The Increasing Problem of Borrowed Science in Herbal and Plant-Based Medicine

Research into herbal and plant-based medicine is increasing. If I quickly search in PubMed using the terms herbal and plant for clinical trials conducted in 2022, 892 published results appear. This is exciting news because although traditional knowledge and practices are important, robust clinical trials must be performed on natural ingredients to support and expand upon this traditional knowledge.

An increasing trend in research is investigations into registered or patented plant ingredients. These ingredients undergo a standardised process of growing, cultivation, manufacturing, and/or testing to help increase their quality and replicability each time they go to market. The problem with herbs, plants, fruits, and vegetables is that they are not all alike, and quality can vary significantly. We have all heard the saying that ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away.’ But this greatly depends on the apple. How it was grown, what soil it was grown in, what pesticides and fertilisers were used, what the climate was like, what type of apple it is, when it was picked, how long it has been on the shelf, etc. Not all apples are alike. The same also applies to herbal and plant ingredients. This can have serious safety and efficacy implications, especially when such ingredients are used to support health and prevent or treat health ailments.

Unfortunately, despite increased research in natural ingredients, an increased trend of ‘borrowed science’ comes along with this. What many companies are doing is using research conducted on a competitor’s herbal or plant extract to support the safety and efficacy of their ingredient. In my opinion, this is an unethical practice. Even though the two ingredients may have the same name (e.g., saffron) it does not mean that they have the same composition or similar levels of active ingredients. This may significantly influence their therapeutic efficacy. We can all see this when we purchase fruits and vegetables from the grocery store. Quality greatly varies, and you often get what you pay for!

For example, because of curcumin’s poor bioavailability, there are a vast number of curcumin formulations on the market. However, differences in their bioavailability, manufacturing processes, and adjuvants that are used could have major implications on their safety and efficacy. The same applies to other popular ingredients on the market, such as saffron, ashwagandha, bacopa monierri, salvia officinalis (sage), holy basil, and berry extracts. There are even differences in the forms of different vitamins and minerals. This problem is also now occurring in probiotic research.

Therefore, when a company makes a health claim on their product or ingredient, it is important to question whether the research they cite was done on the specific extract/form they are promoting. If the answer is no, then stay away from that ingredient until the company can substantiate its safety and efficacy through robust scientific research. It is time that borrowed science is discouraged, and this can only occur if consumers become increasingly aware of this deceptive practice.