Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 Hi All, and Hi Don, Hats off to Don for a great mail on QC! I have taken the liberty of cross-posting that mail to three sister- lists [PA-L, PVA-L and VBMA] with the following introduction: Hi All, Another list ( ) has a great debate ongoing on Quality Control (QC) of single herbs, formulas and granules. This debate is highly relevant to VBMA (and to some PA-Ls & PVA- Ls) because the individual dose of a remedy should relate directly to the main active ingredients in THAT remedy, be it a single herb, formula or granule. I take the liberty of cross-posting a mail from Don Wen of Company X [actual name of the company is deleted in case his mail might be misconstrued as a spam to elicit business with his company!!]. Don works for a large Japanese Kampo firm. He has summarised the approach adopted in Japan (under the direction of the Ko-Sei- Sho (Ministry of Health and Welfare) of the Japanese Government) to ensure QC and batch-to-batch stability of Kampo products. Don's points are MOST important. They highlight the inevitable QC problems inherent in using raw single herbs or herbal formulas, not least being the impossibility of adequate sampling and analysis of those products at the PACKAGING stage (i.e. just before release from the factory). A close reading of Don's mail suggests that the SAFEST & best- quality herbals MUST be batch-produced in LARGE amounts by extraction and drying procedures, with QC at the END of the process and not at the start or intermediate stages. Extracts produced from huge mixes have MUCH less inherent variability than use of raw ingredients, whose active ingredients can vary by a factor of 5 to 10 (or more) between lots. I shudder to think what bottle-to-bottle variability in active ingredients might be for herbal remedies formulated at home by individual practitioners who source their raw ingredients from a variety of local and postal sources!! Best regards, Phil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations again Don. You have given us all much food for thought! Best regards, WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland WWW : Email: < Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0] HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm Email: < Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 Thank you very much for your support. It would be interesting to see how your audients respond to the message, particularly from the other part of the world. Dan Wen , " " <@e...> wrote: > Hi All, and Hi Don, > > Hats off to Don for a great mail on QC! > > I have taken the liberty of cross-posting that mail to three sister- > lists [PA-L, PVA-L and VBMA] with the following introduction: > > Hi All, Another list ( ) has > a great debate ongoing on Quality Control (QC) of single herbs, > formulas and granules. > > This debate is highly relevant to VBMA (and to some PA-Ls & PVA- > Ls) because the individual dose of a remedy should relate directly > to the main active ingredients in THAT remedy, be it a single herb, > formula or granule. > > I take the liberty of cross-posting a mail from Don Wen of Company > X [actual name of the company is deleted in case his mail might be > misconstrued as a spam to elicit business with his company!!]. > > Don works for a large Japanese Kampo firm. He has summarised > the approach adopted in Japan (under the direction of the Ko-Sei- > Sho (Ministry of Health and Welfare) of the Japanese Government) > to ensure QC and batch-to-batch stability of Kampo products. > > Don's points are MOST important. They highlight the inevitable QC > problems inherent in using raw single herbs or herbal formulas, not > least being the impossibility of adequate sampling and analysis of > those products at the PACKAGING stage (i.e. just before release > from the factory). > > A close reading of Don's mail suggests that the SAFEST & best- > quality herbals MUST be batch-produced in LARGE amounts by > extraction and drying procedures, with QC at the END of the > process and not at the start or intermediate stages. > > Extracts produced from huge mixes have MUCH less inherent > variability than use of raw ingredients, whose active ingredients can > vary by a factor of 5 to 10 (or more) between lots. > > I shudder to think what bottle-to-bottle variability in active > ingredients might be for herbal remedies formulated at home by > individual practitioners who source their raw ingredients from a > variety of local and postal sources!! > > Best regards, Phil > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Congratulations again Don. You have given us all much food for > thought! > > > Best regards, > > > WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland > WWW : > Email: <@e...> > Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0] > > HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland > WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm > Email: <@e...> > Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 , " honsousa <info@h...> " < info@h...> wrote: > Thank you very much for your support. It would be interesting to see > how your audients respond to the message, particularly from the other > part of the world. Dan Wen Dan It appears than honso products daily dose packets (3 per day) are made from about 25-30 grams of raw herb on average if I correctly understand your product info. this is pretty standard kampo dose range, though much lower than TCM doses. However it is definitely within the normal textbook dose range, albeit at the lower end. I was wondering if your company has any data comparing the amount of standardization constituents in the finished product versus a simple decoction and versus other product types such as tincture, liquid extract and pills. It is interesting to see comparisons between your company and other makers of powdered extracts, but I think it would be very illuminating if your company could provide some data that showed the actual level of marker constituents in certain product types, such as liquid extracts and pills. It would be a great service to the field if we could make an accurate comparison between product types. Right now, your data is persuasive to powder users that you have a quality product of this type. However, there is nothing to persuade liquid and pill users that your product type is superior (or inferior) to their current choice. I suspect many products on the market are not cost effective when measured by this standard. typically your product was about 1.5-3 times stronger than your competitors according to your in house data. I am curious what the difference in strength, if any, there would between your products and the recommended daily dose of various pills (like the 8 TID little black pills fom china) or several droppers (or less ) of various liquid extracts and simple tinctures. I remain openminded that the data will contradict my assumptions. I know some of you will say this is irrelevant and inaccurate way to assess herb quality, but its not irrelevant to me, many of my colleagues and pretty much the entire rest of the industrialized world outside the US. So I guess companies will need to decide if they want the business of people like me or not. Since I cannot afford to do such testing myself at this time, I will be soliciting information from companies. I want companies that are able to produce satisfactory documentation on this matter to be listed on the CHA website if that seems a reasonable thing to do. the listing will not be an indictment of any nonlisted products, merely a positive listing of products that meet certain international standards derived from the EU and Japan. All standards and testing requirements will be posted on the webpage. Products will be categorized according to what level of standards they meet. those that only show PRESENCE of " markers " or concentration ratios will be classed different than those that also show LEVELS of " markers " . I can say already that companies like Blue Poppy, Golden Flower, K'an, KPC, Peoples Herbs and Mayway already meet many, if not all, of these standards, but very few companies publish data on the levels of markers. We need to see that data, if it exists, in order to give the product our highest seal of approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 , " honsousa <info@h...> " < info@h...> wrote: > Thank you very much for your support. It would be interesting to see > how your audients respond to the message, particularly from the other > part of the world. Dan Wen Dan It appears than honso products daily dose packets (3 per day) are made from about 25-30 grams of raw herb on average if I correctly understand your product info. this is pretty standard kampo dose range, though much lower than TCM doses. However it is definitely within the normal textbook dose range, albeit at the lower end. I was wondering if your company has any data comparing the amount of standardization constituents in the finished product versus a simple decoction and versus other product types such as tincture, liquid extract and pills. It is interesting to see comparisons between your company and other makers of powdered extracts, but I think it would be very illuminating if your company could provide some data that showed the actual level of marker constituents in certain product types, such as liquid extracts and pills. It would be a great service to the field if we could make an accurate comparison between product types. Right now, your data is persuasive to powder users that you have a quality product of this type. However, there is nothing to persuade liquid and pill users that your product type is superior (or inferior) to their current choice. I suspect many products on the market are not cost effective when measured by this standard. typically your product was about 1.5-3 times stronger than your competitors according to your in house data. I am curious what the difference in strength, if any, there would between your products and the recommended daily dose of various pills (like the 8 TID little black pills fom china) or several droppers (or less ) of various liquid extracts and simple tinctures. I remain openminded that the data will contradict my assumptions. I know some of you will say this is irrelevant and inaccurate way to assess herb quality, but its not irrelevant to me, many of my colleagues and pretty much the entire rest of the industrialized world outside the US. So I guess companies will need to decide if they want the business of people like me or not. Since I cannot afford to do such testing myself at this time, I will be soliciting information from companies. I want companies that are able to produce satisfactory documentation on this matter to be listed on the CHA website if that seems a reasonable thing to do. the listing will not be an indictment of any nonlisted products, merely a positive listing of products that meet certain international standards derived from the EU and Japan. All standards and testing requirements will be posted on the webpage. Products will be categorized according to what level of standards they meet. those that only show PRESENCE of " markers " or concentration ratios will be classed different than those that also show LEVELS of " markers " . I can say already that companies like Blue Poppy, Golden Flower, K'an, KPC, Peoples Herbs and Mayway already meet many, if not all, of these standards, but very few companies publish data on the levels of markers. We need to see that data, if it exists, in order to give the product our highest seal of approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 I can say already that companies like Blue Poppy, Golden Flower, K'an, KPC, Peoples Herbs and Mayway already meet many, if not all, of these standards, but very few companies publish data on the levels of markers. We need to see that data, if it exists, in order to give the product our highest seal of approval.>>>That would be very nice Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Some people who are interested in this subject might want to (re)read p. 23-4 of Bensky's Formulas & Strategies, 'Editor's Note on Prepared Medicines'. I had a teacher who wrote big formulas (150-200gm raw / day) and another who wrote small Rx (~50-60 gm raw / day). In the years I followed them, I believe they both obtained great results. However, when I tried to emulate them, I made many more (noticable) mistakes with the big formulas. I still get good results with smaller formulas, and mistakes are much less noticable with the smaller dosages... Though I'm sure I still make my share! Geoff > __________ > Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:33:52 -0000 > " < " < > Re: QC of Herbal Medicines > > , " honsousa <info@h...> " < > info@h...> wrote: > > Thank you very much for your support. It would be interesting to see > > how your audients respond to the message, particularly from > the other > > part of the world. Dan Wen > > Dan > > It appears than honso products daily dose packets (3 per day) > are made from > about 25-30 grams of raw herb on average if I correctly > understand your > product info. this is pretty standard kampo dose range, > though much lower > than TCM doses. However it is definitely within the normal > textbook dose > range, albeit at the lower end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.