ConsumerLab.com Fails 44 Percent of Echinacea Products

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.--Consumerlab.com released the results of its echinacea study today, reporting that of 25 products purchased for testing, 11 failed, including six that were eliminated before testing began due to misleading or ambiguous ingredient labeling. According to the testing company, three of the ejected products failed to label which species of echinacea was used in the supplement, one did not specify which portion of the plant was utilized, and two liquid products neglected to label the concentration of the herb. The products purchased were representative of national sales and were obtained through retail sources.

Of the 19 products that underwent testing, only five of them failed (26 percent). "It's just not true that 44 percent of the tested echinacea products failed," said Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). "It's truly unfortunate that a company that represents itself as a scientific savior for consumers has chosen to go for the sensational headlines at the expense of a scientifically sound analysis. This is a disservice to consumers at every level."

Researchers tested whether each product contained the claimed amounts and types of echinacea, as well as claimed levels of phenols. Incidentally, only three of the products tested did contain the indicated levels of phenols. If the phenol levels were not clearly labeled, products were held to specific minimum standards selected by ConsumerLab.com, based on clinical research. Products were also tested to meet purity requirements for microbial contamination.

Twelve of the tested products were labeled as containing only E. purpurea, two indicated only E. angustifolia and five products claimed mixtures of two or more species of echinacea.

Two of the 12 E. purpurea-only products failed because one (made from the aerial portion of the plant) contained only 54 percent of the minimum expected phenol levels, and the other (a root powder) had almost three times the tolerated level of microbes. Both of the E. angustifolia-only products failed testing. One (a root powder) failed because researchers could not detect the presence of echinacoside, and the other (a root extract) had less than one-third of the phenol content it claimed on the label. One of the combination products failed because it lacked detectable levels of echinacoside.

"When we do our tests, we typically don't find the same failure rates," stated Phil Harvey, director of science and quality assurance at the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA). "Putting this into perspective, it's only 25 products. If you look at the universe of echinacea products on the market, you're probably talking hundreds and hundreds of products. It doesn't mean the products that weren't tested are not good. It's just they happened to pick 25 products, and these are the results they got," said Harvey.

For more information on testing methods, visit www.consumerlab.com.