The Herbal Minefield - Oh My!

According to Stephen Barrett in his quackwatch article called The Herbal Minefield,

Herbal advocates like to point out that about half of today's medicines were derived from plants. (Digitalis, for example, was originally derived from leaves of the foxglove plant.) This statement is true but misleading. Drug products contain specified amounts of active ingredients. Herbs in their natural state can vary greatly from batch to batch and often contain chemicals that cause side effects but provide no benefit.

While plants do vary in the amount of their active constituents, they can be measured and extracted at consistent levels for those who insist on such things. As for the issue of unnecessary side effects from extraneous biochemicals, there is actually evidence that the "undesirable" compounds in herbs often augment or enhance the therapeutic activity, sometimes minimizing side effects. This is discussed at some length by Simon Mills in his Principles of Phytotherapy.

I was prepared to take Dr. Barrett to task for his positions, but in the end analysis, all he is really arguing for is standards regarding labeling and potency. I also oppose current labeling laws. The current situation allows corporate herb makers to bypass the healthcare professional and make their pitch directly to the consumer. Somewhat analogous to selling drugs on TV. The argument is the same. That consumers would have otherwise been deprived of vital health information. In fact, they are more often deprived of a necessary professional consultation and the only ones who benefit are stockholders. However I do not wish products to be pulled from the market. I think libertarians can live side by side with liberals when the only harm is to oneself.

As long as there is a market for controlled and regulated products, they will be made. But the free market should exist side by side, if for no other reason than to prevent a black market. The government should endorse voluntarily regulated products and educate the public to only buy unregulated products at their own risk. That should be sufficient for adults to protect themselves in a democracy. The same goes for herb potency. Set up a voluntary scheme. If I want to take risks and eat raw ginseng like carrots, so be it. Others might want some kind of lab test on the side of their bottle while I might judge mine by sense of smell. People just need information and then they can act accordingly.

Fact is some (perhaps many) will want to use government controlled products at least some of the time. I occasionally take an aspirin and I am glad I can trust it to actually be acetosalicylic acid. Now others might want to take a risk and get their antibiotics south of the border, but I'll trust the feds on this one. Served me well so far. This model of voluntary regulation already exists to some degree. For example, if you want a cheaper car, go to a state where they don't have lemon laws and the additional costs they add to a car. Or buy it from a private party. In both cases, you have no recourse after the sale is made. But if a cheaper price is worth the risk, that's fine as long as no deception was involved. I see no reason why a fully informed person can't kill themselves with herbs if they want to. We don't stop people from eating sugar or skydiving. Yet for some strange reason, we draw the line at the true scourge of the universe, plant consumption (for either medicine or pleasure). That good ol' American contempt for mother earth and her offspring is just all encompassing, it would seem.