
WHOLE HERB HEALING
As a naturopath and traditional herbalist I believe
that standardization shortchanges the full
spectrum of whole herb healing. Throughout the
ages, from all cultures and traditions, healers have
effectively used whole herbs for whole bodies with
success that rivals modern-day allopathic medicine. As naturally concentrated foods, herbs
have the unique ability to address a multiplicity of
problems simultaneously.
In most cases, the full medicinal value of herbs
is in their internal complexity. Single herbs contain
dozens of natural chemical constituents
working synergistically. That is why an herb is
rarely ever known for just a single function. The
evolutionary development of each herb has
created a whole essence: the natural herb in correct
and balanced rations with all its constituents.
Many of these constituents within a whole herb
are unknown—even to modern science—and
internal chemical reactions within and among
herbs are even less understood. I believe that a
combination of herbal nutrients best encourages
overall body balance. Since all body parts and
most disease symptoms are interrelated, it is wise
to use a compound of herbs which can affect each
part of the problem. Also, used in their whole
form, herbs, like foods, nourish the body with
little danger of toxicity.
Potentiating herbal formulas to reach certain
standardized constituents makes them more druglike,
without the protection of their natural
gentleness and balance. For example, recent
studies show that the standardized compound,
hypericin, found in St.-John’s-wort, is a strong
inhibitor of monoamine oxidase (MAO) and that
Prozac™ should never be taken with MAO antidepressants.
Herbs have rejuvenative qualities entirely
missed by standardization. No lab test can begin
to quantify all that whole natural plants have to
offer us. Standardizing potency for only one or
two extracted “active ingredients” for certain vested
interests, attempts to use limited laboratory
procedures to convince the AMA, the FDA and
medical scientists of the value of herbal therapy.
Yet quality and consistency are a major concern in
ascertaining herbal effectiveness.
Somehow herbalists and herbal product
suppliers must integrate herbal traditions, ethical
commitment, FDA regulations and consumer
concerns. We can’t let ourselves forget that the
activity of herbs is due not only to their biochemical
properties but also to their unique, holistic
effects and most importantly, to their interactions
with the human body.
And we must not fall into the same
wrong-headed, self-defeating pit that occurred
40 years ago when the regulations for
standardization of drugs nearly killed all herbal
medicine.
|
|
|
