Historical Aspects of Herbal Use and Comparison of Current Regulations of Herbal Products between Mexico, Canada and the United States of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased life expectancy and high costs of medicines and medical care have led to the use of herbal products. However, these items may contain toxic compounds that have an impact on public health. We will focus on the regulatory aspects and differences of these products marketed in the North American region (USA-Mexico-Canada) from government websites and selected literature. Mexico has an ancestral tradition of using plants for the treatment, improvement, and maintenance of human health as compared with Canada and the USA Currently, the use of herbal products in this region has a regulatory framework. The legal framework in these three countries is related to their history, idiosyncrasies, socio-economic and cultural aspects. Therefore, there are different public policies for herbal products consumed in the region. Mexico has a more specific classification of these products. In Canada, all herbal products are classified as natural health products and the safety and efficacy must be scientifically proven. In the USA, the development of botanical drugs is very recent. In particular, both herbal products classified as food supplements in Mexico and dietary supplements in the USA may have risks in both safety and efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".