August 29, 2026:

On Logan Talks Health, Blake Ebersole, co-founding member of the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance, discusses ashwagandha quality, plant-part controversies, testing methods, analytical transparency and why a percentage such as “5% total withanolides” may not tell consumers what they think it does.

An edited transcript of this interview is found below:

Logan:
Why don’t we start with a bit about yourself and how you became so interested in botanical quality?

Blake:
I’ve always been interested in natural medicines. My dad’s side of the family is Pennsylvania Dutch Mennonite, and they always used home remedies. You’d smell apple cider vinegar every time you walked into my grandparents’ house, along with Epsom salts.

I was first exposed to supplements when I was in seventh grade. I was walking to wrestling practice, saw a GNC, and they promised I’d get ripped. I thought, “Yeah, I probably need that.” So I bought Ripped Fuel from Twinlab, which at the time contained a lot of ephedrine.

That was my first experience with supplements on my own, other than Flintstones vitamins. I remember thinking, “Holy shit, supplements can really knock you off your feet.”

Later, I worked in food and was always interested in food and nutrition, so supplements became a natural fit.

I started in the industry on the supply-chain side, learning how ingredients are made, how plants are grown and sourced, and how extraction works. I was responsible for quality, so I saw what was actually being produced and sold into the market.

For roughly the past 10 years, I’ve worked with brands and manufacturers to make sure they’re buying the right ingredients at the right level of quality, while also helping with product development, formulation and related work.

It’s a somewhat hidden part of the industry. Most people don’t know where saffron is grown, how it’s extracted, where it’s processed, or how somebody determines whether a product is actually 100% saffron.

Adulteration has existed for as long as humans have traded valuable goods. The spice trade has always had dilution—adding a little less of the expensive material or mixing something in to increase margins because you think nobody will notice.

That culture can exist because policing is expensive and time-consuming. Regulators have limited resources for testing, so to a significant extent the industry operates in a self-regulatory environment. People in quality, laboratories, suppliers and brands all have to help establish expectations for appropriate testing and transparency.

That’s why things like sharing certificates of analysis and explaining testing methods matter. We now have better opportunities for transparency and communication than we had before.

Logan:
Ashwagandha appears to be facing possible restrictions or bans in some European countries. What do you think about that? Do you think it’s safe?

Blake:
I’ve been following this for some time. I’ve worked with ashwagandha for almost 20 years.

Whenever something becomes popular and develops into a very large market—and ashwagandha is estimated to be roughly a $1.5 billion market—you start seeing the problems associated with rapid growth.

You get opportunists coming in. Some diluted materials. Others use analytical methods that can make their product appear more potent or stronger than competing products. You see many of the same games that occur with other expensive or high-value botanicals.

A group of us who have worked on the ashwagandha production side for many years started discussing these issues a couple of years ago. That became the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance. More recently, we’ve been working with scientists reviewing the larger body of evidence.

When you look at approximately 130 clinical studies and more than 30 safety and toxicology studies involving different forms of ashwagandha root and leaf, the overall evidence supports safety.

When something is consumed at the scale of billions of doses, some people are inevitably going to become sick or seek medical care while also taking that product.

A multivitamin provides a useful analogy. There are many adverse-event reports involving multivitamins in the United States, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the multivitamin caused the event. Multivitamins are simply consumed by a very large number of people.

That’s an important perspective when looking at adverse-event reports for ashwagandha as well.

It’s good that systems exist to collect these reports, but they need to be interpreted in the context of the overall evidence, including the safety and toxicology studies conducted on different forms of root and leaf.

When I look at the science overall, I don’t see evidence of a general safety problem.

There has also been a major controversy around plant part, particularly claims that ashwagandha leaf is inherently toxic. I don’t see a safety signal supporting that conclusion either.

What gets obscured by that debate is the underlying quality problem: opportunists entering a growing market, manipulating testing methods, misrepresenting products, diluting materials or failing to disclose what they’re actually selling.

Sometimes products don’t identify plant part at all. The label simply says “ashwagandha extract.” If the plant part isn’t disclosed, the consumer is none the wiser.

It’s a fascinating example of how a complex botanical ingredient can be simplified and gamed for short-term commercial advantage.

Logan:
I’ve seen this whole root-versus-leaf debate, and it sometimes looks like a marketing differentiation: “The leaf is bad. We’re pure root. You don’t want the leaf.”

What is that based on? Is there evidence that leaf is worse or dangerous?

Blake:
That’s what makes the situation interesting.

Companies developing products legitimately often spend years developing the ingredient, putting it through clinical studies and conducting safety studies.

Some of the established root-and-leaf products have more research behind them than many other botanical ingredients we routinely discuss. They’ve also been marketed globally for 10 years or more, giving us substantial commercial experience.

Looking at those data and that experience, I don’t see a reason to conclude that leaf itself presents a general safety problem.

Another issue is how ashwagandha is classified.

Traditionally, it isn’t simply consumed as an unrestricted conventional food in every population. Most modern clinical and safety studies are geared toward the way a supplement would be consumed.

If you try to treat something as a conventional food, you may need to consider unrestricted consumption by children, pregnant women, nursing women and other populations.

Keeping it in a supplement framework allows appropriate directions, warnings and restrictions to be used on the label.

There are also competitive issues underneath these regulatory debates. Companies can have commercial reasons for positioning another type of product as unsafe while portraying their own as preferable.

That’s why the discussion has to come back to evidence.

Logan:
Another way to get the system right is testing. For people listening, where does the United States Pharmacopeia fit into this?

Blake:
Testing across the supplement industry is often a black box, and that creates opportunities for gaming.

One example is “lab shopping.” A company can send the same material to several laboratories and then gravitate toward the laboratory or method that gives the result it wants.

USP has methods for ashwagandha potency and identity. Ideally, having a common method gives everybody an apples-to-apples reference.

Companies can also use proprietary methods. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But the method needs to be appropriately validated, disclosed where necessary, and reproducible. Another qualified laboratory should be able to perform the method and obtain comparable results.

If somebody says, “You can’t have our method and nobody else can replicate our result,” that becomes a serious quality and GMP concern.

This matters when a company claims a certain percentage of withanolides. If the analytical method is being used to inflate the apparent strength of the product, but nobody can see or reproduce the method, the number becomes almost meaningless.

You can end up with a competition where everybody wants to claim 5% withanolides.

But then you look at the economics and chemistry and ask: Does the mass balance make sense? If producing a genuine material at that concentration should cost substantially more than the selling price, you have to ask questions.

Regulators may not prioritize that situation if they don’t consider it an immediate safety issue. That means the industry, laboratories, brands and buyers have to scrutinize it.

Logan:
It’s essentially a company saying, “We’re going to mark our own homework. Nobody else can mark it, and we’re not going to tell you how we marked it because the method is secret.”

Blake:
Exactly.

If you’re putting a compositional number on the label, it needs to be something that can be verified.

A lot of finished-product companies are simply putting a number on the label because the ingredient supplier told them that number. They may not be independently verifying it.

Laboratories also play a role because some of this testing is effectively a black box.

Sometimes reports don’t show the chromatographic peaks or identify exactly which withanolides are being quantified. Then you compare that result with a USP-based analysis and the reported withanolide content can be dramatically different.

Logan:
That’s what I’ve seen. Some laboratory reports don’t quantify which withanolides are being tested. Put them alongside a United States Pharmacopeia test and the results can look completely different.

Blake:
Right.

It’s important to understand that two analytical methods can measure a group of compounds differently. It’s common in botanical raw-material specifications to see potency reported using two or even three methods, with different expected results.

The USP method measures a defined group of compounds. Other researchers and suppliers have used techniques such as NMR and broader chromatographic characterization to look at a larger fingerprint.

Companies may spend significant amounts of money developing those methods and generating the evidence needed to support them.

Reference standards are another bottleneck. If you’re trying to quantify a particular compound, you ideally need an appropriate chemical reference standard. If that reference isn’t available, is prohibitively expensive, or can’t be obtained in sufficient purity, it becomes much harder for independent laboratories to reproduce the method.

That’s part of the role of pharmacopeial methods: to establish methods that are practical and broadly usable.

Ashwagandha contains a large number of withanolides and withanosides. We’re still trying to understand those compounds and how different extracts reflect the underlying root or plant material.

Then you get into fingerprinting.

If the botanical starting material shows a fingerprint containing many peaks, but an extract shows only two or three dominant peaks, what happened during processing?

Now you need to look at the fingerprint and ask: Is this root? Is it leaf? What is the potency? What was concentrated or removed?

It becomes a puzzle.

Logan:
The pharmacopeial method obviously doesn’t capture every withanolide.

But if you’re a supplier developing an ashwagandha ingredient with a different profile, surely you would want to share enough about your testing method to demonstrate that you’re actually meeting your label claim.

Blake:
You would.

But there can be a commercial problem.

Suppose you’ve historically labeled your ingredient using one number, and then improved testing shows that the old number isn’t directly comparable to the new one. How do you change the number while simultaneously claiming that the ingredient has remained the same all along?

That becomes especially important when clinical research is involved.

You need to connect the commercial material being sold today with the material that was actually used in the clinical studies.

If you materially change the manufacturing process, you have to ask whether those clinical studies still apply to the product in the same way.

Logan:
So companies can change the process used for the commercial material compared with what was used in the studies?

Blake:
It can happen. Processes are modified for efficiency, cost reduction or other reasons.

Maybe you remove a manufacturing step and save money.

But one of the original purposes of standardized botanical extracts was to help protect against exactly this kind of variability—to establish that a product maintains particular characteristics rather than simply being whatever came out of an extraction process.

There are also ways to dilute botanical extracts without adding an obvious foreign adulterant.

For example, you can take exhausted botanical material left over after extraction, grind it and blend it back into the extract. Think of grinding up spent coffee grounds and putting them back into a coffee extract.

The material technically originated from the same plant, but you’ve diluted the extract with material from which many of the soluble constituents have already been removed.

Then people wonder why that ingredient is so inexpensive.

This isn’t unique to ashwagandha. Similar practices can occur with many botanical extracts.

A lot of this is hidden, even though people working in botanical supply, production and quality know these practices exist.

Logan:
I love the fingerprint idea.

If we’re conducting research on an ashwagandha extract, ideally the study would publish its fingerprint or withanolide profile.

Then you could say: This specific ashwagandha preparation was studied for stress or anxiety and produced these results.

In theory, a consumer could look for a product with a similar profile and have more confidence that it resembles the studied ingredient. You might also discover that different withanolide profiles produce different effects.

Blake:
Exactly.

If a clinical study isn’t linked to the actual composition of the material, your ability to determine whether another product reproduces that material is limited.

Of course, suppliers don’t necessarily want to publish every detail of their manufacturing process or fingerprint because they don’t want competitors copying them. That’s understandable.

Natural products can be difficult to protect through patents. If a company invests substantially in developing an ingredient, it doesn’t want somebody else simply knocking it off.

But if you withhold too much compositional information from a clinical publication, you create another problem: nobody can determine what was actually studied.

There can also be a legitimate evolution in testing. Maybe the manufacturing process hasn’t changed, but the analytical method improves and now measures more withanolides.

That brings us directly to the phrase “total withanolides.”

When someone says “total withanolides,” the first question should be: Which withanolides?

What are the individual compounds being included in that total?

If one company’s “total withanolides” consists of seven compounds and another company’s consists of 20, those numbers aren’t necessarily apples-to-apples.

Logan:
And they could potentially have different biological effects.

Blake:
Potentially.

You also have to ask whether an extract is representative of the botanical material it supposedly came from.

If a root has a complex fingerprint containing 20 or 30 relevant peaks and an extract has only two or three, what does “full spectrum” mean in that context?

Is two or three peaks “full spectrum”? Or should a full-spectrum product more closely reflect the broader fingerprint of the starting material?

Those are legitimate questions.

The problem is that companies often don’t publish their chromatograms or analytical methods. Occasionally you can find them in studies, but often you can’t.

Ideally, we would have official monographs and agreed reference methods. Then everybody could point to the same benchmark.

When those connections aren’t being made, it can start to feel like the Wild West.

Logan:
It’s almost as though companies are trying to create intellectual property out of the chemistry. They don’t want to reveal enough information for the product to be recreated.

Blake:
That’s part of it, and it isn’t entirely their fault.

Natural products are difficult to patent. If you’re a company investing heavily in developing an ingredient, you don’t want another company copying it immediately.

The problem comes when somebody competes by creating something different but uses analytical claims that make it appear equivalent or superior.

Then you’re trying to compete against somebody whose numbers may not be comparable to yours.

Logan:
Your website says the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance wants to see analytical harmonization. What do you mean by that?

Blake:
Analytical harmonization can mean several things.

To me, one practical starting point is for everybody to use at least one common reference method.

For example, your specification could include the USP method as one line item. Then, on another line, you could include your own proprietary method.

Now we at least have one apples-to-apples reference point, even if companies also use additional methods.

Maybe the USP method gets updated in the future to include more compounds. But using multiple potency methods isn’t unusual in botanical products. We’ve seen similar approaches with other herbs such as ginkgo.

The concept isn’t new.

Logan:
But those additional methods still need to be transparent enough that we can understand what they’re measuring and which peaks they include.

Blake:
Correct.

Even USP is limited in which compounds it currently measures, so there’s room to go deeper.

Then you get into another question: Are the marker compounds we happen to measure actually the biologically important compounds?

Just because a compound is predominant, easy to measure, or has interesting activity in an in-vitro experiment doesn’t necessarily mean it alone determines the clinical effect.

If you concentrate particular withanolides while excluding other constituents, does the resulting extract behave differently?

That’s an entirely different scientific discussion.

When you look across roughly 130 clinical studies involving a wide range of preparations—root, root-and-leaf, water extracts and other extraction systems—you see positive results across many preparations.

That tells us there is clearly something meaningful happening with the botanical.

The safety evidence is also there. So when evaluating the plant overall, you have to consider the complete body of work.

Logan:
And ashwagandha is consumed by millions of people. If it were causing a very large safety problem, you would expect to see a signal.

Blake:
Exactly. We’re talking about enormous numbers of doses consumed globally.

Logan:
What regulatory changes would you like to see for ashwagandha?

Blake:
I don’t necessarily think major new regulations are what’s needed.

Ashwagandha is already legally marketed under different regulatory frameworks in countries including Canada, South Korea, Italy and many others.

The bigger issue is enforcement.

If regulators don’t have the resources to aggressively police misleading labels or unfair competition, then industry stakeholders have to take more responsibility for addressing those issues.

I think we need to resolve the misinformation around plant part and get back to the fundamentals:

What compounds are being measured?

What process was used?

What is the composition of the extract?

What safety evidence and clinical evidence are actually tied to that particular extract?

It is certainly possible for an unscrupulous supplier to use inappropriate processes, concentrate certain constituents from leaf and then misrepresent the resulting material as root.

Standards should address that.

But don’t describe a quality and authenticity problem as though it is inherently a plant-part problem.

Logan:
You could have products that are all called ashwagandha but, in theory, have very different chemical compositions.

Blake:
Absolutely.

Historically, a common specification for ashwagandha root extract was around 1.5% withanolides by HPLC.

But those older specifications weren’t necessarily tied to USP or another harmonized method.

Different root extracts, root-and-leaf extracts and solvent systems could all be sold under what appeared to be the same 1.5% specification.

That was 20 years ago.

Now you see 2.5%, 5% and other variations.

There can be many different things going on behind those numbers even though the products look similar on the front of the label.

Logan:
So, in some cases, people are essentially manipulating the chemistry to reach the number they want to put on the label.

Blake:
That’s the incentive.

To a consumer, 5 looks stronger than 2.5, and 2.5 looks stronger than 1.5.

That higher number becomes a marketing tool.

But the ingredient supplier and the finished-product brand have different responsibilities.

Ultimately, the brand owner is responsible for what goes on the finished-product label.

If the supplier is located halfway around the world, recovering losses or pursuing litigation after something goes wrong can also be extremely difficult.

Logan:
I’m seeing some brands remove 5% claims from their labels.

Blake:
Yes.

If you look historically at labels, you can find brands that appear to have removed those claims. One possible reason is that they weren’t able to reproduce the claimed result under the testing they were using.

Other brands may continue with the claim.

This issue is familiar to a lot of people who have worked behind the scenes in ashwagandha quality assurance and manufacturing.

They’ve faced the dilemma: “The specification says 5%, but our laboratory isn’t getting 5%.”

You can call it a deviation for a while, but eventually you have to address the discrepancy.

Either the claim changes, the testing issue gets resolved, or somebody decides to ignore the discrepancy.

Logan:
And carries on as normal.

Blake:
Right.

These are also growing pains of a rapidly expanding category. We’ve seen similar issues with green tea extract, turmeric extract and other popular botanicals.

The positive thing is that the quality problems we’re discussing haven’t translated into the level of serious adverse-event reporting you might expect if ashwagandha itself presented a major safety problem.

But consumers can still be cheated.

If a label says you’re getting a particular amount of withanolides and the product doesn’t actually contain that amount under a defensible method, then the consumer isn’t getting what the label suggests.

Logan:
Do you think the enormous demand required to support a $1.5 billion market contributes to the problem?

Companies suddenly need huge quantities of ashwagandha. Maybe that creates pressure to change growing practices or manufacturing simply to produce enough material.

Blake:
Definitely.

The market has grown extremely quickly over the past decade.

Small farmers have entered the market. Small processors, medium-sized processors and large processors have all entered. Almost everybody in India involved in botanical extracts seems to offer some type of ashwagandha.

Leaves are somewhat richer in some withanolides and are generally less expensive than root.

That creates an economic incentive to use more of the plant.

In India, the term panchang can refer to use of the whole plant. From a traditional processing or agricultural perspective, people may reasonably ask why stems and leaves should simply be discarded.

Historically, extracts have been made in different ways.

As botanical identity testing improved, laboratories became better able to distinguish plant parts. Larger and more sophisticated suppliers generally adapted to those expectations.

Smaller suppliers may not always conduct the same level of laboratory testing.

If an identity test costs a few hundred dollars per sample, a small supplier may decide not to perform it and instead rely on whoever supplied the raw material.

That’s why the problem has so many layers.

You peel back one layer and find another.

Logan:
At every level of the supply chain, there’s another opportunity for something to go wrong.

Blake:
Exactly.

The companies involved in the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance include organizations that have processed and sold ashwagandha globally for 20 years or more.

They’ve seen these problems firsthand.

They also see opportunistic products entering the marketplace, competing unfairly and potentially damaging the reputation of the entire ashwagandha category.

There are also consequences to simplistic regulatory actions.

If, for example, leaf is broadly prohibited, that can affect farmer income and remove value from a plant part that is already used in established commercial products.

Then you put more pressure on the remaining supply, potentially creating additional incentives for shortcuts.

Logan:
So a restriction could actually increase supply pressure and potentially incentivize more trickery.

Blake:
Exactly.

And established brand names aren’t automatically immune from quality problems either.

The goal of the Alliance is to establish better standards, correct misinformation and make sure the public discussion is scientifically sound.

We don’t want companies unfairly competing by misleading consumers.

And we don’t want quality problems to become a scandal that damages the entire botanical.

Consumers aren’t necessarily going to remember which plant part, supplier or extract was implicated. They may simply conclude, “Ashwagandha isn’t worth the risk.”

That would conflict with the broader scientific record showing that ashwagandha is a generally well-established and well-studied botanical.

Logan:
My last question: How can consumers spot a good ashwagandha product?

Blake:
I wish I had a short answer.

That’s part of the problem we’re trying to solve.

In my head, I have a list of red flags and green flags that buyers can look for, and I think turning that into consumer guidance would be useful.

There are established branded ingredients whose specifications and testing I’ve personally reviewed and where I have confidence in the documentation. That doesn’t mean a product needs to use a branded ingredient to be good. There are excellent non-branded suppliers as well.

In general, though, I tend to look for suppliers and brands with a long track record and substantial experience.

If somebody is claiming 5% total withanolides, I would ask more questions.

I would want to see the certificate of analysis and understand the methodology used to reach that 5%, because it’s a relatively high specification and can be difficult to reproduce depending on the method.

Five percent is definitely a claim where I want to know more.

Logan:
And even if you have a COA saying 5%, it can’t simply show unquantified peaks. You need to know what was measured and how the laboratory reached that number.

Blake:
Exactly.

This should ordinarily be handled during supplier qualification, but even a sophisticated consumer or buyer could ask for the HPLC chromatogram showing the peaks.

A supplier making that kind of claim should know exactly what you’re asking for and should be able to provide appropriate analytical documentation.

In a truly transparent industry, representative chromatograms generated using standardized methods would be readily available.

But that’s often where the sausage gets made, so companies can be reluctant to disclose it.

Still, there are suppliers that have completed the validation work and are willing to say, “Here are our results. Send the material to another qualified laboratory using the same method, and you should get comparable results.”

We need more of that.

Logan:
We need more companies like that on planet Earth.

Blake:
We’re working toward it.

The industry is moving in that direction. More companies are sharing test results and quality documentation.

In the United States, for example, cannabis companies in some states have been required to make certificates of analysis available.

The supplement industry could learn something from that model.

Imagine if companies made a third-party COA available for every finished-product batch. Consumers and customers could look at the testing and see what was actually measured.

That would improve transparency significantly.

Logan:
I think that should be the law: a third-party COA for every batch, available to consumers, showing the dosage and the quantified compounds.

Blake:
That’s close to my ideal world, and I think we’re moving in that direction.

Testing itself doesn’t have to be mysterious.

You send the material to a qualified laboratory and obtain the report.

If you built quality into the product in the first place—selected appropriate ingredients, qualified the supplier and understood your specifications—the laboratory result shouldn’t come back as a surprise.

For companies that know what they’re doing, testing is verification.

Problems arise when quality wasn’t built into the product at the beginning and people start trying to figure out how to make the test result work after the fact.

Logan:
At that point, they can be in a difficult position. They’ve sent the product to a laboratory and effectively demonstrated that an expensive batch may be mislabeled.

Blake:
Exactly.

And it happens more often than people realize because testing can come relatively late in the process.

Then somebody says, “We can’t just throw this batch away. What do we do?”

Sometimes the temptation is simply to sell it anyway.

As a quality professional, I’ve advised against that many times. I didn’t always get my way.

Logan:
Blake, this has been a fascinating conversation and extremely helpful. I think people are going to find your experience really interesting.

Thank you very much for your time.

Blake:
Absolutely, Logan. It was great being with you. These were excellent questions, and it’s refreshing to have a conversation with somebody who understands the issues we’re talking about.

Thanks for having me.

Editor’s note: This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Verbal fillers, repetitions and false starts have been removed, and obvious transcription errors have been corrected. The speakers’ substantive comments and intended meaning have been preserved.

←ASA Expands Global Membership Initiative as Kerry Group Joins Coalition

Comments

Leave a Reply

Logged in as ashwagandhastandards. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked *

Comment *

 Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

 Notify me of new posts by email.

More posts

• ASA Member Explains Testing Methods, Quality and the Problem With “Total Withanolides”September 2, 2026
• ASA Expands Global Membership Initiative as Kerry Group Joins CoalitionAugust 19, 2026
• ASA Supports Safeguard Ashwagandha at EU Parliament MeetingJuly 16, 2026
• Ashwagandha Standards Alliance Responds to India’s Ministry of AYUSH, Launches With Global Membership Initiative June 24, 2026

Ashwagandha Standards Alliance advances science-based education, safety, quality, and standards for ashwagandha ingredients in supplements and foods.

• Home

• FAQ

• About

• Contact

• Communications

• All Posts

Welcome to Airo for WordPress

Sign in with your GoDaddy account to start building your site with AI.Sign in with GoDaddy

From Me-Too to Defensible: Product development, sourcing and quality strategy for supplement brands who want to survive past the first order.

By NaturPro Scientific LLC and Fearless Naturals USA · July 2026

SUMMARY: The market does not need more products that merely look premium. It needs products that hold together. See why crowded categories, ingredient shortages and AI-generated brands are raising — not lowering — the bar for what makes a defensible product.

Complete the form below for the download link:

Mobile Access: https://243728998.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na2.net/hubfs/243728998/NaturPro%20Market%20Outlook%202026-2027.pdf

July 16, 2026

NaturPro Scientific Founder and President Blake Ebersole presented on behalf of the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance for policymakers at the European Parliament in Brussels.

The meeting, held by Safeguard Ashwagandha and Kerry Group to present scientific data on ashwagandha, brought together scientists, regulatory experts, industry leaders and retailers as Europe considers a possible formal assessment of ashwagandha, known as Article 8.

At the meeting, Dr. Thomas Brendler presented a review covering 131 clinical trial reports and toxicological assessments. A central conclusion was that the safety concerns repeatedly cited by authorities are not supported by the full body of current evidence.

The primary challenge is not safety, but compliance problems that the regulations are already established for.

As Alliance co-founding member Blake Ebersole shared with meeting participants, “What we are dealing with is not a question of safety, but a question of quality, standards and proper labeling.”

NaturPro Scientific founder Blake Ebersole recently joined Stephen Lukawski, “Captain Cran Man,” and Peter Mingils on the KISC My Health Radio Show for a wide-ranging conversation about the natural products industry, ingredient quality, entrepreneurship, mentorship, and the values that shape meaningful work.

The interview begins with Blake’s personal story: growing up in rural Pennsylvania near Three Mile Island, learning independence and accountability from his family, working in food service at a young age, and developing an early interest in chemistry, health, and the way natural products connect farmers, science, companies, and consumers.

From there, the conversation turns to Blake’s career in the dietary supplement and natural products industry, including the founding of NaturPro Scientific. Blake discusses how NaturPro helps companies navigate product development, formulation, quality assurance, regulatory expectations, supplier qualification, and the difficult but necessary conversations that come with doing things the right way.

A major theme of the interview is trust. Blake explains why the supplement industry needs more transparency around ingredient sourcing, documentation, identity, potency, purity, and supplier practices. He also discusses Fearless Naturals USA, a new documentation-forward ingredient sourcing platform designed to help qualified buyers better understand ingredient quality before making sourcing decisions.

The conversation also explores practical business lessons for supplement brands and ingredient companies. Blake and Stephen discuss why science alone does not sell a product, why marketing and positioning matter, and why companies need to understand competition, pricing, customer acquisition, and the real cost of launching a product.

Later in the interview, Blake reflects on leadership, integrity, and mentorship. He emphasizes that good leadership requires judgment, empathy, listening, and the willingness to ask hard questions. He also encourages younger professionals to learn actively, seek help, build value, and avoid waiting passively for mentorship to appear.

The discussion closes with thoughts on artificial intelligence and the future of work. Blake describes AI as a tool that can accelerate learning, research, analysis, and business decision-making, but not as a substitute for human judgment. Used responsibly, AI can help professionals become better informed, faster, and more capable.

Overall, the podcast is a personal and professional look at the values behind NaturPro’s work: science, transparency, service, independence, and the belief that better information leads to better decisions across the supplement industry.

Listen to the episode:
https://kiscmyhealth.com/kisc-my-health-radio-show-interviews-blake-ebersole-with-captain-cran-man-stephen-lukawski-and-peter-mingils/

The edited transcript below has been cleaned for readability while preserving the substance and tone of the original conversation.

Stephen Lukawski: Blake, welcome to the show. Why did you want to bring your story and your industry experience together in this conversation?

Blake Ebersole: Thank you, Stephen. It is great to be here. This is a chance to bring together where I came from, what shaped me, and what I can do now to help the people who come after us. I have been fortunate to learn from many people in this industry, and I want to use that experience to help others understand the natural products world more clearly.

Stephen Lukawski: Before we go into your childhood and career, tell us about Fearless Naturals. What is the idea behind it?

Blake Ebersole: I have spent much of my career on the technical side of the industry and on the supply chain side. One question comes up again and again: why do poorer quality ingredients keep getting used? We talk about it, we write articles about it, but I wanted to do something practical. The idea behind Fearless Naturals is to create a curated place where buyers can find high-quality ingredients, see the documentation, understand what quality looks like, and make better buying decisions.

Stephen Lukawski: So the goal is to make ingredient quality easier to see and defend?

Blake Ebersole: Exactly. Buyers often have to dig through email chains and ask several rounds of questions before they understand what they are really buying. Too much is hidden. My thought was: let us cut through the noise, break down the silos, and put better quality ingredients and better documentation in one place. We are starting with major, high-demand categories such as cranberry, creatine, collagen, and other top-selling ingredients. The goal is education, transparency, and better sourcing decisions.

Stephen Lukawski: You have said people inside the industry need to talk more openly about what they know. What do you mean by that?

Blake Ebersole: The people who know the back end of the industry, the secrets and the weak spots, need to talk about them. Brands, manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers all benefit when the hidden parts of the supply chain become clearer. A lot of my work now is about education. People cannot make good decisions if they don’t know what questions to ask.

We know what the right thing to do is. Now we have to convince people to do the right thing.

Childhood, Family, and Early Values

Stephen Lukawski: Where did your sense of responsibility and independence come from?

Blake Ebersole: I grew up in Etters, Pennsylvania, a place that isn’t on most maps. By the crow flies, we were about three miles from Three Mile Island. I was very young when the near meltdown happened, but growing up in that community created a deep distrust of power when it’s not accountable. That shaped my sense that people need to do things the right way — and that institutions should not be allowed to abuse trust.

Stephen Lukawski: How did your family background shape you?

Blake Ebersole: My dad’s side is Pennsylvania Dutch Mennonite, and my mom’s side is New York Italian. That combination gave me independence, directness, and a strong sense of truth. We were taught to speak our minds, understand what we were talking about, and try to do the right thing. That has carried through my whole career.

Stephen Lukawski: What was childhood like for you?

Blake Ebersole: I grew up in the country. I didn’t have a lot of toys, video games, or neighbors nearby. I had books, the outdoors, my dog, the creek, my bike, and my imagination. I was introverted and read a lot. We had a television with 13 buttons, and only some of them worked. It was a very different kind of childhood than many kids have now.

Stephen Lukawski: What are some memories that still stand out?

Blake Ebersole: Sports were very important. I played soccer, baseball, wrestling, and football. Being on a team gave me something I did not always have growing up in the country: a group of people my age working toward the same goal, joking around, competing, and trying to get better together. That helped me understand teamwork.

Stephen Lukawski: You also started working very young. What did that teach you?

Blake Ebersole: I started working when I was 13. My dad was general manager of the Country Club of Harrisburg, and that became one of the places where I learned about life. I worked banquets, served members and dignitaries, and worked with people from all kinds of backgrounds. That experience taught me service, discipline, and attention to detail. My dad used to say, your paycheck is your report card for work already done. That stuck with me.

Stephen Lukawski: How did food service influence the way you work now?

Blake Ebersole: In banquets, there is a right way to do things. You serve from the left, pick up from the right, polish the silverware, keep the water glasses full, and make sure the plate looks right before it goes out. It taught me that service is not just about doing the minimum. It is about caring enough to do things correctly and to make the experience better for the person you are serving.

Education and the Path into Natural Products

Stephen Lukawski: How did your education point you toward science?

Blake Ebersole: In high school I loved chemistry. I had great teachers, and chemistry felt like the essence of how the world worked. At the same time, I was interested in justice and crime shows, so I thought about forensic chemistry and even the FBI. That led me to West Chester University, which had a forensic chemistry program.

Stephen Lukawski: Did you enjoy the lab side of chemistry?

Blake Ebersole: I loved the ideas, but I did not always love following lab procedures when the outcome was already known. I wanted to discover new things. Looking back, I probably should have been a better student in some ways, but the curiosity was always there. I wanted to understand why things worked, not just follow instructions.

Stephen Lukawski: Later you earned your MBA at Butler University. Why was that important?

Blake Ebersole: Once I was in the industry, I realized I understood science but needed a better framework for business. Butler was close to home, and my wife supported me the whole way. We went through the MBA program together at night. I chose marketing because I was fascinated by the question of how you communicate the truth and persuade people to make better decisions. Marketing helped me understand awareness, education, persuasion, and calls to action.

Stephen Lukawski: Did you find the natural products industry, or did it find you?

Blake Ebersole: I stumbled into it, but I had always been interested in supplements and natural products. As a kid, I walked past a GNC and saw a poster for Ripped Fuel with a lot of ephedrine in it. I was young and did not understand the science, but with that experience, I understood that supplements could be powerful.

Later, when I saw a job posting for an herbal company, it felt right. I liked the idea that a farmer could grow something that helps the health of a consumer somewhere else in the world. If we can support the farmer and support the consumer, that is a win-win.

AHPA, Mentors, and Industry Standards

Stephen Lukawski: How did you become involved with the American Herbal Products Association?

Blake Ebersole: I was technical director at a company and was traveling to India, working on GMP systems, NSF certification, and selling ingredients to large companies. My company encouraged me to attend AHPA meetings. That is where I found people who were trying to do the right thing: creating standards, educating the industry, and bringing science to herbal products.

Stephen Lukawski: Michael McGuffin had a major influence on the herbal products industry. What did he mean to you?

Blake Ebersole: I looked up to Michael. He helped build AHPA from very small beginnings into an organization that could create standards and credibility for herbal products. If he were here, I would say thank you, and I would tell him we will keep tending the garden. AHPA is still strong, and the work continues through the people carrying that legacy forward.

Stephen Lukawski: How did AHPA make you better?

Blake Ebersole: AHPA was priceless for me. In a company, you learn from the people immediately around you. In an association, you learn from people across many companies and disciplines. Committee meetings exposed me to people with more experience and different perspectives. I learned by listening to how they asked questions, solved problems, and worked toward shared goals.

NaturPro Scientific and Consulting with Integrity

Stephen Lukawski: How did NaturPro Scientific begin?

Blake Ebersole: After about 10 years in supplements, I wanted to grow and challenge myself. My first consulting opportunity was in cannabis, which was an emerging industry that badly needed standards. From there, I quickly realized I needed to branch out and understand more parts of the natural products business. Over the past 11 years, I have worked with close to 300 clients, from tiny startups to Bayer Healthcare.

Stephen Lukawski: What has consulting allowed you to do?

Blake Ebersole: Consulting has allowed me to help many different kinds of companies and to stand up for the right thing in different settings. I have worked on product development, quality, compliance, formulation, expert witness work, and a wide range of technical problems. I have often had to ask myself whether I was ready for a challenge, but I learned that just because you haven’t done something before doesn’t mean you can’t learn how to do it.

Stephen Lukawski: How do you handle the fact that technical advice can sometimes be uncomfortable for clients?

Blake Ebersole: As a technical, quality, and regulatory person, I often have to tell people things they don’t want to hear. That can make conversations uncomfortable. Over time, I have learned to sense whether someone truly wants to understand the right thing to do — or whether they simply want someone to sign off on something. We aren’t right for everyone, but the people we are right for tend to stay with us, refer us, and value the work.

Stephen Lukawski: You have strong views about conflicts of interest in consulting. Why?

Blake Ebersole: If you are working for the client, you should not also be taking a cut from the vendor. That is a conflict of interest. It sacrifices integrity and judgment. From the beginning of NaturPro, I said I would not do that, and it remains one of our values.

Stephen Lukawski: What have you learned about people in business?

Blake Ebersole: Most people are good and well-meaning, but everyone has self-interest. You have to provide real value. You can’t overcharge, nickel-and-dime, or expect people to come back if you don’t serve them well. Not every prospect is a good fit. But for those who are, I want to do the best possible work.

Advice for Younger Professionals

Stephen Lukawski: What advice would you give people starting out in the natural products industry?

Blake Ebersole: Work as hard as you can and learn as much as you can. Don’t feel entitled to anything. Nobody is granted anything. You have to show your value. Sometimes that means getting out of your comfort zone. If you know more than anyone else on your team about a topic, don’t be afraid to become the person who leads on that topic.

Stephen Lukawski: How should younger professionals think about personal brand and visibility?

Blake Ebersole: Personal brand is not only about posting on LinkedIn. I didn’t start doing that until later in my career. It can also mean being the person internally who asks good questions, thinks independently, and isn’t simply a yes-person. Being willing to ask the hard questions, and not just go along with what the boss says, is how people learn that you are reliable.

Stephen Lukawski: How do you balance authenticity with professional risk?

Blake Ebersole: Authenticity requires judgment. You have to ask what the purpose is, why it matters, and who it may upset. I can say more now because I don’t report to anyone else, but I still weigh those things. When nobody else is saying something and somebody needs to say it, I’m willing to say it. But authenticity doesn’t mean being a constant complainer. It means standing up when it matters.

Stephen Lukawski: How important is open-mindedness?

Blake Ebersole: It is critical. I have strong opinions, but sometimes someone else says something that weakens or changes my opinion. You have to be willing to listen. Strong opinions without open-mindedness are a dangerous combination.

Marketing, Product Reality, and Competition

Stephen Lukawski: What do companies often misunderstand about selling science-based ingredients?

Blake Ebersole: Companies often think science will sell itself. But it doesn’t. Promotion has to come with the product. In today’s market, people may need to hear about something eight or 10 times before it sticks. You can have the best product in the world, but if nobody’s heard of it, it won’t matter.

Stephen Lukawski: What do product startups need to understand before launching?

Blake Ebersole: They need to understand the financial reality. I ask clients about their marketing budget because you can’t simply create a product and expect people to beat down your door. In many cases, marketing may be at least half of the operating budget. I’ve seen great products fail because the founders didn’t plan for competitive positioning, promotion, and customer acquisition.

Stephen Lukawski: How should companies think about competition?

Blake Ebersole: You have to be objective. Tools like the four Ps, SWOT analysis, and Porter’s Five Forces exist for a reason. We can’t control the economy, regulations, or the competitive landscape, but we have to acknowledge them. In supplements, competition is often the major killer. Your competitor is not only the top-selling brand — it may be hundreds of other brands selling magnesium, greens powders, mushrooms, or whatever category you are in.

Stephen Lukawski: What about ingredient companies that try to launch their own consumer brands?

Blake Ebersole: It can work, but being good at one part of the business doesn’t mean you will automatically be good at another part. Controlling the supply does not mean you know how to market to consumers, manage customer acquisition costs, optimize ad spend, or build a consumer brand. Some companies can do both, but the failure rate is high. It’s hard enough to be a good ingredient supplier or a good brand. Doing both is much harder than people think.

Leadership and Team Culture

Stephen Lukawski: What qualities make a great leader today?

Blake Ebersole: Leadership starts with judgment. You need facts, patience, and the ability not to jump to conclusions. I learned a lot from watching my dad lead in a premium service business with a transient workforce. He had to be relatable, open, analytical, and practical. That shaped the way I try to lead and advise clients: use good judgment, don’t jump to conclusions, and speak up when needed.

Stephen Lukawski: Where do empathy and listening fit into leadership?

Blake Ebersole: They’re integral. You can’t assume you know what someone else is dealing with or why something happened. With a few questions and an open mind, you often discover the real situation. Empathy may be the number one quality of a leader today. The best leaders aren’t just command-and-control personalities. They listen, learn, and use judgment rather than power.

Stephen Lukawski: How do you think about integrity?

Blake Ebersole: Integrity is everything. If people can’t trust you, if you overpromise and underdeliver, or if you aren’t reliable, people won’t include you in important work. You have to stand up, do your best, and come through for the team. You may never be great at everything, but you should keep trying to become more capable and more useful.

Stephen Lukawski: How do you recognize a healthy team?

Blake Ebersole: As a consultant, I get to see many different teams. One of my indicators of a strong team is whether people are willing to disagree with each other. If people are afraid to speak up, the team is in trouble. If people can offer different points of view and still work toward the goal, that is usually a good sign.

Mentorship and Lessons for a Younger Self

Stephen Lukawski: How important has mentorship been in your career?

Blake Ebersole: I did not come through a formal corporate training program, so much of my development came from doing the job, watching others, and learning by example. That worked, but it did not have to be so hard. Programs like SupplySide Fresh are valuable because they help new people understand the industry faster. Being a mentee should be active, not passive. Don’t simply wait to be taught. Watch, listen, ask, and learn from people who have more experience.

Stephen Lukawski: Are experienced people generally willing to help?

Blake Ebersole: Many are. I am not naturally the type of person who asks for help, but when people ask me for help, I like giving my time. People with experience are often willing to answer questions. You just have to reach out and ask. I wish I had done more of that earlier in my career.

Stephen Lukawski: What would you tell your younger self?

Blake Ebersole: I would say, don’t try to do so much on your own. Lean on other people. Ask for help. I was independent and a quick learner, but I would have benefited from taking better advantage of the people around me who knew more than I did.

AI and the Future of Work

Peter Mingils: AI is becoming a major topic for students and professionals. How is it influencing your work?

Blake Ebersole: I use AI daily. Even with 20 years in the industry, I find it useful for synthesizing the full picture, testing my thinking, and helping me understand complex topics faster. But I never treat the output as final. I use lines of questioning, starting with one question and then building from there. You can’t ask one question and expect the answer to be complete.

Peter Mingils: What should people be careful about?

Blake Ebersole: AI can accelerate knowledge, but it has limits. It can help you learn faster than searching randomly or taking a class on everything, but everyone else has access to the same tools. That means you have to raise your game. You also have to be critical. AI is designed to be helpful and agreeable, so you cannot treat it as the final authority. It should be one part of your total process for getting to the right answer.

Stephen Lukawski: How do you see AI affecting business decisions?

Blake Ebersole: AI makes it harder to excuse uninformed decisions. A product developer or marketer can now analyze positioning, pricing, competitors, and claims much faster than before. But it still requires human judgment because you need to know the right metrics and criteria. Yet AI can make the analysis better and faster. In that sense, it can make capable people even more capable.

Stephen Lukawski: Any final thoughts on AI and the future?

Blake Ebersole: We are on the cusp of a new world in work and life. AI will change the capabilities of the people I already want around me. I don’t see it simply as replacing people. I see it as making people better and challenging everyone to become the best person they can be. It can help us help the world and make a living at the same time — but only if we use it with judgment.

Closing

Stephen Lukawski: Blake, thank you for sharing your story and your work.

Blake Ebersole: Thank you, Stephen. I really appreciate the opportunity. Not many people ask me where I came from, so it has been meaningful to share that and have it out there. We’re only as good as the people around us, and I appreciate being part of this conversation.

Blake Ebersole Presents “Facts, Fear and the Feed: Why Food and Supplement Science Needs Better Context”

Food contaminants are suddenly everywhere in the public conversation.

Heavy metals. Pesticides. PFAS. Glyphosate. Mycotoxins. Microplastics. Residues. Allergens. Adulterants. The list keeps growing, and so does public concern.

That made the timing of the Midwest Section AOAC Annual Meeting from June 8-10, 2026 especially important. Held in Lafayette, Indiana – in the heart of the country’s dairy, corn, soy, tomato, egg, pumpkin, mint, and broader agricultural economy – the meeting brought together scientists, laboratories, industry leaders, and regulators working on one of the most important questions in food science today:

When something is detected, what does it actually mean?

That question sits at the center of modern food and supplement communication.

[DOWNLOAD “FACTS, FEAR AND THE FEED” PRESENTATION]

A laboratory finding by itself is not the same thing as a public health conclusion. Detection is not the same as danger. Hazard is not the same as risk. And a number without method, dose, exposure, matrix, uncertainty, and regulatory context can easily be misunderstood.

This is where AOAC’s role is so important.

AOAC member work helps ensure that a number is real, the method is valid, the result is reproducible, and the finding can be interpreted in context. Validated methods and reliable data are part of the public trust infrastructure behind food safety, supplement quality, and regulatory decision-making.

But in 2026, good measurement is no longer enough by itself.

Most consumers do not read validation reports, analytical method papers, or technical risk assessments. They get information from headlines, social media posts, short videos, and search results. By the time a scientific finding reaches the public, it may have passed through several layers of simplification, emotion, and incentive.

That is where misinformation often begins.

Not always with something completely false, but with something real placed in the wrong frame.

A lab finds a contaminant, and the message becomes: “Your food is toxic.”

An ingredient has a hazard at some extreme dose, and the message becomes: “This ingredient causes cancer.”

A regulatory agency opens a review, and the message becomes: “The whole category is corrupt.”

The problem is not that people are asking questions. They should ask questions. The problem is when valid concerns are detached from proportion, exposure, method quality, and practical meaning.

That was the focus of my talk at the Midwest Section AOAC meeting: “Facts, Fear and the Feed: Responding to Food and Supplement Misinformation With Context.”

The central challenge is this: misinformation is optimized for attention, while science is optimized for accuracy. We now have to communicate accurately inside systems built for attention.

That does not mean making science more sensational. It means making it more transmissible.

For food and supplement companies, laboratories, and trade organizations, this requires a different communication model. Technical accuracy still matters, but so does clarity. A good response to misinformation should:

1. Start with the claim people are already hearing.
2. Acknowledge the legitimate concern.
3. Identify the part that is true.
4. Separate the true issue from the false conclusion.
5. Explain the missing context: dose, exposure, method, matrix, limits, uncertainty, and risk.
6. End with one clear takeaway people can remember and repeat.

The goal is not to dismiss public fear. Dismissing fear usually makes it stronger. The better approach is to help people worry with the right questions.

Instead of asking, “Was something detected?” we should also ask:

–How much was detected?

–Was the method valid for that matrix?

–Was the result reproducible?

–How does the level compare with regulatory limits or typical background exposure?

–Is the concern based on hazard or actual risk?

–Who is the vulnerable population, if any?

–What action, if any, is appropriate?

These are the questions that turn a scary number into useful information.

For the food and supplement industries, this is no longer just a public relations issue. Misinformation can affect consumer trust, brand reputation, regulatory pressure, litigation risk, and the perceived credibility of entire categories. Companies and organizations should treat public misinformation as a business and quality risk, not just a communications nuisance.

That means developing internal guardrails for public communication, preparing accurate educational content before crises emerge, improving collaboration between technical and marketing teams, and supporting customers with clear explanations of what test results do and do not mean.

At NaturPro, this issue connects directly to our work in supplement quality, regulatory strategy, ingredient review, formulation, and public-facing scientific communication. Whether we are reviewing a formula, evaluating ingredient documentation, assessing contaminants, or helping companies respond to market concerns, the same principle applies:

Good science has to be measured correctly, but it also has to be communicated correctly.

If industry experts do not explain what a finding means, someone else will. And if we do not explain dose, exposure, method validity, limits, uncertainty, and risk, the feed will supply its own conclusion.

Somewhere between the technical report and the viral headline sits the credibility of the entire food and supplement system.

That’s where we have to do better.

June 3, 2026 – Ashwagandha has become a billion-dollar category, and with that growth has come scrutiny, regulatory noise, and a wave of misinformation that threatens to undermine an herb with thousands of years of traditional use and over 130 clinical studies behind it.

In this episode, Industry Transparency Center CEO Len Monheit sits down with Blake Ebersole, founder and president of NaturPro Scientific, to unpack what’s really happening with ashwagandha. From the Indian Ministry of Commerce’s export ban on leaf products to European regulatory flags and concerning case reports, Blake breaks down why most of these issues trace back to quality failures, and not the plant itself.

They dig into the tension between traditional Ayurvedic use and modern botanical science, why withaferin A being present in both leaf and root doesn’t make either unsafe, and how the supply chain, from supplier to contract manufacturer to brand, too often fails consumers and the category. Blake also shares the work behind the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance, a coalition of responsible suppliers working to get ahead of the crisis with science-backed, transparent practices.

Botanical Cost of Quality: An Economic Framework for Botanical Price Floors and Adulteration Prevention

Blake Ebersole¹, Trish Flaster²
¹NaturPro Scientific / Ethical Sourcing Review
²Botanical Liaisons / Ethical Sourcing Review

Abstract

Botanical ingredients used in foods, dietary supplements, and pharmaceutical products are uniquely vulnerable to economically motivated adulteration due to long, opaque supply chains, biological variability, and weak alignment between price and quality signals. 

Despite extensive documentation of adulteration in medicinal plants, the industry lacks an economic framework for identifying when a botanical price is implausibly low relative to the true cost of quality. 

This review introduces the Botanical Cost of Quality (BCOQ) framework, adapted from classical Cost of Quality (COQ) theory, as a tool for establishing economically defensible price floors for botanical commodities. 

Drawing on farm-level cost modeling, post-harvest handling, processing, testing, and compliance costs, w e synthesize published research demonstrating how ignoring these costs creates incentives for substitution, dilution, fraud, or otherwise sub-potent botanical products.

We further review documented adulteration case studies where application of a BCOQ-based price floor would likely have prevented fraudulent procurement. Adoption of BCOQ principles can improve supply-chain transparency, protect farmers, and reduce public-health risk by aligning purchasing decisions with the true economics of botanical quality.

Keywords: botanical adulteration; cost of quality; medicinal plants; supply chain economics; price floors; dietary supplements

1. Introduction

Medicinal plants form the backbone of traditional medicine systems and contribute substantially to modern food, supplement, and pharmaceutical industries. Global trade in botanicals exceeds $100 billion annually. Yet pricing mechanisms remain poorly aligned with product quality, supply chain dynamics, agricultural constraints, economic sustainability, and regulatory compliance.

Unlike industrial commodities, medicinal botanical ingredients used in foods and supplements vary widely in phytochemical composition, harvest practices and processing requirements. However, market prices for disparate products often converge toward a single price, based on “lowest-quality product” pricing. This creates economic pressure that incentivizes adulteration, particularly when authentic material cannot be produced profitably at prevailing prices.

This review applies the Botanical Cost of Quality (BCOQ) framework—an adaptation of classical COQ theory—to these botanical supply chains. Here, we apply farm-level economics and downstream quality costs to establish a model for calculating defensible price floors for a given botanical product.

This is an excerpt to a review paper now in peer-review prior to publication. Contact us to get involved in the BCOQ Project.

Posted on PricePlow on May 21, 2026 — The supplement industry is pushing back. In May 2026, a group of long-tenured ashwagandha producers and regulatory experts launched the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance (ASA), a new coalition dedicated to countering misinformation about ashwagandha leaf safety, defending GMP standards, and responding to what many in the industry see as scientifically unsupported regulatory actions: India’s April 2026 FSSAI/AYUSH leaf advisory and Denmark’s earlier ban.

(Read the article at PricePlow Blog here.)

In Episode #218 of the PricePlow Podcast, Mike and Ben sit down with Blake Ebersole, founding member of the ASA and president of NaturPro Scientific, a B2B quality and regulatory consulting firm. Blake unpacks and rejects the “root good, leaf bad” narrative, explains why in vitrocancer cell studies are being misused to target ashwagandha leaf, and details how lab shopping and supply chain fragmentation quietly erode quality across the botanical category.

View video on YouTube here: Ashwagandha TRUTH: Blake Ebersole on Labeling & India’s Leaf Ban | Episode 218

This episode pairs directly with our companion article on India’s ashwagandha leaf advisory. Together they cover both the regulatory deep-dive and the industry coalition response.

Blake Ebersole, founding member of the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance (ASA) and president of NaturPro Scientific, joins Mike and Ben to address the growing controversy around ashwagandha leaf safety: debating the “root good, leaf bad” narrative, India’s 2026 FSSAI/AYUSH advisory, Denmark’s hazard-based ban, and the withaferin A in vitro science being misused across the industry. The conversation goes far beyond regulatory news. The guys dig into:

• Lab shopping and the broken incentive structure in supplement testing
• Supply chain fragmentation in India and how it creates quality failures at scale
• Label disclosure: plant part, withanolide content, and maltodextrin dilution
• The difference between hazard-based and risk-based regulatory frameworks
• The ASA’s three founding executive members: Sabinsa, Cepham, and Arjuna Natural
• Formula ideas for the next wave of ashwagandha products (sleep, specific populations, acute stress)
• Anhedonia, cortisol, and what the science actually says about ashwagandha’s mood effects

Sign up for ashwagandha news alerts on PricePlow: https://www.priceplow.com/ashwagandha Follow Blake Ebersole on LinkedIn:   / blakeebersole  

Ashwagandha Standards Alliance: https://ashwagandhastandards.org

TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 – Introductions 2:45 – What Is the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance? 4:30 – How ASA Fits Alongside AHPA and Trade Organizations 6:15 – Educational, Policy, and Standards Goals 8:00 – Adverse Events at Scale and Ashwagandha’s Safety Record 11:15 – Denmark’s Ban and the Hazard-Based Regulatory Model 15:15 – Withaferin A and the In Vitro Extrapolation Problem 18:30 – How Competitive Interests Drove the Market Off Track 21:00 – Label Disclosure, Dilution, and Maltodextrin 25:00 – The Billion-Dollar Market and Supply Chain Fragmentation 30:00 – India’s Regulatory Framework: Food, Drug, and No Middle Ground 32:15 – Farmers, Brokers, and Unintended Consequences 38:00 – Research Gaps and the Clinical Literature 41:00 – Extraction Methods: Milk, Solvents, and Withanolide Chemistry 44:30 – Consumer Education and the Demand for Transparency 46:30 – Lab Shopping and the Broken Incentive Structure 52:45 – Branded Ingredients and GMP Supplier Qualification 55:15 – ASA Founding Members: Sabinsa, Cepham, and Arjuna Natural 58:00 – Formula Ideas: Sleep, Lifestyle, and Beyond the Basics 1:00:45 – Anhedonia, Cortisol, and What the Science Says

Key articles and resources:

• India’s Ashwagandha Leaf Advisory – What FSSAI Actually Said: https://blog.priceplow.com/industry-n…
• How to Read Ashwagandha Supplement Labels: https://blog.priceplow.com/guides/ash…
• Shoden and the Ashwagandha Evolution: https://blog.priceplow.com/supplement…
• Shoden-R: Arjuna Natural’s Root Extract: https://blog.priceplow.com/supplement…
• Episode #207 – Cortisol Awakening Response / Shoden Research: https://blog.priceplow.com/podcast/co…
• Episode #171 – Arjuna Natural and the Shoden Revolution: https://blog.priceplow.com/podcast/ar…

Thanks to Perfect Shaker for sponsoring the podcast: https://www.priceplow.com/perfect-shaker