Numerous researchers have lauded the use of standardized herbs claiming that they provide for quality products for consumers and clinicians amongst a sea of unregulated nutritional supplements. Some have even proposed that the only herbal medicines available be standardized products. While, standardized products are essential for performing clinical trials and serve as another choice for delivering herbs to patients, they are by no means ideal. First, standardized products do not allow for delivering herbs in different forms such as teas or tinctures. This can limit the therapeutic action of the herb(s) and hinder the optimal manner of treating certain diseases. Second, standardization makes it very difficult to combine herbs to create individualized formulas, which is a common practice in many herbal traditions. Third, there has been little critical examination of the cost-benefit of making a relatively expensive standardized herbal product vs. using less expensive methods of delivery. Fourth, standardization has difficulty with the synergistic nature of phytochemicals, which work together to produce the plants' therapeutic action(s). In many cases, an active constituent is known only to have it questioned at a later date by the therapeutic action of other constituent(s) in the plant. Consequently, while a standardized product may have adequate amounts of the "key" constituent this is no guarantee of the amounts or even the existence of other important plant chemicals. Fifth, standardization separates us from the plants. Instead of the clinicians and patients seeing, smelling, and tasting, the plant they are relegated to "taking a pill".
Learning Objectives: To examine the strengths and weaknesses of standardized herbal products from the perspective of researchers and clinicians.
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
Disclosure not received
Relationship: Not Received.