Herbal Extracts: An Herbalist's Perspective

[Guest guest]

HERBAL EXTRACTS: AN HERBALIST'S PERSPECTIVE

BYDr. Michael Tierra, L.Ac., O.M.D.,

Founding Member of the American Herbalists Guild

 

The advent of herbal products in the form of standardized extracts was initiated

in 1992 as a result of a European Guaranteed Potency law. Since that time,

proponents have heralded standardized herbal extracts as a major historical

advance, allowing both consumers and medical doctors to use herbal products with

greater confidence and more consistent results.

 

What most don’t realize, however, is that the majority of these advocates

consist of:

1. academics and medical doctors who often have little personal or clinical

experience with herbs,

2. researchers whose work is funded by drug companies that manufacture the

standardized extracts used in their clinical trials, and

3. naturopathic physicians who have financial ties with the companies that

produce these products.

 

One group noticeably lacking from the chorus of standardized extract enthusiasts

is professional clinical herbalists who rely on herbs as their primary healing

modality. While not categorically condemning standardized extracts, clinical

herbalists agree that just because an herb is biochemically standardized, it is

not automatically more potent or efficacious than a non-standardized extract.

 

Standardized Herbal Extracts – What Are They?

 

Standardized herbal extracts are of two main types: An active constituent

extract where there is a known and accepted active biochemical principle, and a

marker extract where the active biochemical principle is not known and a

characteristic compound is used as a " marker, " which signifies the presence of

the other biochemical compounds that give the herb its therapeutic properties.

 

In an active constituent extract, the known biochemical compound is isolated

from the herb and concentrated to an amount not naturally found in the plant.

Think of caffeine from coffee or morphine from the opium poppy. This type of

extract tends to be more drug-like, potentially having undesirable side effects

not normally present in the herb or its non-standardized extract.

 

From the herbalist’s perspective, this type of extract, while stronger in

intended action is more of an herbal drug or " phytopharmaceutical " as it is

called in Europe. As such, when the isolate is manipulated at the expense of the

whole herb’s constituents, one may lose other properties contained within the

herb, as well as buffering compounds that may lessen adverse reactions.

 

Examples of herbs where the known active principle is treated as an isolate

include:

gingko (24% flavoglycosides), milk thistle (80% silymarin), grape seed (95%

polyphenols), turmeric (95% curcumin), saw palmetto (90% free fatty acids),

green tea (60% catechins), cascara sagrada (20-30% anthraquinones), bilberry

(25% anthocyanosides), pygeum (12% phytosterols) and kava (30-40% kavalactones).

 

In a marker extract, no single active constituent is known, so the entire

extract is treated as active and all plant constituents are present. With this

type of extract, the caffeine in the above example would not be used as the

marker compound because it is not unique enough to any one plant. When the

ginsenosides of ginseng, for example, are standardized from 5 to 15 percent, all

other properties of the herb are present in a marker extract. In the case of

ginseng, however, the herb’s strength depends greatly on its age and growing

conditions. So the mere presence of a fixed percentage of ginsenosides does not

guarantee the tonic properties of a well-aged root. In fact, since ginsenosides

are also found in the cheaper leaves, some standardized ginseng extracts are

made only with ginseng leaf rather than the root.

 

Examples of herbs where the active principle is either not known or not treated

as an isolate include:

artichoke (2-5% cynarin), chamomile (1.2% apigenin/0.5% essential oil), devil’s

claw (5% harpogosides), echinacea (4% echinacosides), ephedra (6-8%

ephedrine/pseudoephedrine), feverfew (2.6% parthenolides), ginseng (5-15%

ginsenosides), goldenseal (5% hydrastine), horsechestnut (20% aescin), uva ursi

(20% arbutin), gotu kola (10% asiaticosides), green tea (20-50% polyphenols),

licorice (12% glycyrrhizin), St. John’s wort (0.3-0.5% hypericin), schisandra

(2.6-4% schisandrins), valerian (0.8-1% valerenic acid) and willow (8% salicin).

 

While these represent the most widely used categories, science continues to

develop further methods. One created by PharmaPrint Inc. is able to identify and

standardize several active constituents. Their process represents the cutting

edge of standardization, but with a cost of more than $500,000 per herb is only

feasible for the most vested of pharmaceutical companies. They ultimately plan

to make pharmaceutical-grade herbal products for the use of medical doctors and

pharmacists.

 

Science versus Tradition

 

Traditional clinical herbalists use herbs not so much to treat named diseases,

but to implement a shift in underlying physiological processes so the body can

heal itself. The body’s complex processes can be affected by herbs, drugs,

foods, emotional experiences and therapeutic exercises. This alone delineates a

fundamental difference between wholistic herbal medicine and the

phytotherapeutic or symptomatic drug-like approach of phytotherapy. While

neither is fully exclusive of the other, the difference is in the intention of

the final therapeutic goal.

 

Does this mean that one shouldn’t try an herb such as St. John’s wort for mild

depression? Certainly not, but herbal medicine’s strength is its capacity to

effectively treat based on the individual needs of each patient. The

phytotherapist, on the other hand, uses herbs to treat specific named diseases.

For this purpose, standardized extracts based on identified chemical

constituents are appropriate. However, the fact that standardized garlic is sold

for reducing cholesterol and hawthorn for reducing hypertension does not make

them the best herbs in all cases. If you are not using the right herb for an

individual’s condition and constitution, it makes no difference whether it is a

high-priced standardized extract of guaranteed potency or a more traditional

preparation of the same herb.

 

Industry " Standards "

 

There is no universally accepted " standard " for the manufacture of standardized

herbal extracts. Companies’ manufacturing methods may vary so widely their

finished products hardly resemble each other. Extracts may not be consistently

standardized to one marker. For instance, nettle root is standardized by one

company to 5% amino acids, by another to 8% sterols, and yet a third to 35ppm

(parts per million) scopoline. Echinacea can be standardized to three different

constituents: echinocosides, polysaccharides or polybutylides. And what is

considered an active compound for any given herb may change in time, such as the

hyperforin of St. John’s wort recently understood to be more active than its

previous marker, hypericin.

 

As with decaffeinated coffee, the manufacture of high isolate standardized

extracts may also involve highly toxic solvents such as hexane, benzene, methyl

chloride or acetone. Besides leaving minute residue in the finished product,

these solvents have hazardous effects on the environment.

 

Finally, on average, the comparison for the cost of standardized extracts over

their non-chemically standardized counterpart is more than double that of the

standardized version of the same herb.

 

Pharmaceutical Takeover of the Herbal and Vitamin Industry

 

With the development of standardized extracts, pharmaceutical companies are able

to obtain exclusive international patents on isolated herbal constituents, as

well as on the process of manufacturing them. Standardization may not mean

better herbal medicine, but it does mean higher costs and more profits to

pharmaceutical companies who can afford research that will guarantee them

exclusive rights to these extracts.

 

This issue of error and deception has been reported down through the ages.

According to veteran herbalist James Duke, herbal extracts have been " spiked " to

deceptively indicate the presence of a specific marker with little or none of

the herb’s associated constituents. In other words, except for the marker

compound, there may be a completely different herb or no herb at all present.

Therefore, while standardized extracts may offer a degree of assurance that the

product is what it claims to be, it is still possible to be deceived.

 

Science does not exist in a vacuum, as medical and herbal research is dependent

upon funding from business and industry. As long as science is influenced by the

bottom line, truth will be threatened. The danger for herbs is that the public

will be misled to accept primarily scientifically manufactured products that

will eventually be superseded by " more effective chemical drugs. "

 

So the questions remain: Is the exclusive sale of herbs in the form of

standardized extracts a Trojan horse, bringing increased adverse reactions,

increased governmental regulation and intervention, and ultimately the

availability of only a few herbs deemed financially expedient to standardize by

multinational pharmaceutical companies?

 

Consumer Acceptance

 

One thing that all sides agree on is that labeling an herb as a standardized

extract is good for business. With a projected 4 1/2 billion dollar sales of

herbal products for 1999, standardized extracts are increasingly playing a

significant role in the popular acceptance of herbs. Yet, does this really

promote herbalism?

 

As one herbalist-manufacturer glibly commented: " One way I can tell how powerful

St. John’s wort is for depression is how good it instantly makes me feel when I

look at my sales figures. " Today, St. John’s wort standardized to 0.3% hypericin

easily outsells its pharmaceutical rival, Prozac, and its derivatives. While it

is certainly preferable to substitute the herb for the pharmaceutical, only

using St. John’s wort may not fully address the patient’s issues and fails to

reflect the high standards of clinical herbal medicine.

 

There are literally thousands of medicinal herbs growing worldwide – most of

them are not, and may never be, standardized. In the North Hawaii Community

Hospital on the big island of Hawaii, the focus is on integrating alternative

and complementary medicine with conventional medicine. A considerable number of

their patrons are of native Hawaiian heritage. Unfortunately, the hospital can’t

endorse the use of their time-honored native herbs because, aside from being a

long way from standardization, there is no accepted research on them.

 

Researchers and academics claim scientific separation from industry when it

comes to the marketing and sales of the final herbal product. However, a deluge

of articles and books currently recommend that consumers purchase only

standardized herbs. Any publicized research attesting to the efficacy of an herb

is, with few exceptions in the West, fully supported and paid for by vested

manufacturers who are increasingly pharmaceutical companies. It is even possible

in today’s world to hire a scientist, as if soliciting paid favors from the

local brothel, to prove a case for anything from algae to oregano.

 

From a herbalist’s perspective, the empirical traditions of East and West based

on " what works " are of the few sources for impersonal evaluation of an herb’s

uses. Herbal products made based on these observations have proven their

therapeutic effects for thousands of years without the need for biochemical

standardization. Because certain standardized extracts, such as milk thistle

extract with 80% silymarin, have been proven through funded research to be

effective against liver poisons and toxins, this does not mean that the whole

non-standardized herb may not have equally beneficial properties. In fact, there

are traditional uses for milk thistle seeds, such as for enlarged spleen,

menstrual irregularities and varicose veins, for which the standardized extract

is not as suitable.

 

At this developmental stage of standardization, herbalists agree that most

standardized extracts have significant shortcomings and should not be

exclusively relied upon for all herbal needs.

 

Alternatives to Standardized Extracts

 

One effective alternative to standardization is called " fingerprinting. " This

involves a chromatographic analysis of an herb for all of its constituents, not

just one. This colored graph of valleys and peaks ensures that the intended herb

is present in an extract, thus identifying bogus products.

 

Companies should also hire qualified herbalists to supervise the timing and

harvest of herbs, such as fully ripened saw palmetto berries for extracts used

in research. If following GMP standards, as many outstanding herb companies do,

why would an extract made from a large sampling of the finest quality herb be

unsuitable for double blind clinical trials and research?

 

As herbal medicine extends further into the mainstream, science and industry

must not forget that there is an as yet unrecognized profession of highly

qualified and experienced clinical herbalists. The American Herbalists Guild

(435-722-8452), founded in 1989, represents the emerging herbalist profession.

 

As science becomes more involved with herbal medicine, which is much needed in

one sense, those who are attempting to integrate traditional medicines with

holistic medical facilities, such as the native Hawaiians, must not be

disempowered. Herbal medicine has always been a medicine by and for the people.

Along with the discussions of biochemistry, standardized extracts,

phytopharmaceuticals, and the inevitable involvement of pharmaceutical

companies, those dedicated to the use of medicinal herbs must not forget their

" roots " – an earth-centered awareness that affirms our interdependence with all

life, and our relationship with the plant kingdom.

 

Michael Tierra, is regarded as one of the world's foremost exponent on herbal

medicine. He is a Founding Member of the American Herbalists Guild, California

state licensed acupuncturist, herbalist, with an Oriental Medical Doctor (OMD)

degree. Author of several books including the best selling Way of Herbs, The Way

of Chinese Herbs, The Natural Remedy Bible (all published by Pocket Books and

Planetary Herbology and Chinese Traditional Herbal Medicine (published by Lotus

Press) and the East West Herbal Correspondence Course. He has an extensive

website with articles, books, forums and chat room at www.planetherbs.com. .

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjoguest

DietaryTipsForHBP

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html

 

PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

We have made every effort to ensure that the information included in these pages

is accurate. However, we make no guarantees nor can we assume any responsibility

for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or

process discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th