whole spectra

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Dried herbs do not contain " nearest " the whole spectrum of chemical

constituents at all.

The average fresh leaf contains around 2,000 to 5,000 chemical compounds

(the numbers can depend of how you continue sub-dividing chemical classes -

chemical taxonomy). There is far greater similarity in total constituents to

be found across the whole spectrum of botanicals than differences. The

differences which have evolved between one plant and another are, however,

central to their biological activity, which in fact is the cause of their

(competitive) evolution in the first place.

Fresh plant chemicals have not evolved to survive drying - and they rarely

do. They are extremely sensitive to conditions. (The chemistry of this is

not beyond A level). They are truly vital compounds and often have no

natural role in plant death. (This is not an exclusive rule because plants

are biologically much more generous than us, which may be why it is hard for

us to understand them.) Further, many of these compounds are often not part

of the balance of a plant's homeostasis (internal milleau) but broadly

evolved in order to help their genomic precursor survive. (That later

additions to the evolutionary tree may be here in order to support them is

another, albeit interesting argument).

The compounds found in dried botanicals vary according to the age, state at

harvest and method of drying and keeping. Usually in commerce this is only

the most resistant of secondary compounds - and often only very few with any

perceived biological activity or vitality. This is why I never could

understand why herbalists keep telling you to eat lots of fresh fruit and

vegetables but to take tiny amounts of dead dried herbs. Well, I've been

looking into that one over the past 5 years:

Herbalists have traditionally relied on phytochemists for illumination in

these matters and there are three main reasons why our profession's

information on the matter is generally so skewed:

1. Phytochemistry is historically about phytochemotaxonomy - and compounds

common to the whole biosphere do not throw any light on species

classification. Therefore phytochemists have not been interested in the vast

majority of these thousands of compounds and little to nothing is known

about their roles..

2. All but the most resilient of compounds are really still extremely

difficult to work with and have never had lab appeal. When phytochemistry

was establishing its ground rules (see the fabulous cornucopeoais of

B'ullock in the '60s or Harborne in the 70s) macromolecules were usually

just called that, maybe lumped into rough amorphous classes like proteins,

carbohydrates etc. and pretty much left like that. We now know, of course,

that cellular signalling depends almost exclusively on steroids, amines, a

few other types, and perhaps most crucially of all: peptides.But compared to

animal studies,hardly anyone in the world studies these in plants.

3.Trade historically required drying compounds for storage and transport.

Therefore the only economically useful comodities came from dry goods and

these were the ones which became well characterised. Whole industries -

whole societies became adapted to them - look at rubber, for example. The

so-called plant chemistry which is taught to herbalists was pretty much all

known in the 1940s. My mother who gave up training as a pharmacist when she

married in 1948 was familar with just about all of the stuff we were given

at CoP in the '90s. Indeed, she was surprised that the matter of all the

subjects seemed to almost be a re-print of her pharmacy course in the

1940s - and we ended up wondering if perhaps it actually was! We have little

doubt that a great deal of it would have been known to her grandfather's

generation pre- WWI. Just before she gave up, Boots in Picadilly, where whe

worked, received their first batch of antibiotic - a new wonder drug derived

from.....living organisms !!

If this is the background, its no wonder that herbalists' eyes should glaze

over at the suggestion that we could be the profession to lead on the

modernisation of vitalism in the scientific age, or whatever.

This is absolutely not a criticism: there is no reason to suspect that

herbalists should be capable of teaching complex specialities which they

themselves have never been taught. And so the books go on being published,

repeating the old received wisdom - exactly the very chemical wisdom which

led to the hedgemony of the pharmaceutical industry in the 20th century.

People glibly mention concepts like 'synergy' as if, we have the remotest

idea of how this occurs in anything but a handful of single, and

simple,examples.

It seems the surest route to some backwater of history is to keep plodding

on with the blinkered old n tenets of high classical science -

hoping that everything in God's world never changes, is nice and simple,

ordered and under our benevolent control - and never daring to kick over the

traces!

Chenery

Rutland Biodynamics Ltd.

www.rutlandbio.com

Re: standardization