The BMC Medicine editorial office has issued a retraction of a controversial article published in 2013, which used DNA barcoding analysis to test 44 herbal products to determine the quality and authenticity of products on the marketplace. The retraction came as a result of an investigation by the University of Guelph that found evidence of data fabrication.
“The Editor has retracted this article. An investigation by the University of Guelph has found evidence of data fabrication in relation to this article. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data,” the editorial office stated, noting that the authors of the study disagree with the retraction.
According to authors at the time, most of the herbal products tested were of poor quality, “including considerable product substitution, contamination, and use of fillers,” with calls for the herbal industry to embrace DNA barcoding analysis as a means of authenticating products.
The article stirred up controversy, as industry members noted that DNA testing may not be appropriate for herbal extracts due to the fact that DNA is destroyed or damaged during the process of extracting phytochemicals from an herb.
The study also spurred the New York Attorney General’s Office to issue cease-and-desist letters to four well-known manufacturers of herbal products, and investigate several manufacturers and retailers for documentation related to the supply and manufacture of herbal ingredients and finished products, ranging from quality control measures to testing, label claims substantiation, and more. Daniel Fabricant, PhD, president and CEO of the Natural Products Association (NPA) described the investigation at the time as a “massive fishing expedition” which implied wrongdoing despite no indications or allegations of quality problems.
AHPA: Retraction Was Long Overdue
At the time of the study’s publication, Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) challenged the study authors’ findings in a letter to BMC Medicine’s editor, due to the fact that DNA barcoding analysis hasn’t been validated as a verification method for the tested botanicals, and “blanket assertions about the accuracy of this novel analytical tool are premature.”
“As we pointed out at the time of its publication, Dr. Newmaster’s article contained significant inaccuracies, including the false claim that no best practices exist for identifying herbal ingredients, contrary to FDA regulations,” McGuffin said. “Furthermore, the premature endorsement of DNA barcoding without acknowledging its limitations misled readers.”
“Though long overdue, the retraction of this erroneous article underscores the importance of accuracy and integrity in scientific reporting,” said Holly E. Johnson, PhD, chief science officer at AHPA.
