Bulbine natalensis – sterol and sterolin potency
by Anthony Roberts

At the moment, there is quite a bit of online chatter regarding the potential microbial contamination of sterols and sterolins found in Bulbine natalensis. And although this information may seem important, it actually means a lot less than everyone thinks. In fact, it’s almost totally…but not quite entirely…irrelevant.

The problem comes down to a study called:

Traditional herbal medicines: potential degradation of sterols and sterolins by microbial contaminants

The important thing to remember about this study (download the PDF here), is that the research wasn’t carried out on herbs that were harvested and UV sterilized for export. The herbs used in this study were purchased raw and unprocessed, from local stores in South Africa. And, if you check the references for the study in question, you find that the cause of the microbial contamination is:

“Significant contamination by bacteria and fungi suggested inadequate storage facilities and poor hygienic practice during preparation of these medicines.”

Therefore, although there is potential microbial contaminants in a raw herb purchased from a store in South Africa, that’s really not the same thing you’d find in a nutritional supplement. Any good harvester would have sanitary storage contditions and hygenic practices.

Herbs that are exported from South Africa are checked for contamination upon leaving the country of origin, and upon entering the destination country. So really, although some people around the industry are talking about Bulbine natalensis having a high potential for microbial contamination, they’re not talking about what you’d find on the American (or Canadian) supplement market. To draw an analogy, it’s like saying that because an orange will spoil within a week after picking, your vitamin C tablets might spoil too.

In fact, the conclusion of the study is completely inapplicable to anything we’d be discussing, with reference to herbal-based testosterone boosters. Anyone claiming otherwise has misinterpreted the study, not read the study, or is a liar.

source