The Hazards Of Borrowed Science

 Back to Additional ArticlesPage

In today’s botanical field, many companies borrow science to make claims about their own plant-derived products. While at first blush this practice may seem reasonable or appropriate, it is most often scientifically baseless, and can result in the development and marketing of ineffective botanical products. The purpose of this article is to assist individual companies and the botanical industry at large in understanding what constitutes valid science, in order to ensure that botanical products provide real health benefits when claims are made. 

What specifically is borrowed science?

This is best explained by example. Company A develops an extract of Ginkgo biloba, standardized to 24% flavone glycosides and 6% terpene lactones. Having developed this extract, the company then engages in scientific testing of the material. Over time, Company A discovers that their Ginkgo biloba extract enhances cerebral circulation. Human studies eventually demonstrate that their Ginkgo biloba extract improves some parameters of mental function, including memory. Company A then markets the extract for enhanced mental function and improved memory. The product is a marketing success.

Company B, enthused by the success of Company A, decides to also launch a Ginkgo biloba extract. To mimic the extract made by Company A, Company B produces an extract standardized to 24% flavone glycosides and 6% terpene lactones. Having done this, Company B then appropriates the human clinical results obtained by Company A, and markets their own

Ginkgo biloba extract for enhanced mental function and improved memory.

This is a mistake.

Markers do not equal a profile. Botanical extracts are often standardized to specific marker compounds, as in the case of Ginkgo biloba, described above. This however, does not in any way ensure efficacy. To follow along with the Ginkgo example, this plant contains hundreds of compounds. An extract of Ginkgo biloba is a multi-component material, containing not only flavone glycosides and terpene lactones, but multiple dozens of other compounds as well.

Chromatographic analysis of Ginkgo biloba extract reveals a complex   botanical profile. When Company A develops a Ginkgo biloba extract, they produce a product with a specific profile. It is this whole profile, not just the presence of a certain percentage of terpene lactones and flavone glycosides, which establishes the identity of the extract.

Standardizing a botanical extract to one or two marker compounds does not guarantee that a specific profile has been achieved. Let’s finish with the Ginkgo example. Unless Company B can produce an extract of Ginkgo biloba which has the same total profile as the extract made by Company A, and achieves the same biological or in vivo results, then there is no

scientific basis on which they can borrow the discoveries made by Company A.

Other cases of mistaken identity

Two popular botanicals, St. John’s Wort and kava, offer good examples of just how far afield companies can go by borrowing science. In the case of St. John’s Wort, extracts of this plant are typically standardized to .3% hypericin. This is because the company who pioneered St. John’s Wort research developed an extract with .3% hypericin as a marker. However, hypericin is not the anti-depressant compound in St. John’s Wort. The standardized extract of St. John’s Wort which has repeatedly demonstrated anti-depressant activity has a specific profile, which includes a particular level of hyperforins, a group of compounds now presumed to be the anti-depressant "actives" in this plant.

Thus when companies manufacture St. John’s Wort extracts standardized to  .3% of the marker compound hypericin, they may be producing a wholly ineffective product with little or no anti-depressant activity at all.  Only if both the full profile and the tested biological activity of a St. John’s Wort extract is identical to that of the original scientifically validated extract can we have any reasonable assurance of efficacy.

With kava, a group of compounds known as kavapyrones or kavalactones are

responsible for the plant’s relaxing properties. But among the six primary kavalactones, effects vary widely. Thus one 30% kavalactone extract and another 30% kavalactone extract may in fact produce markedly different biological effects. An extract in which the kavalactone kavain is concentrated will produce a pleasant relaxing effect quickly, whereas a kava extract with a concentration of dihydromethysticin may produce a sluggish, groggy feeling. But both extracts may be standardized to "30% kavalactones." The numbers simply do not tell the whole story.

Well founded criticism

Some of the criticism aimed at the botanical industry is well founded. For as long as companies borrow science to make marketing claims for their own untested products, the market will be awash with second-rate or wholly ineffective botanicals. Very few companies engage in rigorous science to ensure that their products deliver the health benefits for which they are used. The marketing of untested, ineffective botanicals erodes consumer confidence and leaves the botanical industry wide open to heavy handed regulation.

The practice of borrowing science is illegitimate. If companies invest the time, energy and resources required to ensure that their products are truly effective, then botanical products will deliver the health benefits claimed. The purpose of engaging in real science is to ensure that these products work.

Chris Kilham teaches ethnobotany at University Of Massachusetts
 

Back to Additional Articles Page