The op-ed page of the Dec. 7 issue of the Bangor Daily News featured an article by Arthur P. Grollman, M.D., titled, “Control herbal medicine.” Dr. Grollman makes many inaccurate statements. As an example he writes, “herbs may be marketed without chemical analysis or prior testing for safety.”

According to the Herb Research Foundation (HRF), a nonprofit organization, “here we have another misconception about herbal medicines.” There is a wealth of scientific information to support the safety and efficacy of many herbs. Since its founding in 1983, HRF has served as the central archive for scientific literature on the health effects and safety of botanicals and has developed the world’s most comprehensive collection of clinical trials, pharmacology, toxicology, chemical, historical and horticultural data on thousands of herbal ingredients. The Herb Research Foundation’s current collection consists of more than 300,000 articles.

Herbal research papers are published and available for reading through the Internet and other sources in the Journal of Antibiotics, Journal of Asian Natural Products Research, Journal of Essential Oil Research, Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Journal of Natural Products, Natural Toxins, Pharmaceutical Biology, Phytochemical Analysis, Phytochemistry, Phytomedicine, Phytotherapy Research, Planta Medica and Toxicon. Today, research on herbs appears in JAMA, The Lancet, Cancer, The Prostate, and dozens of other peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Dr. Grollman further writes, “Unlike prescription drugs or over the counter drugs, manufacturers of herbal remedies are not required to report adverse effects of their products to the FDA.” By law, manufacturers must substantiate all structure/function claims made in product labeling and advertising. The HRF Botanical Ingredient Review program is the most effective and cost-effective way to document the safety and scientific credibility of botanical ingredients. The Herb Research Foundation’s Botanical Ingredient Review program is recognized by the FDA and the Food and Drug Law Institute.

Dr. Grollman utilizes the typical scare technique when he makes reference to the carcinogenic properties of Aristolichia and the potential for adverse side reactions with Ephedra. Dr. Grollman certainly knows that conventional synthetic medicines do not have nearly the favorable record the supplements do. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office’s 10-year study of FDA drug approvals, more than 50 percent of the approved drugs were discovered to have “serious post-approval side-effects.” The FDA only required them to be removed from sale after the public had been exposed to these dangerous drugs. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment only 10-20 percent of procedures and drugs used in hospitals have been subjected to rigorous research.

St. John’s Wort is cited as an herbal health risk due to its interaction with prescription drugs. Clinical evidence has already shown St. John’s Wort to be effective in 75-85 percent of people. The FDA receives many complaints about the side effects of standard psychotherapeutic drugs. For example, the common anti-depressant drug Prozac is associated with adverse effects such as anxiety, insomnia, nausea, weight gain, possible liver/kidney damage, and hypertension. Xanax has been linked to dizziness, irritability, difficulty concentrating, memory impairment, seizures, jaundice, incontinence and changes in libido. By contrast, St. John’s Wort rarely causes side effects. Since up to 80 percent of depressed patients respond to St. John’s Wort, synthetic antidepressants should be considered a last resort, used only if safe, natural therapies such as

St. John’s Wort fail.

Finally, Dr. Grollman calls for the restoration of legal safeguards that would prevent the marketing of herbal products without proof of safety. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 did not deregulate supplements. In fact, dietary supplements are subject to a safety definition stricter than that required for conventional foods and far stronger than for all classes of drugs. A supplement is considered unsafe if it “presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” In contrast, drugs are allowed to present significant risks, as long as these risks are outweighed by benefits. True, pre-approval of old supplement ingredients is not required, but neither is pre-approval of old foods, food chemicals or over-the-counter drugs. Only new drugs need be rigorously tested prior to marketing (a process which misses “serious adverse side effects” over 50 percent of the time, according to the government’s General Accounting Office).

The FDA can also remove from the market any product, including supplements, which contain harmful levels of heavy metals or other toxins. And the FDA can take action against any product whose contents are not exactly labeled, which is just as illegal for supplements as for drugs. Where Dr. Grollman has acquired his information is unknown. But this information should set the record straight for the readers of the BDN.

Moshe Myerowitz is a chiropractic doctor and certified clinical nutritionist practicing in Bangor.