Also known as “phytopharmaceuticals” in Europe, standardized herbal extracts are fast becoming popular among those who seek “specific” therapeutic effects of “specific” compounds within an herb; more importantly, standardization has played a prominent role in the wide acceptance of herbal medicine among the average consumer—but at what cost. Many proponents of standardization argue that these isolated compounds ensure consistency from product to product, in addition to maintaining the degree of efficacy upon which consumers and alternative practitioners may rely upon without questioning quality. However, all is not as it seems. The medicinal properties of herbs carry with them a long and lengthy past of clinical observation from an even longer succession of herbal healers who selected herbs based upon the synergy of the whole plant, rather than a single compound. And, contrary to the beliefs of some, the medicinal value of whole herb extracts need not be adulterated by any laboratory in order to make them more “effective” or “efficient.”

What is a Standardized Herbal Extract?

Quite simply, standardized extracts are predicated upon the notion that only specific isolated compounds are responsible for the action of the herb, rather than the full spectrum of compounds working in unison. This single compound or limited group of compounds in then chemically extracted in order to insure that the finished product contains a concentrated and quantifiable amount of the so-called active ingredient, while at the same time reducing, damaging, or discarding the remaining herbal compounds. This standardized amount is then expressed as a percentage, such as green tea with 50% catechins, or milk thistle with 75% silymarin, and so on. Even more disturbing is the fact that these standardized extracts are often obtained through the utilization of harsh synthetic solvents such as hexane, benzene, acetone, carbon tetrachloride and others, whereby the residues may still remain on the finished product, not to mention lay waste to the environment by using such methods. While the intention of providing consumers with a “clear-cut” method to evaluate products seems to be well placed, the outcome leaves much to be desired, and has been a topic of controversy with true clinical herbalists for some time.



Standards for Standardized Extracts? Not Quite

One would think that with such support for standardized extracts from the creators of such products, that there would be an agreed upon method of extraction or even which compound was considered to be the “active” ingredient? Not really.

Ironically, these standardized extracts carry no standards themselves. Methods of extraction range widely from company to company, with many of these companies “experimenting” with synthetic extraction processes, and many more claiming that they found the “best” or “most effective” method to obtain the active compound in question. And, as botanicals cannot be patented in and of themselves, the so-called proprietary methods of extraction are often patented by the company that developed them.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that there is often disagreement among researchers as to which compound is considered to be the “active” one (e.g. the active compound hypericin in St. Johns Wort was succeeded by what is now thought to be the more active compound, hyperforin). While a compound that may be considered “inert” today, may indeed be considered “active” tomorrow. (e.g. echinacea's immuno-modulating caffeic acid and isobutylamides were at one time thought to be "inert").



Natures Wisdom Needs No Improvement

The practice of standardization should sound familiar, as it is akin to the drug model. Find an active component and concentrate the heck out of it right? While this approach may seem appropriate to the pharmaceutical giants, it violates the fundamental values that create the framework for traditional herbalism as we know it. From the herbalist’s point of view, standardized extracts, while plausibly stronger in intended action, can be thought of as more of an herbal “drug” than anything else. It is also worth noting that almost no medicinal herbs are known for a single specific function, as would seem to be the goal of standardization.

Unfortunately, while modern science seems to have a foothold on isolating individual compounds from herbs, the reality is that the remaining herbal components are often overlooked or discounted as being valueless. Medicinal herbs are composed of a complex array of hundreds of phytochemicals, with an even more complex array of physiological effects, many of which have not even begun to be understood by modern science. It is this complexity and energy that gives these herbs their medicinal value, not a single compound imposed upon the body.



What to Look For in a Whole Herb Extract?

With the average health food store carrying enough herbal products to send the average shopper into an utter state of confusion, how is one to know what to look for? Sadly, there is no easy answer to this. Many manufacturers work very hard to develop their image, with little regard to the integrity behind it.

Full spectrum extracts (also called simple or crude extracts) are extracted using grain or fruit alcohol, distilled water, or a combination of both. The two most important components that contribute to the quality of the finished product are (a) the quality of the raw herb being used, and (b) the method of extraction. While whole books have been written on both of these subjects, and varying degrees of opinion have existed, the fundamental concept is to produce an extract that most resembles the composition of the original herb, but in a more concentrated form.

We don’t like to brag (ok maybe a little), but the manufacturing process utilized in our formulas here at Jash Botanicals is the pinnacle of what we believe to be the finest herbal formulas available. Our obsession with herbal perfection and the methods involved in producing a superior product, is what led us to our exclusive “Physicians Grade Formula” standard—because not all herbal formulas were created equal.