[MPWG] Hoodia - The Catch-22 of Using Traditional Knowledge for Mass Consumption

[Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov]

Hoodia - The Catch-22 of Using Traditional Knowledge for Mass Consumption

For some reason, someone, somewhere decided that plant conservation is only
relevant to some people when they know "what's in it for them."

Recent calls for conservation of medicinal plants have pointed to the idea
that traditionally used medicine has global health applications and,
therefore, should be conserved.  But the truth is, advocating global use of
medicinal plants can be the ultimate Catch-22.  Hoodia's rise through the
global marketplace provides a case study for the myriad issues that arise
when traditionally used botanicals are brought into the mainstream.  Not
all of them good - not all of them bad.

Hoodia species are succulents that grow in the deserts of Southern Africa.
For thousands of years, San bushmen have controlled their hunger during
long trips or in times of food shortage by chewing Hoodia stems.  In recent
times, the potential global market for this traditional knowledge has grown
ENORMOUSLY (pun intended!).  Countries on all major continents have
declared obesity epidemics.  The problem officially went global when, in
October 2004, it was declared at the First International Obesity Meeting,
"the global epidemic of obesity is completely out of control" (2).
Obviously, then, many people could easily be convinced that this genus is
worth keeping around.

The Catch-22?  Hoodia is primarily wild-harvested and global demand for
this product, without proper management, has the potential to devastate the
resource.  But, the complexity of properly managing medicinal plant
resources makes it very difficult for the general public, to whom this
material would be mass marketed, to know whether they are doing the
resource any harm (or any good, for that matter).

In a message about Hoodia that I posted to the listserve in January 2005
(3), I raised many of the issues that arise when traditional plant usage is
marketed to the masses.  Questions about population dynamics and
sustainability, ethnobotany and benefit-sharing, patents and indigenous
knowledge protection.  In addition, the entire genus of Hoodia was recently
listed on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; http://www.cites.org/).
Thus, Hoodia provides insight to yet another dimension of botanical product
development: regulation and conservation.  Hoodia has it all!

According to a recent article in the New York Times (1), "In the past few
years, after reports that Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, had begun
looking into hoodia's potential as an appetite-control drug, the market for
hoodia that has been dried, powdered and fashioned into capsules has been
growing fast. "The demand is very high, and the supply is ridiculously
low," said Hugh Lamond, who runs Herbal Teas of Africa, one of a handful of
hoodia exporters. "It's like shark-feeding time."

In the following excerpt from same the article, two important points are
raised by Dr. Madelyn Fernstrom, director of weight management at the
University of Pittsburgh:  "...even if eating the plant dampens the San
people's hunger, she said, that does not mean that processed supplements
necessarily work the same way. For one thing, people who take the
supplements do not get as much exercise as the San people do and have
easier access to food" (1).

I would venture to guess that many of the misconceptions about
traditionally-used botanicals (and their efficacy) are borne from the
belief that: 1) the processed form will result in the same effect, and 2)
the botanical will work magic.  The fallacy in these two beliefs is rarely
acknowledged and, when a botanical product doesn't "prove itself," it
further cements the idea that botanicals are quackery.  The New York Times
article goes on to raise several other insightful issues that the public is
often not made aware of: Issues of efficacy, knowledge transfer, synthesis
of active compounds, and safety concerns.

So, to get back to my Catch-22 assertion, I merely wish to point out that
advocating traditional knowledge for mass consumption in the name of
conservation carries with it a hefty responsibility to educate the masses
that there may be more to plant conservation than merely "what's in it for
them."

-Patricia De Angelis

More information
(1) An appetite killer for a killer appetite?  Not Yet; By MARY DUENWALD ;
New York Times; Published: April 19, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/nutrition/19cons.html

(2) Obesity epidemic "out of control"  ; By ANIA LICHTAROWICZ; BBC News;
Published October 31, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3969693.stm

(3) To see my January 13, 2005 post to the MPWG listserve, go to the
archives at:
http://cpanel.wispme.com/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/


Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural
resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>