Variations in Product Choices of Frequently Purchased Herbs: Caveat Emptor | Complementary and Alternative Medicine | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Eisenberg  DMDavis  RBEttner  SL  et al.  Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey.  JAMA. 1998;2801569- 1575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Smith  EA Neutraceuticals market is $86 billion, say experts.  Drug Topics Archive. June15 1998;Google Scholar
3.
Defelice  SL The neutraceutical revolution—its impact on food industry R and D.  Trends Food Sci Technol. 1995;659- 61Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Zundorf  IDingermann  T Quality evaluation: evaluation of the quality of phytopharmaceuticals.  Dtsch Apoth Ztg. 1997;13761- 62Google Scholar
5.
Brevoort  P The booming US botanical market: a new overview.  Herbalgram. 1998;4433- 48Google Scholar
6.
Blendon  RJDesRoches  CMBenson  JMBrodie  MAltman  DE Americans' views on the use and regulation of dietary supplements.  Arch Intern Med. 2001;161805- 810PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Eisenberg  DMKessler  RCFoster  CNorlock  FECalkins  DRDelbanco  TL Unconventional medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs, and patterns of use.  N Engl J Med. 1993;328246- 252PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Barnes  JAbbot  NCHarkness  EFErnst  E Articles on complementary medicine in the mainstream medical literature: an investigation of MEDLINE, 1966 through 1996.  Arch Intern Med. 1999;1591721- 1725PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Winslow  LCShapiro  H Physicians want education about complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication with their patients.  Arch Intern Med. 2002;1621176- 1181PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Caspi  OBell  IRRychener  DGaudet  TWWeil  AT The Tower of Babel: communication and medicine: an essay on medical education and complementary-alternative medicine.  Arch Intern Med. 2000;1603193- 3195PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Carlston  MStuart  MRJonas  W Alternative medicine instruction in medical schools and family practice residency programs.  Fam Med. 1997;29559- 562PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Wetzel  MSEisenberg  DMKaptchuk  TJ Courses involving complementary and alternative medicine at US medical schools.  JAMA. 1998;280784- 787PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Kligler  BGordon  AStuart  MSierpina  V Suggested curriculum guidelines on complementary and alternative medicine: recommendations of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Group on Alternative Medicine.  Fam Med. 2000;3230- 33PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Owen  DLewith  GT Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the undergraduate medical curriculum: the Southampton experience.  Med Educ. 2001;3573- 77PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Fugh-Berman  A Herb-drug interactions.  Lancet. 2000;355134- 138PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Johne  ABrockmoller  JBauer  SMaurer  ALangheinrich  MRoots  I Pharmacokinetic interaction of digoxin with an herbal extract from St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum).  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;66338- 345PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Piscitelli  SCBurstein  AHChaitt  DAlfaro  RMFalloon  J Indinavir concentrations and St John's Wort.  Lancet. 2000;355547- 548PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Nebel  ASchneider  BJBaker  RKKroll  DJ Potential metabolic interaction between St John's wort and theophylline [letter].  Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Miller  LG Herbal medicinals: selected clinical considerations focusing on known or potential drug-herb interactions.  Arch Intern Med. 1998;1582200- 2211PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Fetrow  CWAvila  JR Professional's Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicines. 2nd ed. Springhouse, Pa Springhouse Corp2001;
21.
Blumenthal  MBusse  WRGoldberg  A  et al.  The Complete German Commission E Monographs—Therapeutic Guide to Herbal Medicines.  Boston, Mass Integrative Medicine Communications1998;
22.
Mar  CBent  S An evidence-based review of the 10 most commonly used herbs.  West J Med. 1999;171168- 171PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Not Available, Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Pub L No. 103-417, 108 Stat 4325 October25 1994;
24.
Not Available, Botanicals: the dilemmas involved in developing standards for natural products: part 1 of a 2-part series.  USP Quality Review. April1999;Publication 64Google Scholar
25.
Monmaney  T Label's potency claims often inaccurate, analysis finds: spot check of products finds widely varying levels of key ingredient: but some firms object to testing method and defend their brands' quality.  Los Angeles Times. August31 1998;A10Google Scholar
26.
Not Available, Herbal roulette.  Consumer Reports. 1995;60698- 705Google Scholar
27.
Gurley  BJGardner  SFHubbard  MA Content versus label claim in ephedra-containing dietary supplements.  Am J Health System Pharmacy. 2000;57963- 969Google Scholar
28.
Burros  M Addressing the confusion over dietary supplements.  New York Times. October11 2000;B14Google Scholar
Original Investigation
October 27, 2003

Variations in Product Choices of Frequently Purchased Herbs: Caveat Emptor

Author Affiliations

From the Divisions of Health Services Research & Policy (Drs Garrard and Harms) and Biostatistics (Dr Eberly), School of Public Health, and College of Pharmacy (Ms Matiak), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(19):2290-2295. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.19.2290
Abstract

Background  Patients who report use of herbs to their physicians may not be able to accurately describe the ingredients or recommended dosage because the products for the same herb may differ. The purpose of this study was to describe variations in label information of products for each of the 10 most commonly purchased herbs.

Methods  Products for each of 10 herbs were surveyed in a convenience sample of 20 retail stores in a large metropolitan area. Herbs were those with the greatest sales dollars in 1998: echinacea, St John's wort, Ginkgo biloba, garlic, saw palmetto, ginseng, goldenseal, aloe, Siberian ginseng, and valerian.

Results  Each herb had a large range in label ingredients and recommended daily dose (RDD) across available products. Strengths were not directly comparable because of ingredient variability. Among 880 products, 43% were consistent with a benchmark in ingredients and RDD, 20% in ingredients only, and 37% were either not consistent or label information was insufficient. Price per RDD was a significant predictor of consistency with the benchmark, but store type was not.

Conclusions  Persons self-medicating with an herb may be ingesting ingredients substantially different from that recommended by a benchmark, both in quantity and content. Higher price per label RDD was the best predictor of consistency with a benchmark. This study demonstrates that health providers and consumers need to closely examine label ingredients of presumably the same or similar herbal products.

×