May 19, 2026 — The Karnataka High Court, the highest judicial authority of the Indian state of Karnataka, has issued an interim stay on the enforcement of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) advisory that sought to ban the use of ashwagandha leaves or extracts that contain leaf in health supplements. The court’s decision comes in response to petitions filed by industry stakeholders challenging the April 16 advisory, which clarified that only ashwagandha roots and their extracts are permitted under current regulations.
Petitioners argued that the abrupt restriction bypassed formal regulatory amendment procedures under existing food safety frameworks and would severely disrupt longstanding manufacturing practices. The High Court granted the interim stay specifically to the petitioners involved in the case to provide temporary relief while the legal arguments are considered. The court has scheduled a follow-up hearing for June 8, to allow regulatory authorities time to file their formal objections.
Why does agricultural policy tend to ignore the farmers?
We see the impact now in real-time, in India.
The recent ashwagandha leaf ban In India is taking food off the table for an untold number of farmers, and for no good reason.
An estimated average of 20% of farmer net profits disappeared overnight, based on the whims of bureaucrats.
A recent farm-level economics paper offers a baseline, with a net return over variable cost of about $356 per acre. Based on a reasonable analysis, the leaf is worth about $72 per acre from existing market demand.
That may not sound like much to many people, but it is food on the table for rural families in India.
—-
A farmer grows a plant. If one part of that plant was previously sold, and is then quickly removed from the legal market, the economics of the farmer suddenly changes for the worse.
Land preparation, sowing, irrigation, harvesting, processing and transport costs don’t just disappear when the leaf market disappears.
The farmer is simply paid substantially less for their crop.
And if they don’t profit from their crop, they will decide not to grow it.
The regions where ashwagandha is cultivated — like Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat — are characterized by poverty and low agricultural potential.
Not much else can be cultivated in these regions without the money for irrigation and fertilizer that ashwagandha farmers often don’t have.
And as reported to the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance, some root-only buyers in India are prohibiting their farmers from selling leaf — forcing them to plow their money back into the soil.
20% of net profit isn’t a rounding error for these farmers. That leaf is literally the difference between survival and starvation for their family.
Stay tuned for more detailed economic impact analyses related to the leaf ban on ashwagandha farmers.
Technical Rebuttal to Recent Claims Regarding Ashwagandha Leaf, “Adulteration,” Method Validity, and the April 2026 Indian Regulatory Actions is a technical position report addressing recent regulatory and media claims that equate Withania somnifera leaf use with adulteration. The report argues that this framing is scientifically overbroad and technically imprecise. It distinguishes between undisclosed plant-part substitution, disclosed use of leaf or root-and-leaf material, and unsupported potency claims based on inadequately disclosed or non-fit-for-purpose analytical methods.
The central thesis is that “adulteration” should not be used as a categorical descriptor for all ashwagandha products containing leaf material. If a product is represented as ashwagandha root or root extract but contains undeclared leaf or aerial parts, that may constitute adulteration, misbranding, or failure to meet specification, depending on the relevant jurisdiction and claim. However, if a product is accurately described as containing leaf, aerial parts, or root-and-leaf material, the appropriate evaluation is not categorical condemnation but a technical assessment of identity, composition, specifications, safety data, exposure, labeling, and regulatory category.
The report also identifies a second and independent quality concern: the validity of “withanolides” potency claims. It argues that a generic percentage claim, such as “5% withanolides,” is not scientifically meaningful unless the analytical method is disclosed or otherwise sufficiently characterized, the compounds measured are clearly identified, the method is fit for the matrix tested, and the result is reproducible. A certificate of analysis reporting a potency value does not itself establish that the claim is valid. The analytical method must support the specific claim being made.
A major technical contribution of the report is its separation of three issues often conflated in public discussion: first, undisclosed substitution of leaf for root; second, disclosed and characterized use of leaf, aerial parts, or root-and-leaf material; and third, potency claims made without valid analytical support. The report emphasizes that these are distinct compliance and scientific questions. Undisclosed substitution concerns identity and labeling. Disclosed plant-part use concerns safety, exposure, specification, and jurisdictional status. Unsupported potency claims concern method validity, GMP compliance, label substantiation, and reproducibility.
The report critiques the April 2026 Indian regulatory actions by the Ministry of Ayush and FSSAI as establishing or reiterating a root-only position for certain Indian regulatory categories, including Ayush products and Indian food products. It argues that these actions should not be automatically interpreted as a global scientific finding that leaf-containing ashwagandha products are unsafe, adulterated, or unlawful in other jurisdictions. The report stresses that Indian regulatory decisions may affect supply and compliance in India and related markets, but should not be generalized beyond their legal and evidentiary scope without independent scientific review.
The report gives particular attention to the role of analytical method validity in ashwagandha quality control. It notes that different methods may measure different compounds or compound classes, including selected withanolide aglycones, withanolide glycosides, withaferin A, calculated equivalents, hydrolyzed totals, or chromatographic fingerprints. Therefore, “total withanolides” is method-dependent and may be incomplete or misleading unless the analytes, method, matrix, validation status, and intended analytical purpose are disclosed.
The document proposes a technical framework for ashwagandha quality assessment. This framework includes botanical identity, plant-part confirmation, marker-compound quantification, chromatographic fingerprinting, detection of undeclared substitution, fit-for-purpose potency testing, safety-relevant constituent limits, batch-to-batch consistency, finished-product verification, and label-claim substantiation. These elements are presented as necessary to distinguish legitimate quality concerns from commercially convenient or scientifically unsupported narratives.
The report also challenges the assumption that tradition alone determines safety or legality. It acknowledges the long historical use of ashwagandha root in Ayurveda but argues that modern commercial extracts must be evaluated by composition, dose, exposure, manufacturing process, marker profile, contaminant profile, analytical method validity, and clinical or toxicological data. Conversely, it argues that a less traditional plant part is not automatically unsafe merely because its historical use differs from root. Safety must be evaluated by the actual article of commerce and its intended conditions of use.
The report’s discussion of public and trade-media framing is also significant. It argues that sponsored or commercially interested narratives have blurred the distinction between regulatory action, scientific consensus, promotional claims, and independent technical analysis. The document does not reject regulation or enforcement. Rather, it calls for transparency regarding the evidence used by regulators, expert-committee composition, conflicts of interest, stakeholder submissions, analytical methods cited in public claims, and the rationale for treating leaf use as a categorical prohibition rather than a composition- and exposure-specific safety question.
The report concludes that ashwagandha quality standards should not be reduced to a simple “root good, leaf bad” framework. A scientifically defensible approach should evaluate whether the species is correctly identified, the plant part is truthfully labeled, the extract is fully characterized, potency claims are method-valid, safety data match the article of commerce, and claims are substantiated by relevant evidence. Under this approach, undisclosed substitution and unsupported potency claims are legitimate compliance concerns, while disclosed root-and-leaf use requires product-specific evaluation rather than categorical classification as adulteration.
Ashwagandha: Is It Safe? Part 1: A Regulatory Review by Brendler et al. 2025 provides a comparative regulatory analysis of Withania somnifera across major global markets, with particular attention to how safety concerns have been interpreted by competent authorities in Europe, India, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia. The paper is not a toxicological risk assessment in itself; rather, it evaluates the regulatory consequences of emerging safety concerns, adverse-event reporting, and inconsistent classification of ashwagandha as a food, food supplement, traditional medicine, natural health product, or therapeutic good.
The central regulatory issue identified by the authors is the increasing scrutiny of ashwagandha in the European Union. EU concern has intensified around potential reproductive, endocrine, neurological, immune, and hepatic effects, culminating in a recommendation by the Heads of Food Safety Agencies working group for an Article 8 procedure under Regulation (EC) No. 1925/2006. If pursued, this procedure could result in ashwagandha being placed under Union scrutiny or potentially prohibited from use in food supplements. Because ashwagandha is not currently recognized as a traditional herbal medicinal product in the EU, removal from the food supplement category could effectively remove the ingredient from much of the EU marketplace.
The review demonstrates that regulatory responses to ashwagandha safety signals remain highly heterogeneous. Denmark has banned its use in food supplements; Poland has adopted intake limits; France, Germany, the Netherlands, and other authorities have issued precautionary advisories or initiated risk assessments; while several other jurisdictions continue to permit ashwagandha under notification, case-by-case evaluation, or existing botanical frameworks. This regulatory fragmentation reflects not only differences in legal classification, but also differences in how authorities interpret incomplete toxicological evidence, traditional-use data, clinical experience, adverse-event reports, and uncertainty around dose, extract type, plant part, and compositional standardization.
In contrast, India regulates ashwagandha within long-established Ayush medicinal systems and associated quality frameworks. The paper notes that Indian law provides mechanisms for regulating Ayush medicines, including quality, safety, efficacy, labeling, manufacturing standards, GMP requirements, pharmacopoeial standards, and pharmacovigilance. Ashwagandha is not listed among poisonous substances under the relevant Indian Ayush rules, and standards for identity, purity, and strength have been established through Indian pharmacopoeial and standards-setting bodies. This contrast is important: jurisdictions with deep traditional-use frameworks may evaluate ashwagandha through structured medicinal and pharmacopoeial systems, while other markets often assess it through food-supplement risk paradigms that may not fully account for traditional use, preparation form, or exposure history.
The authors also describe distinct North American and Australian approaches. In the United States, ashwagandha is primarily regulated as a dietary supplement under DSHEA, although some proprietary forms have been self-affirmed GRAS for specific food uses. The paper emphasizes that U.S. regulatory status depends heavily on intended use, product claims, manufacturing method, and whether a given preparation would be considered an old dietary ingredient or a new dietary ingredient. In Canada, ashwagandha is permitted in licensed Natural Health Products under a premarket authorization framework, but Health Canada has not accepted ashwagandha root extract as a supplemental ingredient for supplemented foods. In Australia, ashwagandha is permitted in listed complementary medicines, subject to therapeutic-goods quality and pharmacovigilance requirements, while its sale as a conventional food is more restricted because it has been treated as a non-traditional or novel food requiring safety assessment.
The paper’s conclusion is directly relevant to the mission of the Ashwagandha Standards Alliance. Brendler et al. argue that the present regulatory landscape is being shaped by inconsistent safety interpretations, incomplete product-specific toxicology, unclear compositional comparability among extracts, and insufficient transparency in specifications and analytical methods. They call for balanced risk–benefit assessment rather than reflexive prohibition, and they specifically recommend that manufacturers of branded extracts publish OECD-aligned toxicological investigations and disclose specifications using non-proprietary assay methods that permit comparative evaluation of dose, composition, and duration of use.
For ASA, the paper supports three core priorities: first, the need to distinguish safety questions by plant part, preparation type, dose, population, and duration of use; second, the need for transparent, reproducible analytical methods and public specifications; and third, the need for regulatory engagement that addresses legitimate uncertainty without collapsing the category into undifferentiated claims of toxicity. The review shows that ashwagandha’s future will likely depend less on whether regulators identify isolated safety signals, and more on whether industry and scientific stakeholders can provide coherent, product-specific, methodologically transparent evidence that allows those signals to be interpreted in context.
