Ashwagandha Quality Rumors Can Be Misleading

What the product tests and injury reports actually showed

Two commercial-product studies found reasons to distrust simple label claims. Neither followed people for harm.

One analysis tested 24 marketed products: 19 extracts and five root powders. The measured total of selected withanolides and withanosides—plant chemicals often used as label markers—fell short by at least half; in the largest mismatch, the label claimed about 35 times more than the test found. The five plain root powders met their specifications in that sample, while the extracts varied more. This was a chemistry result. It did not show that a product with a larger mismatch caused more side effects or liver injury.

A second study compared 25 products with British Pharmacopoeia and US Pharmacopeia criteria, which are published standards for identity and composition. Ten met both standards under the authors' analysis. The researchers also found a wide range of chemical signals associated with roots and above-ground parts such as leaves and stems. They cautioned that differences in testing methods and natural plant composition can contribute to those signals, so a failed criterion should not automatically be narrated as deliberate adulteration.

The 2020 Iceland and US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network report described five people with jaundice and liver injury after using ashwagandha products. All had a pattern dominated by impaired bile flow; some also had more evidence of liver-cell damage. Investigators confirmed ashwagandha in the available products and found no other known toxic compounds or trace metals. They judged the relationship to ashwagandha definite in one case, highly likely in two, probable in one and possible in one. Five cases cannot tell us the population rate, but they do not support contamination as the detected explanation.

The 2023 Indian series is even more relevant to the rumor. Researchers reviewed 23 suspected cases and included eight in their final analysis of single-ingredient preparations after excluding multi-herb products and competing liver-toxic medicines. The products included powders, tablets, syrup and tea. Five patients already had chronic liver disease. Three of those five developed sudden liver failure on top of that disease and died.

Where products were available for analysis, the investigators found ashwagandha's natural plant chemicals without detected adulteration, contamination or other liver-toxic substances. They could not retrieve every product, so “nothing was detected in the tested samples” is the correct conclusion. “Every product was proven pure” would be another overreach. Even with that limit, the series cuts directly against the claim that poor-quality Indian material was shown to cause these cases.

How “could not rule out” can become “was caused by”

In 2023, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb reported four notifications of liver toxicity in people who had used products containing ashwagandha. Its public notice explained that herbal products can be mixed up, mislabeled or contaminated, so another substance in the products could not be ruled out.

That is responsible uncertainty. It says the reports did not settle product identity and causation. Retold without the qualifier, however, it easily becomes “the products were contaminated.” Add the herb's Indian origin, and one more retelling can produce “low-quality Indian extracts caused the damage.” The final sentence sounds specific, but each added step has less evidence behind it.

What the atropine contamination abstract actually reported

A 2024 American College of Medical Toxicology meeting abstract described a 50-year-old man who developed an acute anticholinergic syndrome after taking a large spoonful of an ashwagandha powder bought online. He had a fast heart rate, dry skin and mouth, dilated pupils, urinary retention and delirium. Atropine was found in his urine and in the product, but not in a control ashwagandha product.

This is the clearest direct chain from a bad product to a harmed person in the material we reviewed. It is also a single conference abstract describing a single case. The report did not identify the product's country of origin, and the event was an acute atropine poisoning rather than the delayed impaired-bile-flow pattern in the liver case series.

A quality rumor is still a claim

“Low quality” can mean several different things. A product may contain the wrong plant, the wrong plant part, less of a compound than the label says, an undeclared drug, a heavy metal, a microbe or an allergen.

A weak extract may fail to deliver what the buyer expected. An undeclared allergen can cause an immediate reaction. A pharmaceutical contaminant can produce its own recognizable poisoning. A correctly identified herb can still cause a rare, unpredictable reaction in a susceptible person.

The product surveys give us reason to check what is in a particular bottle instead of taking its front label at face value. They do not show that Indian sourcing predicts poor quality, or that contamination caused the reported liver injuries. Those are separate claims that need their own evidence.

We would audit the claim and the supplement source separately

India is a major source of ashwagandha for the global trade; India’s agricultural plant authority^[1] described cultivation across several states. That makes an India-origin label unsurprising, so we would not buy or reject ashwagandha based on that label alone. We would ask two different questions: does the product appear to contain what it says, and is ashwagandha itself a reasonable risk for you?

For label accuracy, we would check:

• Does the label name the plant part: root, leaf, or both?
• Is it a powder or an extract? For an extract, does it name the formula or give an extraction ratio?
• If it claims a percentage of withanolides or another marker, does a test report show the measured amount in the finished product?

For cleanliness and contamination, we would check:

• Does a test report show results for heavy metals and microbes, rather than simply saying the product was tested?
• Does it identify any other contaminants tested, and state what the results mean against the laboratory's limits?

For either kind of report, the lot number should match the package. If a certification mark appears, check the certifier's public directory for the finished product and the scope of its testing. A certificate for a raw ingredient or a factory does not answer every question about the finished capsules.

“Third-party tested” is still a claim until the scope, laboratory and matching lot are visible. A certificate describes the tested lot and the substances measured.

For the health question, product quality is only one branch. Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration describes liver injury associated with ashwagandha as very rare and advises people with existing liver disorders to avoid it. A clean composition test does not cancel that warning. Yellow skin or eyes, dark urine, unusual itching or persistent nausea after starting a product deserve prompt medical attention.

This is the standard we would carry into other supplement research too: demand proof for quality claims, but do not use quality language to explain away an ingredient's documented risk. The same standard applies in the other direction. A real adverse event does not prove a rumor about a country, a factory or a price tier.

What would change our mind

A stronger country-of-origin claim would need comparative evidence: verified manufacturing locations, matched product categories, reliable exposure counts and confirmed adverse-event rates. It would also need laboratory analysis that ties a specific defect to the clinical pattern. We did not find that study.

A contamination explanation for the liver cases would become more convincing if investigators repeatedly found the same undeclared compound in implicated products and showed that it can produce the same delayed injury dominated by impaired bile flow. The atropine case does not do that; its symptoms and timing were different.

Independent testing across many brands and batches could change how much we trust ashwagandha labels. If it repeatedly confirmed the stated plant part and marker amounts, we would have less reason to question those claims. The two product surveys we have now found substantial mismatches, especially among extracts.

The bottom line

Product tests and isolated cases of contamination give us reason to question some ashwagandha labels, but they do not show that every bottle is contaminated. Liver injury has been reported very rarely, including in cases where the analyzed products had no detected adulterant. The atropine poisoning was a separate case involving an unknown powder bought online. None of the cases show that the fact that the supplement was sourced from India was in fact the cause of the injuries. We support buying products with 3rd party testing and quality certificates, but the frequency, methods of testing and what's actually tested can vary significantly between various quality labels, and digging deeper into what's actually tested always makes sense to us.