Starch in the ashwagandha: an ayurvedic churna that is not what it claims
A Drugs Inspector (Ayurveda) draws a sample of 'Ashwagandha Churna' 100 g, batch ASH-09/24, from a unit holding a Form 25D manufacturing licence. The label declares 100% Withania somnifera root powder and a minimum total withanolide content. Laboratory examination shows a pale gritty powder: microscopy reveals abundant large simple starch grains with a centric hilum and groups of leaf trichomes, with very few of the cork cells and xylem elements expected of ashwagandha root. HPTLC at 254 nm shows no band at the Rf corresponding to the withaferin A reference standard, although the authenticated in-house reference shows it clearly; total withanolides by HPLC are 0.04% w/w against the labelled claim. Heavy metals by ICP-MS: lead 14.6 ppm, arsenic 1.1 ppm, mercury 0.2 ppm, cadmium 0.4 ppm. The manufacturer says the raw material came from a licensed dealer with a certificate of analysis, and that trace metals are 'inherently present in Indian soil'.
1. How would you classify this product under Chapter IVA of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and which classification should lead the case?
Read the worked answer
Distinguish the findings before choosing a charge.
- Adulteration. Chapter IVA (section 33EE and the rules thereunder) treats an ayurvedic drug as adulterated where it contains a substance that makes it injurious, or where it is wholly or partly substituted by another substance. Starch grains and leaf trichomes in place of root tissue, and 0.04% withanolides against a declared minimum, are substitution: the article sold is not the drug it is labelled as.
- Misbranding. The label declares 100% Withania somnifera root and a minimum withanolide content; both declarations are false. That is a misbranding finding, and it is easier to prove because it rests on the label and the assay alone.
- Spurious. Reserved for a product that imitates or purports to be another manufacturer's product, or is fabricated. There is no evidence of that here, so do not overreach.
Which leads. Lead with adulteration by substitution, plead misbranding in the alternative. Adulteration captures the public-health harm - consumers are buying inert starch - and carries the heavier consequence; misbranding gives a secure fallback if the botanical identification evidence is contested.
Separate limb. The lead result is also an adulteration/contamination finding, independent of the substitution. Record it separately so that the case does not collapse if one analytical finding is challenged.
2. What confirmatory analytical evidence would you insist on before launching prosecution, and how do you answer the supplier's certificate of analysis?
Read the worked answer
Strengthen the identity evidence.
- Microscopy by a pharmacognosist against authenticated reference material, documented with photomicrographs and a written comparison of diagnostic elements - cork cells in radial rows, xylem with scalariform thickening, and the pattern of starch grains in true ashwagandha root.
- HPTLC fingerprint of the sample against a botanical reference and a withaferin A/withanolide reference, with the plate photographed under 254 nm and after derivatisation, plus a validated quantitative HPLC or HPTLC method for total withanolides.
- Consider DNA barcoding where substitution is suspected, since it is decisive in distinguishing closely related species and detecting bulk diluents.
- Heavy metals by a validated ICP-MS method with matrix spikes and a certified reference material; report each element against the statutory limit, not against a generic specification.
Procedural safeguards. Retain the sealed court portion, keep chain-of-custody records, ensure the testing laboratory is notified/accredited for the relevant tests, and obtain the Government Analyst's report in the prescribed form so that it is admissible. Note that the manufacturer may within 28 days contest the report, after which the sample goes to the Central Drugs Laboratory or the notified laboratory.
Answering the certificate of analysis. A supplier's certificate is a contractual warranty between the manufacturer and the dealer; it does not displace the statutory report on the finished drug and does not transfer liability. The manufacturer is responsible for the identity of what it mills, mixes and packs. At most, the certificate supports a claim against the supplier, not a defence.
3. The lead result exceeds the statutory limit and the firm pleads 'inherent presence'. What action follows on the licence and the market, and what is the special position of classical metallic preparations?
Read the worked answer
The limit. Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs are subject to the heavy-metal limits in Schedule E1 (lead 10 ppm, arsenic 3 ppm, mercury 1 ppm, cadmium 0.3 ppm), together with microbial limits and aflatoxin limits. Lead at 14.6 ppm and cadmium at 0.4 ppm exceed the permitted levels; arsenic and mercury are within limits but should be trended.
Answering the plea. 'Inherent in soil' is not a defence to a statutory limit. There is no metallic ingredient in a plain ashwagandha churna, so there is no legitimate source of lead at that level. The plausible routes are contaminated raw material, lead-containing colourant or adulterant, or lead leaching from equipment and plumbing - each of which is a GMP failure the firm must explain. Demand the raw material supplier's identity, the batch-wise metal results for all recent purchases, and equipment and water records.
Actions.
- Stop manufacture and sale of this batch; recall it from the market with documented recovery.
- Recommend suspension of the Form 25D licence pending investigation, and inspect other batches and products of the unit, especially any preparation with a mineral ingredient.
- Sample the raw material and the water supply, and test the milling and mixing equipment surfaces.
- Consider prosecution for adulteration, and refer the supplier to the licensing authority in his State.
The special position of bhasma and rasaushadhi preparations. Classical metallic and mineral preparations are recognised in Ayurvedic practice and are not prohibited as such, but they must be manufactured as per the classical texts, hold a licence and comply with the same Schedule E1 limits. 'It is a classical preparation' relaxes nothing at the analytical stage.