Pretty shocking stuff here. Makes me wonder what's inside the supplements I'm taking...
http://www.nytimes.c...seem.html?_r=1
Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:55 PM
Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:58 PM
Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:12 PM
Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:07 PM
Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:15 PM
Morphological analysis of market samples revealed six different species of Phyllanthus in the trade samples. Seventy-six percent of the market samples contained Phyllanthus amarus as the predominant species (>95%) and thus were devoid of admixtures. The remaining 24% of the shops had five different species of Phyllanthus namely Phyllanthus debilis, Phyllanthus fraternus, Phyllanthus urinaria, Phyllanthus maderaspatensis, and Phyllanthus kozhikodianus...
Our results show that market samples of Phyllanthus sold in southern India contain at least six different species, though among them, Phyllanthus amarus is predominant.
Edited by hav, 04 November 2013 - 08:15 PM.
Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:23 PM
I believe the underlying study as been discussed, but I've been away so here's my two cents:
1. I'm not so concerned about unlabeled fillers. Obviously if it were toxic it would be bad, but overall I don't really care too much unless the capsule doesn't contain the actual weight of the actual substance of the actual quality I am trying to buy.
2. I don't see any complete list of products tested or of companies tested. So what's actionable in this report, other than to not take anything?
3. I wonder how this applies to "standardized" extracts. e.g. green tea extracts with 20% EGCG or something like that. That should mitigate the problem, but I don't know if the normal thing is to actually test each batch, or whether the standardization merely applies to the purification process that was initially put into place when the product was introduced.
There seems to be 2 main limitations. DNA barcoding only works if the material being tested contains DNA; the more pure and/or highly processed an extract is, the less DNA there will be. The other main limitation is that the active ingredient may exist in an array of related plants which the database mistakenly identifies as contaminants. That problem was brought out in this study, which interestingly enough, the more recent Canadian Study (which the NYT article is about) cites to support the accuracy and reliability of DNA barcoding:
Assessing species admixtures in raw drug trade of PhyllanthusMorphological analysis of market samples revealed six different species of Phyllanthus in the trade samples. Seventy-six percent of the market samples contained Phyllanthus amarus as the predominant species (>95%) and thus were devoid of admixtures. The remaining 24% of the shops had five different species of Phyllanthus namely Phyllanthus debilis, Phyllanthus fraternus, Phyllanthus urinaria, Phyllanthus maderaspatensis, and Phyllanthus kozhikodianus...
Our results show that market samples of Phyllanthus sold in southern India contain at least six different species, though among them, Phyllanthus amarus is predominant.
Note that the above might demonstrate the the facility for identifying the presence of different plant strains, but without further study, sheds no light on which strain or combination might make a better product.
The NYT article does bring out one issue I find disturbing. That the DNA of a poisonous plant was detected in a product. And that they and the researchers are keeping the product brand a secret. A pox on all their houses.
Howard
Edited by CrackaLackN, 04 November 2013 - 09:27 PM.
Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:41 PM
For #2 on your list - Action would be to do your own research, I'm assuming. The only thing I can recommend is subscriptions to websites that test brands of supplements; consumerlab comes to mind. They (consumerlabs) won't have every brand you can think of and they won't have each supplement for those brands tested, by any means. It's simply not 100% built, but can definitely guide us through this kind of mess (the business of herbal supplements regarded in this article).
#3 is interesting - But I'm not quite sure I follow you, honestly I'd like to hear more.
Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:44 PM
For #2 on your list - Action would be to do your own research, I'm assuming. The only thing I can recommend is subscriptions to websites that test brands of supplements; consumerlab comes to mind. They (consumerlabs) won't have every brand you can think of and they won't have each supplement for those brands tested, by any means. It's simply not 100% built, but can definitely guide us through this kind of mess (the business of herbal supplements regarded in this article).
#3 is interesting - But I'm not quite sure I follow you, honestly I'd like to hear more.
"Do your own research" is easier said than done. I have seen bad evaluations of the way that Consumerlabs does business, so I'm not willing to pay them or trust them.
Re the second point, I'm just saying that you can buy Ashwagandha that the manufacturer labels as containing X% withanolides, feverfew labeled as containing X% parthenolides, green tea extract labeled as containing as X% ECGC, and so on. These are the principal active ingredients in the raw herb. One would logically think that this labeling applies to each batch and each bottle. IF that is true, then they would have to be rigid about their quality control and also presumably have to be careful about sourcing of material as well.
Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:10 AM
I believe the underlying study as been discussed, but I've been away so here's my two cents:
1. I'm not so concerned about unlabeled fillers. Obviously if it were toxic it would be bad, but overall I don't really care too much unless the capsule doesn't contain the actual weight of the actual substance of the actual quality I am trying to buy.
2. I don't see any complete list of products tested or of companies tested. So what's actionable in this report, other than to not take anything?
3. I wonder how this applies to "standardized" extracts. e.g. green tea extracts with 20% EGCG or something like that. That should mitigate the problem, but I don't know if the normal thing is to actually test each batch, or whether the standardization merely applies to the purification process that was initially put into place when the product was introduced.
For #2 on your list - Action would be to do your own research, I'm assuming. The only thing I can recommend is subscriptions to websites that test brands of supplements; consumerlab comes to mind. They (consumerlabs) won't have every brand you can think of and they won't have each supplement for those brands tested, by any means. It's simply not 100% built, but can definitely guide us through this kind of mess (the business of herbal supplements regarded in this article).
#3 is interesting - But I'm not quite sure I follow you, honestly I'd like to hear more.
"Do your own research" is easier said than done. I have seen bad evaluations of the way that Consumerlabs does business, so I'm not willing to pay them or trust them.
Re the second point, I'm just saying that you can buy Ashwagandha that the manufacturer labels as containing X% withanolides, feverfew labeled as containing X% parthenolides, green tea extract labeled as containing as X% ECGC, and so on. These are the principal active ingredients in the raw herb. One would logically think that this labeling applies to each batch and each bottle. IF that is true, then they would have to be rigid about their quality control and also presumably have to be careful about sourcing of material as well.
Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:59 AM
That research is immediately debunked... Rice and wheat fillers are just ground up wheat and rice. The other things in the capsules aren't likely to contain DNA as they are extracts... So you start out with some echinacea, and then you pull the extract out of it leaving the rest of the contents behind. Unfortunately they didn't design a good enough study to actually determine anything and wasted their effort. This would only apply to whole supplements and powdered food which would amount to taking a tiny bite of the actual plant...
We tested the authenticity of 44 (41 capsules; 2 powders; 1 tablet) herbal products representing 12 companies.
We suggest that the herbal industry should embrace DNA barcoding for authenticating herbal products through testing of raw materials used in manufacturing products.
Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:50 AM
Posted 06 November 2013 - 02:46 AM
That research is immediately debunked... Rice and wheat fillers are just ground up wheat and rice. The other things in the capsules aren't likely to contain DNA as they are extracts... So you start out with some echinacea, and then you pull the extract out of it leaving the rest of the contents behind. Unfortunately they didn't design a good enough study to actually determine anything and wasted their effort. This would only apply to whole supplements and powdered food which would amount to taking a tiny bite of the actual plant...
I think you''re right. They only seem to have tested what may or may not be highly processed extracts:We tested the authenticity of 44 (41 capsules; 2 powders; 1 tablet) herbal products representing 12 companies.
They also tested whole leaf herbs, but only from known plants in greenhouses as a control. Which is an obvious flaw, since they didn't use whole leaf for both the known and unknowns.
It also occurs to me why they refuse to reveal the product brands they tested and what the matching results are. Even though they detected a poisonous plant which could conceivably kill someone. Because they know they cannot defend their test results. Because DNA barcoding can only test for the presence of a plant's DNA and tell you nothing about the presence or concentration of chemical active ingredients. Which applies equally to the active ingredients of intended plants as well as the unintended poisonous plant they detected. Perhaps they were too lazy or cheap to actually do a chemical concentration test for the toxin... or they did the chemical test and couldn't detect any toxin but didn't want to blunt their news coverage.
Also, the following excerpt from their "study" appears to be an unabashed marketing effort on the part of the lead authors who work for the University of Guelph :We suggest that the herbal industry should embrace DNA barcoding for authenticating herbal products through testing of raw materials used in manufacturing products.
And search as I might, all paths seem to lead back to their lab as the only source in the world for the data and tests for which they charge between $1,000 and $3,000 a pop. Which is curiously not mentioned in the study's conflict of interests section, "The authors declare that they have no competing interests."
I wouldn't be surprised if the conflict extends to all the authors via affiliation with the consortium of participating sponsors.
In any case, the University of Guelf and their bar coding technology clearly doesn't measure up to the standards UC Davis set in its Olive Oil Report, which made no bones about identifying vendor products tested.
Howard
Posted 06 November 2013 - 06:29 AM
Posted 06 November 2013 - 02:42 PM
"Americans spend an estimated $5 billion a year on unproven herbal supplements"
They revealed their bias in their opening sentence. This is drug company propaganda. Don't get taken in. Lately they are using fake or flawed "studies" which the media report as facts. The fact that they don't give the names of companies is ridiculous. If they did, their claims could be disproven. There are many reliable manufacturers of herbal products. I'm sure you could find some who are not, if you wanted to. That's true of many things.
I've been taking and studying on natural medicines for thirty three years. The vast majority of herbs are NOT a big area of concern for fraud. Most herbs are inexpensive enough that it wouldn't even make a lot of sense. Herbs have characteristic smells, tastes, looks and effects that many are familiar with. There are many people working in this area that have high ethics. I am very sensitive and picky. I take apart vitamins and medicines just to know what they are about. I would know if something was wrong. I don't recall herbal medicine that was fraudulent. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but that "study" is bogus and apparently so it that part of the New York Times. I'm sure the advertising check is in the mail from big pharma, but was it worth your credibility, NYT?
Here are some good herbal companies:
Natures Way--raw ground herbs in capsules
Gaia Organics--liquid extracts and pills
Star West
Frontier
[The last two supply bulk herbs and spices to health food stores. You may be able to special order or mail order their products if they aren't in your health food store now.]
Amazon Therapeutics Laboratories--select herbs and extracts from South America. I'd try to avoid ordering these directly from the company. A variety of mail order houses carry them. Your local health food store might or might be able to special order them.
If anyone needs other sources for herbs, let me know.
Personally I stopped buying NOW brand years ago because I didn't find that their products contained what they said they did at that time. I don't recall buying any herbs, specifically.
Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:12 AM
......
Personally I stopped buying NOW brand years ago because I didn't find that their products contained what they said they did at that time. I don't recall buying any herbs, specifically.
PS Luminosity - Have you ever tested those brands on Consumerreports? I do have an account.. if I can remember the password and such. It's been a while.
Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:02 AM
Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:09 AM
Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:26 AM
I recall Now failing, I think for Neptune Krill oil (wrong dosage and a bit spoiled). I think they may have also been part of that fish oil/pcb lawsuit from a while back, but primarily it was the oddball oils that were an issue (shark liver and things like that)
Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:31 AM
Posted 07 November 2013 - 01:05 PM
Posted 07 November 2013 - 02:36 PM
......
Personally I stopped buying NOW brand years ago because I didn't find that their products contained what they said they did at that time. I don't recall buying any herbs, specifically.
PS Luminosity - Have you ever tested those brands on Consumerreports? I do have an account.. if I can remember the password and such. It's been a while.
Curious if Consumer's Reports ever found any Now Foods products lacking. I use a number of their products, like D3 and Ubiquinol, and always thought they were reliable as well as cost effective. Here's a Consumer's Reports search on them but you indeed need an account to access the details:
http://www.consumerl...OW-Foods-Review
Howard
Are you guys conflating Consumer Labs and Consumer Reports? Over the years I've found Consumer Reports to be wrong a lot about stuff. Not familiar with their vitamin reviews. When it came to health info, I"ve seen them be outdated and regressive.
Posted 07 November 2013 - 10:25 PM
Yeah you may be right about that but one thing to consider there is that Neptune krill oil was not a Now product but was simply rebranded in a Now bottle...and that other distributors of Neptune were also flagged. Now did not manufacture the Neptune brand and I believe they found problems with all krill oil. But I don't recall any of products actually manufactured by Now as being flagged.
Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:35 AM
Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:34 AM
Posted 08 November 2013 - 05:00 AM
Edited by Luminosity, 08 November 2013 - 05:01 AM.
Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:37 PM
Yeah you may be right about that but one thing to consider there is that Neptune krill oil was not a Now product but was simply rebranded in a Now bottle...and that other distributors of Neptune were also flagged. Now did not manufacture the Neptune brand and I believe they found problems with all krill oil. But I don't recall any of products actually manufactured by Now as being flagged.
True, but in my opinion it's still the manufacturer's responsibility. I expect there are a number of products they don't 'manufacture' ... all ingredients are sourced from other places as it is. It's up to the manufacturer to properly test both ingredients and finished products.
That said, I expect most Now supplements to be okay, and wouldn't make a decision simply based on a failed Neptune study. As for companies, I tend to lean towards Jarrow and Thorne, as if I recall correctly, they have somewhat better testing (not that I expect either is perfect either).
Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:39 PM
Howard,
I hope this helps, but I think this is possibly against the forums rules. There are no test results for Vitamin D3 alone, only in a complex and that was one that was approved as well.
Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:57 PM
Howard,
I hope this helps, but I think this is possibly against the forums rules. There are no test results for Vitamin D3 alone, only in a complex and that was one that was approved as well.
Thanks. Its reassuring that the labeling is not at odds with the finding. Although their current formulation seems to have changed. The label now reads "Kaneka QH (reduced from CoQ10) 200 mg" and "Other Ingredients: MCT Oil, ..."
I tend to choose my supplement brands based on the ingredients stated on their labels. And, it not being practical to do a quantitative/qualitative ingredient analysis myself, I rely on the label being truthful. I don't see how DNA barcoding would be at all applicable to a supplement like this, or even an extract, where only a COA is relevant.
Howard
Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:58 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users