Please note that your last two quotes are from representatives of the supplement industry.
Are they wrong? Do you know how Target’s Up and Up branded Ginko Biloba extract is made? I don’t either. These guys might. I am a chemist, and have done a few plant extractions in my time. If you just grind up a leaf, sure, you’d probably expect to have some DNA. Unless you precipitate it out afterwards, which I could see them doing. If you do a steam distillation or a solvent extraction, probably not.
Both of the supplement industry trade group spokesmen who attacked the DNA analyst’s findings didn’t cite any specific research or findings to back up their claims.
One alleged that DNA could be damaged or destroyed during processing. I’m not sure how this could happen in the case of products like Echinacea which are typically sold as crude minced-up leaf preparations in a capsule. The other industry flack called the DNA testing “an emerging technology” - which sounds remarkably reminiscent of defense attorneys in criminal cases trying to handwave away forensic test results that reflect badly on their clients.
This latest news comes after years of revelations of other herbal preparations and supplements that were found to contain less of (or none of) the active ingredients that the label claimed, plus numerous instances of adulteration of products with potentially harmful substances, including pharmaceuticals and steroids which were not mentioned on the label. For instance, check out the list of recalls and warnings listed here.
So until I see evidence that the DNA testing was significantly flawed, I’m dubious about the industry response.
I’d maybe buy it for the Echinacea. The walmart bottles label it as “whole herb”. Of note is that the Target bottles all did show DNA of Echinacea. The other one is garlic, where the Target and some of the Walgreens bottles did show the DNA, but the Walmart brand didn’t. It still seems to me like it would have been better to do a test for small molecules (which is generally what is claimed to help you anyways) than for DNA.
To be clear, I think this study is suggestive, and it certainly calls for more investigation with better validated techniques. I just think that the current claims are overstating what the evidence shows.
Look, if the supplement makers are saying it’s no big deal that there’s no DNA left in the products, they should be able to say what IS left in the product that’s “active” and does what the label says it does…err…“supports.”
“We don’t know” shouldn’t be acceptable.
At least in some cases, they do. Ginkgo extracts have different standards, which can then be analyzed for composition. For example (paywall), the ginkgo extract EGb 761 was shown to contain about 24% flavonol glycosides, 20% nonflavonol glycosides, 6% terpene trilacetones, etc. etc. Manufacturers do have different extraction methods, but are usually shooting for a specific concentration of the terpene trilactones and flavonol glycosides. It seems to me that if you actually wanted to test the contents of ginkgo supplaments, you should be looking at those compounds, not at DNA. Common ways for separating and identifying these compounds includes chromotography (HPLC or GC), and NMR or IR for structure determination. These are standard analytic techniques, and will tell you exactly what compounds are in there. Did New York do this analysis on the supplements in question? No, they looked for a macromolecule that you wouldn’t expect to be in there anyways.
Since the manufacturers don’t have to test their products for efficacy, nobody is going to know what the active ingredients are. Does GBb761 do anything?
It is meet and proper to apply a healthy skepticism toward manufacturers of herbal supplements. It is ALSO meet and proper to apply a healthy skepticism toward condemnations of manufacturers of herbal supplements. Healthy skepticism? Meet and proper.
Does it do anything? Who knows. And yes, that’s a very valid criticism of “supplements” that don’t have to go through any efficacy testing. But we do know what’s in it, which is pretty directly counter to the claims from New York. Now it could well be that that’s not actually in there, but we wouldn’t know from the test that was done.
If the supplement makers step up and have tests conducted to quantify the ingredients of the capsules in question to prove the “active” ingredients are indeed still intact, I might be somewhat persuaded. If they don’t, it’s very telling.
I worked in a lab for a supplement company once upon a time. These manufacturers aren’t required by law to do ANY testing. At ALL. For ANYTHING. If they wanted, they could just take the suppliers’ word for it that bag X is filled with plant Y, then bottle it up and sell it.
I’ve told this story before, but the lab manager who left just before I started used to set the expiration dates on our products by walking across the street to WalMart and seeing what expiration dates were printed on our competitor’s products.
Why is it on them to do so? They’ve made a claim about the ingredients of their supplement, and no one has proven otherwise. I usually believe that people aren’t breaking the law until it’s been shown that they are, not make them prove that they are innocent. Or even if that’s not the standard for public opinion, it ought to be for the government. Seems like certainly the government doesn’t have any business sending them cease and desist letters after a test showed exactly what you’d expect it to.
Why is it up to them to do so? It’s their product…which they’re claiming has something in it that benefits you if you take it internally. Now tests have just shown that there’s no DNA of what they’re claiming in their product, but there is DNA of wheat, rice, and houseplants.
I’d want to show how wrong those studies are and show that the beneficial ingredient is still in my product. A couple of tests could easily show this. Not testing at this point is very telling…they’re rip off shysters that are feeding us shit.
If they ignore the cease and desist letters, and refuse to plea bargain, they’ll have their day in court. While proof beyond a reasonable doubt won’t be the standard, the executives will not have to prove they are innocent.
There also are lots of situations in which one can imagine having an inactive ingredient without having any DNA (such as if the inactive ingredient isn’t from something once living). So when considering that one third of the supplements were proven to have missing items on the ingredients list, we should also take into account that there are almost surely other supplements with unlisted ingredients that New York State attorney general’s office-sponsored testing missed due to DNA-focus.
So you expected that a third of them to have plant ingredients not mentioned on the label?
If you did, you are well-informed, since the same situation has been shown to exist in Canada:
I had to look up that phrase. I’ve read Philippians, but didn’t recall seeing it, and have never heard the phrase anywhere else that I know of.
Sounds a lot like saying it’s valid to claim that Herb X cures cancer because no one has proven you wrong. But that’s not how science works.
Supplement companies could look at testing as a marketing tool - “Independent lab certifies our product contains exactly what the label says - trust us and not those sleazebags down the street!”
Adequate testing might cut into their profit margins though.