An identification test compares a sample of the extract with a reference for the plant named on the specification. “Positive” or “complies” means that the two matched in that test. How much the match proves depends on what the test can tell apart.
The identification row is often the shortest on a botanical extract specification: a method in a few letters, or none, and the word “positive” or “complies”. It answers a buyer’s first question, whether the powder comes from the plant on the label, and for an extract that question is harder than it looks. A 2023 review by authors from the American Botanical Council and partner organisations notes that as the botanical ingredient trade, especially in Western countries, “has moved from crude botanicals to more concentrated forms such as extracts and essential oils, the establishment of the proper identity and authenticity of an ingredient or a finished product has become more challenging”.1
The review also cites a figure from the published literature. Two surveys of that literature “found the same percentage of adulterated materials (ca. 27%)”, whether the researchers had used genetic tests or chromatographic and spectroscopic ones.1 That is a share of the ingredients and products examined in published studies, not a rate for the market. The review adds that adulterated products “usually represent a form of economic fraud”, although mistaken identification and confusion over names can also be causes, and that most types of adulteration “do not constitute a safety risk, although there are some notable exceptions”.1
Here are six checks to make on this row. They draw on that review, on European guidance for herbal medicines and on food law in the United States and the European Union. Our earlier articles covered the specification, the extract ratio, the Certificate of Analysis, the solvent and carrier, the heavy metal and pesticide rows, the assay method and the microbiological rows; this one stays with identity.
01 / THE NAME
Which plant, and which part of it?
An identification confirms a name, so the name has to be exact. European guidance for herbal medicines defines plant material by “the plant part used and the botanical name according to the binomial system (genus, species, variety and author)”.2 For an extract it asks first for “a statement of the botanical source, and the type of preparation (e.g. dry or liquid extract)”.2
A common name is not enough. The review counts “mistaken species identification, confusion of vernacular names, or permissible interchangeable use of plants” among the causes of incorrectly labelled products.1
The plant part belongs to the name. Different parts of one plant can hold the same marker compounds, the constituents chosen to be measured in quality control, in different proportions.1 Among the ways of supplying the expected markers from cheaper material the review lists “the addition of extracts from the same plant but from a different plant part”.1
Check: that the specification gives the botanical name and the plant part, and that the identification row refers to both.
02 / THE TEST
Which test stands behind the word “positive”?
For dried plant material there are several ways to identify. European guidance expects tests that are “usually a combination of three or more of the following: Macroscopical characters, microscopical characters, chromatographic fingerprinting procedures, chemical reactions”.2
An extract no longer has the form or the tissues of the plant, so identifying it rests mainly on its chemistry. For extracts the tests the guidance names are chromatographic, and it asks that “a characteristic fingerprint chromatogram should be established”.2 It defines chromatographic fingerprinting as the use of chromatography “to create a characteristic chromatographic pattern of phytochemical constituents”: a picture of the mixture, not a measurement of one compound.2
The methods a row may name include thin-layer chromatography (TLC), its high-performance form (HPTLC) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The review notes that TLC and HPTLC “are among the routine assays used for authentication of botanical ingredients and are usually part of the identification assays included in official pharmacopeias”.1
United States law for dietary supplements leaves the company that makes a supplement a wider choice for its own tests. They must be “appropriate, scientifically valid methods” and include at least one of five kinds: gross organoleptic analysis (by look, smell, taste and feel), macroscopic analysis, microscopic analysis, chemical analysis, or other scientifically valid methods.3 A row that says only “positive” does not show which kind stands behind it.
Check: the method named in the row, and not only the result.
03 / THE REFERENCE
Compared with what?
A fingerprint identifies nothing on its own; it is read against a reference. European guidance says what a reference standard may be: “a botanical sample of the herbal substance or a sample of the herbal preparation (e.g. extract or tincture) or a chemically defined substance”.2 Where a pharmacopoeia provides reference standards, they “should be used as primary standards”; where it does not, others “should be established”.2
A reference standard is chosen for a purpose. The guidance says that reference standards “should meet quality standards appropriate for their intended use”, and that those of the pharmacopoeia “are only demonstrated to be suitable for the use indicated”. A standard intended for an assay is therefore not, by that fact alone, a reference for identity.2
To detect a substitute, the review’s benchmark is material from the right plant. Where marker compounds have been supplied from a cheaper plant, the review finds that in most cases “a comparison of the chromatographic fingerprint with an extract made from botanically authenticated material is suitable to detect the fraud”.1 Botanically authenticated material is material whose plant has itself been identified. Where a plant is not described in the European Pharmacopoeia or another pharmacopoeia recognised in European law, the guidance expects “a herbarium sample of the whole plant or part of the plant”, a preserved specimen kept for reference, to be available.2
Check: what the sample was compared with: a pharmacopoeial reference standard, an authenticated sample of the plant or of its extract, or a single marker substance.
04 / SPECIFICITY
Could a substitute pass the same test?
European guidance sets the aim. Identification tests for an extract “should be specific for the herbal preparation and optimally should be discriminatory with regard to substitutes/adulterants that are likely to occur”.2 It also says what falls short: “Identification solely by chromatographic retention time, for example, is not regarded as being specific”. Retention time is the time a compound takes to pass through the column. A combination of chromatographic tests, or of tests in a single procedure, “may be acceptable”.2
The review explains why this matters. In most cases, it says, “adulteration is done by providing botanical ingredients that appear to comply with specifications and standardization requirements for specific marker/active compounds but, in fact, simply exploit the lack of specificity of the test method used to measure them”.1
Three of the routes it describes show how. The marker compounds are supplied from a cheaper plant: goldenseal root extracts, often standardised to a stated content of the alkaloids berberine and hydrastine, “may be subject to adulteration with other berberine-containing extracts”. A closely related species is substituted, as when black cohosh is replaced with Actaea species of Asian origin. Or the extract is fortified “with a pure or highly purified chemical marker”, which the review counts among the most challenging types of adulteration to detect.1
A test that reads the whole pattern is harder to deceive than one that looks for a marker, though it is not proof against every substitute. HPTLC, relying on “an entire chemical fingerprint”, “is not easily deceived, although methods assessing solely the presence of one or several chemical markers, which may lack specificity, are still common”. Many of the markers used in pharmacopoeial HPLC methods, the review adds, are “quite often molecules that are found in many plants and, therefore, are not suitable to identify a particular species”.1
No single test settles every case. The review concludes that “there is no standard quality control approach that can be used to detect all types of fraud”. For botanical ingredients “confirmed as being subjected to adulteration” it would ideally have a protocol “which includes multiple complementary analytical methods”.1
Check: whether the test reads the whole pattern or looks for one or two markers, and which likely substitutes it has been shown to tell apart.
05 / THE AMOUNT
Does “positive” say how much of the plant is there?
It does not. European guidance has the fingerprint established “by means of qualitative analysis”.2 The review notes that HPTLC methods “usually are not used in a quantitative manner”. Ingredients diluted with spent material, from which part or all of the valuable constituents have been removed, “have all the characteristic markers, and therefore may pass an identity test despite the low concentration present”.1
Undeclared additions can escape the test as well. A declared carrier is a different matter; the review’s point concerns undeclared excipients, added substances such as maltodextrin or lactose, which “do not or barely migrate” under the conditions set out in the pharmacopoeias “and hence may be overlooked by the analyst assessing the chromatogram”. A modified test, it adds, detects them easily.1
A DNA test answers a narrower question still: which species, not which part of it or how much. Many genetic methods, the review says, “are relatively easy to fool, i.e., by using a different part of the labeled plant” or “by adding inert materials (lactose, maltodextrin) that do not contain any DNA”. It adds that purposeful attempts to fool genetic methods “are likely very rare”; the point here is what such a test cannot see.1
So read the identification row together with the assay, the extract ratio and the carrier line. Identity says which plant; the assay, the extract ratio and the carrier line together say how concentrated the extract is and what else is in the powder. Where a non-specific assay is justified, European guidance gives an example of the pairing: “a combination of the assay and a suitable test for identification (e.g. fingerprint chromatography) can be used”.2
Check: the identification row together with the assay, the extract ratio and the carrier line.
06 / YOUR OWN TEST
Who has to confirm the identity?
In the United States the rule for dietary supplements gives the answer: the company that makes the supplement. It must establish an identity specification for each component it uses.4 Before using a dietary ingredient it must conduct “at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity” of it, unless the agency exempts it. Only for the identity of other components, and for the other component specifications, does the rule offer the alternative of relying on the supplier’s Certificate of Analysis, and then under stated conditions.3
European Union food law comes at the question through the information given to consumers with the finished food. Food information “shall not be misleading”, particularly “as to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition”. The operator under whose name the food is marketed, or the importer where that operator is outside the Union, must ensure that the information is present and accurate. A business that supplies other businesses with food not meant for the final consumer must give them “sufficient information to enable them, where appropriate, to meet their obligations under paragraph 2”, the paragraph that sets that duty.5 Among the aims of the general food law, under the protection of consumers’ interests, are the prevention of “fraudulent or deceptive practices” and of “the adulteration of food”.6 Neither regulation prescribes an identity test.
So the duty to be sure of the name rests with the company that makes or markets the finished product; under European law the supplier must, among other duties, give it the information it needs. Settle before the order how identity will be confirmed on delivery: by which method, against which reference, and on which batch. A sample is the practical first step. You can request one for ingredient evaluation and have it tested; ask for the certificate of the same batch, so that the two sets of results can be compared.
Check: who will test identity on receipt, by which method and against which reference, and that the result you are shown belongs to the batch you receive.
WHAT TO SEND
State the identification you need with your enquiry
When the identification test matters to your product, tell us:
- the ingredient, and the plant part if more than one is offered;
- your intended application and destination market;
- the botanical name your specification or label uses;
- the identification method your quality team uses, and the reference it compares with;
- whether your specification requires an identification result on the certificate of each batch;
- whether you will test the delivery yourself, and by which method;
- which technical documents you need, such as a specification sheet or Certificate of Analysis;
- your name, company and contact details.
We offer technical documentation and COA support, and the available document set is confirmed for each ingredient and project. Specification ranges in our catalogue are references, and feasibility, availability and price are confirmed with your quotation.
This article describes a published review, published guidance and law and states no identification method or result for YOHOLIFE® ingredients; the specification and documents for a selected grade are confirmed when you enquire. Source 1 is a published review and is cited for what it reports; the plants named as examples are taken from it. Source 2 was written for herbal medicines and is cited here for its definitions and approach. Sources 3 and 4 are United States law; sources 5 and 6 are European Union food law. Great Britain has its own versions of the food rules cited, which are not covered here. Sources were checked on 13 November 2026 and are given for orientation, not as regulatory advice.
