Standardization means adjusting the herbal drug preparation to a defined content of the active constituent. An important debate is being waged within the herbal community: on one side stand the proponents of standardized botanicals and on the other those who promote whole plant preparations. The intent of standardization (to guarantee the potency of a particular chemical constituent) is noble but seriously flawed. It is a notion based on the Western paradigm of reductionism and materialism. This paradigm has served us well in many cases but has also been responsible for serious harm.
Standardization at first glance seems reasonable, perhaps even an admirable endeavor. However, the proponents of standardization are operating on several mistaken assumptions. The first misstep is the assumption that an isolated chemical constituent is singularly responsible for a plant’s therapeutic effectiveness. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Adherents of Ayurveda, Unani, Chinese Herbal Supplements, herbalism and indigenous healing have understood for centuries that there is a synergistic relationship between all plant constituents; there exists an intimate relationship between the parts and the whole plant.
It has been advised that the total herb should be used instead of isolated active principle. The total herb, besides active principles, has also other constituents like resins, gum, sugar, vitamins, inorganic salts and many vegetable substances. These in-built antidotal mechanisms protect the body from the ill-effects of the herb. The medicinal plants possess some breaking or balancing mechanism, which cannot be ignored (Hkm. M. Tayyab, Dean, Faculty of Unani Herbal Supplements, Aligarh Muslim University, 1989.)
For example, when the ulcer-protecting, and curing constituents of Licorice root was isolated and extracted, the resulting product was better than the mother plant, but at the cost of dramatically increased chances of side-effects. Later, it was found that the stuff left over after the ‘active’ constituents were extracted was practically as effective as the extract, but without any side-effects. (Daniel B. Mowrey, Guaranteed Potency Herbs, 1990)
Likewise, Ephedrine, isolated from Ephedra sinica, may raise blood pressure dangerously, while the whole plant is safer, as it contains ingredients that help to lower blood pressure. Also, the salicylates in aspirin are derived from the salicins found in plants of the Salix species (Willow). Essentially, aspirin and aspirin-like compounds are standardized Willow. Aspirin produces recognized side effects, including gastric bleeding. The salicins of Salix produce no such effects. The plant’s remaining constituents shield the patient from gastric complications. Also, various studies have identified over 200 separate constituents in Allium sativum (Garlic). Many herbs like Garlic have multiple constituents and therefore multiple medicinal properties.
There also remain important critical issues to consider while using standardized herbal extracts. Quality and effectiveness may be compromised in a number of ways:
1. For the extracts based on active constituents, the high degree of concentration causes a corresponding displacement and lack of other constituents, which in a few cases have been subsequently shown to be even more effective than the originally presumed active constituent.
2. Again for active constituent extracts, given that there may be only a partial representation of the herb’s normally occurring constituents, this limits the broad range of traditionally known properties and uses of an herb in favor of a single use.
3. The use of chemical constituents as active or marker compounds creates misinformation encouraging the misuse of herbs as a substitute for drugs. This demeans in popular understanding the broader context of their use for the treatment of underlying imbalances as the cause of disease.
4. Not all herbs branded as standardized are manufactured the same. Some involve methods that are not dissimilar to a more highly refined tincture or a concentrated dried extract while others employ the use of toxic solvents that may go against the sensibilities and ethics of individuals who are attracted to the use herbal remedies as an alternative to drugs. Furthermore, different methods of standardization produce significant differences in the finished product of which the consumer is not aware.
5. The need to extract high isolates of a single biochemical constituent fosters poor harvesting and wildcrafting (ecologically sound harvesting of wild herbs) where quantity is sacrificed for quality.
6. The relationship of plant to human is challenged so that people are less likely to appreciate the fact that an herb growing amongst the weeds in their garden may make as effective or an even more effective remedy than a standardized extract.
7. Since standardized extracts essentially represent a different form, it is not to be assumed that they will have the same effects as more conventional herbal products such as a non-chemically standardized tincture.
8. The promotion of standardized extracts for the treatment of a named pathology, encourages marketing opportunism. This tends to distract from other herbs and products such as the use of Chinese Red sage (Salvia milthiorrhiza) or Tienchi ginseng (Panax pseudoginseng) instead of hawthorn for heart disease, chrysanthemum flowers (Chrysanthemum morifolium) instead of feverfew for migraine headaches and honeysuckle blossoms (Lonicera javonica) instead of echinacea for the common cold.
9. The technology necessary to produce truly standardized extracts as espoused by some of their leading exponents greatly changes the way herbs are handled at all stages from growth to final product. Some proposed trends such as the exclusive use of cultivated herbs over wild harvested ones, is counter to the traditional time-honored principles and practices of Herbal Supplements. Herbalists have always felt that herbs grown in the wild are superior to those under cultivation and by definition, wild herbs cannot be standardized. To manipulate herbs to conform to an artificial process of standardization makes them more like ‘phytopharmaceutical’ drugs. This in turn means that they can only be manufactured into products by well-vested pharmaceutical companies to be distributed and sold in pharmacies under prescription by medical doctors. Herbal Herbal Supplements is a rigorous study and medical practice unto itself. It is presumptuous to assume that the majority of medical doctors are or ever will be qualified in their proper use. With profit as the primary motive, there is good reason to distrust pharmaceutical companies considering that it was from this sector that one may largely attribute the nearly complete suppression of Herbal Supplements from the mid-1920’s to the late 60’s. Up to recently, pharmaceutical companies were unable to cash in on the sale of herbs because they were unpatentable. With the advent of standardization, there is a pattern established where a company that is able to spend huge amounts of money on research is entitled to develop an exclusive patent for the process of extraction and standardization of an herbal product accompanied with a license to sell them on the international market.
How herbs are standardized
In fact, many of the processes of standardization are not standardized. Many herbs sold as standardized extracts are not consistently standardized to one marker. Nettle root is standardized by one company to 5% amino acids, by another to 8% sterols, and a third uses 35ppm, scopoline. Because it is not certain which of its constituents are responsible for its therapeutic action, Echinacea can be standardized to at least three different constituents and each used as markers by different companies. These include echinocosides, polysaccharides and polybutylides. In fact, given this inconsistency, one might be as well or better off (certainly in terms of price) purchasing a high quality herbal tincture.
AHG. herbalist and owner and founder of Herb Pharm, Ed Smith, mentioned how of the 100’s of Kava products standardized with 30% kavalactones, there is disagreement as to what number of lactones to make the standard as well as the best ratio they should be presented. He further states that in order to make such high extractions of specific chemical constituents, it is impossible to harvest herbs at their optimum. It takes considerably more time and effort to harvest most herbs at their optimum stage in the quantities needed for extraction. The old US Pharmacopoeias specified the use of fully ripened saw palmetto berries. These are deeply blackish and purplish in color. Herbalists have witnessed migrant workers harvesting hundreds of tons of green, sometimes yellow or orange berries, which are then shipped to Europe to be made into standardized extract.
Ed posits that “the fact that such poor quality material is being used to make standardized saw palmetto is probably why the standardized form has to be used in much larger doses than the fluid extract from fully-ripened berries.”
Another founding member of the American Herbalists Guild David Winston, an East Coast herbalist with over 25 years professional experience, points out that there is no standard for how standardized extracts are manufactured. This raises the basic question as to what is the best extract? Since industry has no standard even as to what chemical to standardize to or even what chemical methods to use to make standardized extracts there may be a significant non-standardized variance in the finished product.
Thus the “Working” parts of the plant - whether roots, buds, leaves or bark - are the repository of more than just one active compound, and act as potentiators and buffers. (Marine Nadine Antol, Healing Teas, 1996)
Daniel B. Mowrey, the author of “Scientific Validation of Herbal Supplements”, recommends that the extract of the herb should be placed back into whole herb material so that delicate balances of the herb are not disturbed. The standardization process must ensure the presence of all constituents, or at least those responsible for the bidirectional action of the plant (Herbal tonic Therapies, 1996)
Dehlvi’s Single Herbs
Plants take up substances from the earth and convert them into vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, proteins and fats that our bodies use for nourishment and healing. By using the whole plant, DEHLVI REMEDIES takes in all the vital ingredients it carries. We, therefore, believe in the harmonious view that “the whole plant is worth more than the sum of its parts”. When the whole plant is used rather than extracted constituents, the different parts interact producing a greater therapeutic effect than the equivalent dosage of isolated active constituents that are generally preferred in conventional (allopathic) Herbal Supplements where often a drug is over-refined and may lose some of the other components that complement or prevent side effects.
Dehlvi’s Single Herbs do NOT contain fillers, grains, soy, yeast, sugars, binders, excipients, starches, or synthetic materials. Our global sourcing of raw materials ensures that the highest quality products are chosen from each harvest season. Most of our herbs are organically grown. Since India does not have such an organic certification system, they can not certify them as organic, however most of our herbs are wild crafted and are not sprayed with any pesticides or insecticides.
