With the massive rise in popularity of food supplements, many companies are now selling cheaper versions of popular supplements in an attempt to cash in on their popularity. However, shocking new research confirms what many industry “insiders” have known for years - that many supplements contain little of the active ingredient.
Christine Gilroy and her colleagues from the University of Colorado examined 59 samples of single-herb Echinacea preparations available over the counter in retail stores in Denver. Thin layer chromatography was used to determine species and measure quantity. The information obtained was used to determine the accuracy of the labels.
The authors found that a claim of “standardisation” did not give any guarantee that the product was accurately labelled or that there was likely to be less variability in the concentration of the active constituents of the herb. Of 59 samples tested, 6 contained no measurable Echinacea. The species determined by TLC was consistent with the label declaration in 31 samples (52%). Of 21 standardised preparations, only 9 met the quality standard described on the label.
Although price is no guarantee of quality, many supplements on the market are so cheap that you have to wonder whether they contain any of the active ingredients at all! Many people choose to buy their supplements based on price, selecting the cheapest one they can find. When it doesn’t work, they then conclude that all supplements are crap!
This is a mistake. To get the right ingredients in the potencies and dosages used in the research often costs a lot of money. Even though you might see similar products advertised at lower prices, it’s always best to use a brand you can trust and rely on. NOW Foods, EAS, and Maximuscle are three of the supplement brands we feel comfortable recommending, as all three have very rigorous testing programmes in place to make sure that you get what you pay for.
Reference
Gilroy CM, Steiner JF, Byers T, Shapiro H, Georgian W. (2003). Echinacea and truth in labeling. Archives of Internal Medicine, 24, 699-704
| Comments |
|