Medicinal markets2013

Changes in the trade in native medicinal plants in Brazilianpublic markets

Maria das Graças Lins Brandão &

Gustavo Pereira Cosenza & Flávia Liparini Pereira &

Ariela Silva Vasconcelos & ChristopherWilliam Fagg

Received: 16 June 2012 /Accepted: 3 January 2013# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Plants continue to be an important source ofnew bioactive substances. Brazil is one of the world’smega-diverse countries, with 20 % of the world’sflora. However, the accelerated destruction of botani-cally rich ecosystems has contributed to a gradual lossof native medicinal species. In previous study, wehave observed a fast and intensive change in trade ofmedicinal plants in an area of Amazon, where humanoccupation took place. In this study, we surveyed 15public markets in different parts of Brazil in searchof samples of 40 plants used in traditional medi-cine and present in first edition of BrazilianOfficial Pharmacopoeia (FBRAS), published in1926. Samples of plants commercialized as thesame vernacular name as in Pharmacopoeia wereacquired and submitted to analysis for authentica-tion. A total of 252 plant samples were purchased,but the laboratory analyses showed that only one-half of the samples (126, 50.2 %) were confirmed

as the same plant species so named in FBRAS. The highnumber of unauthenticated samples demonstrates a lossof knowledge of the original native species. The prox-imity of the market from areas in which the plant occursdoes not guarantee that trade of false samples occurs.The impact of the commerce of the substitute species ontheir conservation and in public health is worrying.Strategies are necessary to promote the better use andconservation of this rich heritage offered by Brazilianbiodiversity.

Keywords Popular markets . Medicinalplants . Biodiversity . Conservation . Brazil

Introduction

Plants continue to be an important source of new bioac-tive substances, and the economic interest in prospec-ting for drug discovery is still high. It is estimated that atleast 25 % of all modern medicines are derived, eitherdirectly or indirectly, from medicinal plants (Newmanand Cragg 2012). In the case of antitumoral medicines,this percentage may be as high as 60 % (Brower 2008).The global market for plant-derived medicine, estimatedat US$ 83 billion annually in 2008, is increasing expo-nentially (WHO 2011). Central and South America arerich in biodiversity, and the native species of the conti-nent have yielded many important substances: the anti-malarial quinine from the bark of Peruvian Cinchonaspecies (Rubiaceae); pilocarpine from the leaves of

Environ Monit AssessDOI 10.1007/s10661-013-3081-y

M. d. G. L. Brandão (*) :G. P. Cosenza : F. L. Pereira :A. S. VasconcelosDATAPLAMT—Museu de História Natural e JardimBotânico & Faculdade de Farmácia, UniversidadeFederal de Minas Gerais,31080-010 Belo Horizonte, Brazile-mail: [email protected]

C. W. FaggFaculdade de Ceilandia & Departamento de Botânica,Universidade de Brasília,Campus Darcy Ribeiro,70919-900 Brasília, Brazil

Brazilian Pilocarpus (Rutaceae), used to treat glauco-ma; the sweetener stevioside from the leaves ofParaguayan Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) Bertoni(Asteraceae); and diosgenin, used as a prototype forthe production of oral contraceptives by the pharmaceu-tical industry, from tubers of the Mexican Dioscorea(Dioscoreaceae). Interest in South American specieshas recently been increasing, and the potential of certainspecies has been evaluated in several studies(Desmarchelier 2010; Oliveira et al. 2012).

Brazil is one of the world’s mega-diversecountries, with well over 40,000 different plantspecies. These species represent 20 % of theworld’s flora. However, the accelerated destructionof botanically rich ecosystems has contributed to agradual loss of native medicinal species (Shanleyand Luz 2003; Voeks and Leony 2004; Shanleyand Rosa 2005). Currently, only 7 % of theAtlantic Forest is preserved, and other ecosystems,such as the savannas (Cerrado) and Caatinga, aregradually being replaced by monocultures of euca-lyptus, sugarcane, soybeans and livestock (Dean1996; Sawyer 2008). The growing conversion ofnatural habitats to agricultural land, pastures, plan-tations and urban areas continues, propelled byincreasing human population size and by the ac-celerating demand for resources. This situationhighlights the importance of recovering informa-tion regarding the traditional uses of plants, toevaluate their potential and promote the adequateexploration and conservation of these species.

Our interest in this study began with a previousobservation of rapid and dramatic changes occurringin the trade in native species in the public markets ofan Amazonian region recently occupied by settlers(Brandão et al. 2004). In 1984, while conducting re-search on malaria control, we conducted interviewsand collected species in São Felix do Xingu, a smallcity in the state of Pará, to test the biological activity ofthese species against malaria (Brandão et al. 1992). Atthat time, São Félix do Xingu was located in themiddle of a tropical forest, and the population gaineda living primarily from forest products. When wevisited the city again in 2001, pastures and crops hadreplaced all of the forested area, and many peoplewere no longer familiar with the medicinal specieswe collected in the 1980s. Commercially manufac-tured medicine was available in several drugstores,and the public markets no longer sold Amazonian

botanical species. The trade in medicinal plants wasbased exclusively on plants native to other ecosys-tems. These plants included Brazilian arnica(Lychnophora spp. Asteraceae), Brazilian sarsaparilla(Herreria spp. Herreriaceae) and congonha (Rudgeaviburnoides (Cham.) Benth. Rubiaceae) from theCerrado (Brazilian savannah) of Minas Gerais andGoiás. Species from other countries or cultures werealso found including chamomile (Matricaria recutitavar. recutita L.) and boldo do Chile (Peumus boldusMolina). Although they are native to a distant region(the Andes in Chile), the leaves of P. boldus werewidely sold under the curious name of “flor doAmazonas” (Amazonian flower) in the markets thatwe visited. This worsening situation impelled us toverify how and where other plant species used duringhistorical times in Brazilian traditional medicine areused in present-day commerce. In this study, we sur-veyed 15 public markets in different parts of Brazil insearch of samples of 40 plants described in the firstedition of the Brazilian Official Pharmacopoeia, pub-lished in 1926.

Methods

Selection of the plants for the study

We selected 40 Brazilian native medicinal species(Table 1) described in the first edition of the BrazilianOfficial Pharmacopoeia (FBRAS) (PharmacopoeiaBrasileira 1926). Pharmacopoeias are governmental pub-lications in which the specifications for particular medi-cines are established by regulation. The first edition ofFBRAS was published in 1926, at a time when mostmedicines were prepared primarily from plant extracts.Another reason for the selection of these 40 plant speciesfor study was the existence of a reference sample of eachplant in the medicinal plant collection of the FederalUniversity of Minas Gerais (DATAPLAMT/UFMG).Current botanical names were checked in websites ofMissouri Botanical Garden, IPNI and The Plant List.The native vegetation considered in this study is foundin six different Brazilian ecosystems (Fig. 1). Data on theBrazilian ecosystems in which each plant occurs werefound on the website www.floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br. If aplant belonging to a particular ecosystem was also foundin a market located in that ecosystem, the plant wasidentified with the symbol “#” in the Table 1.

Environ Monit Assess

http://www.floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br

Tab

le1

Num

berof

acqu

ired/authenticated

nativ

emedicinalplantsfrom

publicmarketsof

theno

rthern

(NO),no

rtheastern

(NE),southw

estern

(SW),central(CE)andsouthern

(SO)

region

sof

Brazilandreferences

toothersimilarstud

ies

Fam

ilyspecies

Com

mon

names

Part

Num

berof

acqu

ired/authentic

samples

andreferences

Total

NO

NE

SW

CE

SO

ADOXACEAE

Sambu

cusau

stralis

Cham.&

Schltd

l.Sabug

ueiro

flo

0/0(b)#

0/0(b*,d,l,o

,w,z)#

2/2(i)#

0/0

2/2(c*)

#4/4

ALISMATA

CEAE

Echinod

orus

macroph

yllus(K

unth.)Micheli

±Chapéude

couro

lvs

0/0(b)#

0/0(b*,l)#

3/3(a,i)

#0/0(f,h)#

0/0

3/3

ANACARDIA

CEAE

Ana

cardium

occidentaleL.±

Cajueiro

wod

0/0(b,g)#

2/0(b*,d,l,o

,w,y,z)#

3/0(a*,a,i)#

2/0#

0/0

7/0

Schinu

sterebinthifoliu

sRaddi

Aroeira

brk

0/0

2/2(l)#

3/0(a,i,m,s,v)#

1/1#

0/0#

6/3

APOCYNACEAE

Geissosperm

umlaeve(Vell.)

Miers±

Pau

pereira

brk

0/0#

0/0#

1/0(d*,i,s,v)#

0/0#

0/0

1/0

Himatan

thus

lancifo

lia(M

üll.Arg.)Woo

dson

±Ago

niada

brk

0/0(b)

2/0#

2/0(a*,d*

)#0/0

0/0

4/0

AQUIFOLIA

CEAE

Ilex

paragu

ariensisA.St.-Hil.

Ervamate

lvs

3/3

0/0(l,o)#

0/0#

0/0#

6/6(n)#

9/9

ARISTOLOCHIA

CEAE

Aristolochiacymbifera

Mart.

Jarrinha

rts

0/0

1/0#

3/0(a,i,u)

#2/0(h)

0/0

6/0

ASTERACEAE

Achyroclin

esatureioides

(Lam

.)DC.

Macela

flo

0/0(g)

0/0#

6/6(a*,a,i,m

,v)#

2/2(f)

6/6(c*,n)

#14

/14

Baccharistrimera(Less.)DC.±

Carqu

eja

wpl

0/0

0/0(b*,e,l,o

,w)#

4/4(a,i,m,t,u)

#0/0(f,h,q)#

3/3(j,n)#

7/7

Mikan

iaglom

erataSpreng.

orM.pa

niculata

DC.±

Guaco

lvs

0/0

0/0#

4/2(a,i,m)#

3/1(q)

0/0#

7/3

Mikan

iahirsutissimaDC.±

Cipócabeludo

lvs,flo

0/0

0/0#

2/0(a*,a,i,r,v)#

0/0#

0/0#

2/0

Solid

agomicroglossa

DC.

Arnicasilvestre

lvs,flo

0/0

0/0#

2/0(a*,d*

,i)#

0/0#

0/0#

2/0

BIG

NONIA

CEAE

Anemop

aegm

aarvense(Vell.)

Stellfeldex

DeSou

za±

Catuaba

rts

5/0

6/0(d,l,o,w)#

3/0(a*,a)

#2/0(f,h)#

2/0

18/0

Jacarand

acaroba

(Vell.)

DC.±

Carob

alvs

1/0

0/0(2)#

4/2(a*,a,c,i,m

,v)#

1/0(f)#

0/0

6/2

Tyna

nthu

sfasciculatus

(Vell.)

Miers±

Cipócravo

stm

0/0

0/0(b*)

2/0(i)#

0/0

0/0

2/0

DILLENIA

CEAE

Davillarugo

saPoir.

Cipócabo

clo,

sambaibinha

lvs

0/0#

0/0(b*)

#1/0(a*,c,i)#

0/0(h)

0/0#

1/0

LEGUMIN

OSAE

Ana

dena

nthera

spp.

±Ang

ico

wod

2/0(b,g)

3/1(b*,d)

#3/3(a*,d*

)#1/1(h)#

0/0(c*)

#9/5

Bow

dichia

virgilo

ides

Kun

th±

Sucup

ira

sed

3/0#

2/0#

6/0(a)#

3/0(k)#

1/0

15/0

Cop

aifera

spp.

±Balsamode

copaiba

balsam

6/6(b,g)#

0/0(d,y)#

4/4(a*,a)

0/0(f)

0/0

10/10


Tab

le1

(con

tinued)

Fam

ilyspecies

Com

mon

names

Part

Num

berof

acqu

ired/authentic

samples

andreferences

Total

NO

NE

SW

CE

SO

Stryph

nodend

ronspp.

±Barbatim

ãobrk

2/2

4/2(b*,d,l)#

6/6(d*,a)

#4/2(f,h,k)#

1/1#

17/13

LOGANIA

CEAE

Strychno

spseudo

quinaA.St.-Hil.

Quina

docampo

wod

0/0

0/0#

2/0(a*)

#0/0(h,k)#

0/0

2/0

MALV

ACEAE

Waltheria

dourad

inha

A.St.-Hil.

±Dou

radinh

aaerial

1/0

0/0#

2/0#

1/0#

0/0(f)#

4/0

MENISPERMACEAE

Cho

ndrodend

ronplatyphyllu

m(A

.St.-Hil.)Miers

±Butua

rts

0/0

0/0(b*)

#1/0#

0/0

0/0

1/0

MORACEAE

Dorstenia

spp.

Carapiá

rts

0/0#

0/0(w

)#2/2(a*,c,i)#

0/0(h,k)#

0/0#

2/2

OLACACEAE

Ptychop

etalum

olacoidesBenth.±

Muirapu

ama

rts

3/0(g)#

0/0(y)

4/0

0/0

1/0

8/0

PASSIFLORACEAE

Passiflo

raspp.

±Maracujá

lvs

4/2(b)#

3/1(l,o,w)#

5/2(a*,d*

,a,c,i,t)#

3/3#

2/2#

17/10

PIPERACEAE

Piper

umbella

tum

L.±

Pariparob

a,capeba

lvs

0/0#

0/0(b*)

#4/4(a)#

0/0#

0/0#

4/4

RUBIA

CEAE

Carap

icheaipecacua

nha(Brot.)

L.And

ersson

±Ipecacuanh

arts

0/0

0/0(b*,l)#

5/0(d*)

#0/0#

0/0

5/0

Chiococca

sp.

Cainca

rts

0/0#

0/0#

4/0(a*)

#0/0#

0/0#

4/0

Rem

ijiaferrug

inea

(A.St.-Hil.)DC.±

Quina

wod

0/0

0/0

4/4#

2/0#

0/0

6/4

RUTA

CEAE

Pilo

carpus

spp.

±Jabo

rand

ilvs

2/0#

3/0(b*,d)

#6/0

2/0

2/0

15/0

SAPIN

DACEAE

Pau

lliniacupa

naKun

th.±

Guaraná

sed

4/4#

3/3(d,l)

4/4(a*)

3/3

2/2

16/16

SIM

AROUBACEAE

Picrasm

aexcelsa(Sw.)Planch.

±Quassia

wod

2/2#

0/0#

0/0(d*)

0/0

0/0

2/2

Simarou

baspp.

Marup

ábrk

0/0#

0/0#

1/0(d*)

#0/0#

0/0

1/0

SMILACACEAE

Smila

xspp.

±Salsaparilha

rts

1/0#

0/0(o)#

4/0(a*)

#0/0(h)#

0/0#

5/0

SOLANACEAE

Solanu

mpa

niculatum

L.±

Jurubeba

Rts

2/0#

2/0(b*,d,l,o

,w,z)#

1/0(a,c,i,m,v)#

2/0(h,k)#

1/0#

8/0

URTICACEAE


Review of data on the 40 selected plant species in similarstudies of public markets

Data on the trade in the selected plants in publicmarkets were obtained from 30 previously publishedstudies. Four of these studies were published prior to1970 (Hoehne 1920; Cunha 1941; Stellfeld 1954 andRezende 1969). During the period covered bythese four studies, traditional medicine was char-acterized by the use of native species (shown inTable 1 as a* to d*). The other 26 bibliographicreferences were published between 1992 and 2011(shown in the Table as a to z).

Survey of the trade in 40 selected plant species in publicmarkets

Survey of the plants in public markets

The survey was performed in 15 public marketslocated in the five geographic regions of Brazil. Inthe north, we visited the markets of Belém (July2006), Boa Vista and Manaus (November 2006).In the northeast, we visited markets in São Luis(February 2009), Salvador (October 2008) andRecife (November 2009). The markets of BeloHorizonte (April 2010), Curvelo (September2010) and São Paulo (July 2008) were studied inthe southwest. Brasília (December 2007), CampoGrande (May 2011) and Goiania (November 2012)were the markets studied in central Brazil. ThePorto Alegre (September 2004), Curitiba and Fozdo Iguaçu markets (November 2009) were visitedin the south. The locations of the markets visitedfor the survey represented five of the six differentecosystems in which the selected species occurred(i.e. all of the ecosystems except the Pantanal).Many of the cities visited are located in regionsbordering two ecosystems. São Luis, in the north,is near the Amazon Forest and the Cerrado; Recifeand Salvador are located near the caatinga and theAtlantic Forest; and Belo Horizonte and São Pauloare located near the Cerrado and the AtlanticForest.

A maximum of three cities were visited in eachregion. In all, we visited 15 markets. In each market,we searched for samples of each of the 40 selectedplants. To perform this survey, we asked the vendors“Do you have/sell the plant named …?” The plantT

able

1(con

tinued)

Fam

ilyspecies

Com

mon

names

Part

Num

berof

acqu

ired/authentic

samples

andreferences

Total

NO

NE

SW

CE

SO

Cecropiaho

loleucaMiq.

Imbaúb

ashoo

t0/0

0/0(w

)#1/0(a*,i,t,v)#

0/0

0/0

1/0

VIO

LACEAE

Anchietea

pyrifolia

(Mart.)

G.Don

±Cipósuma

rts

0/0

0/0#

2/0(a*,a)

#0/0#

0/0#

2/0

WIN

TERACEAE

Drimys

winteriJ.R.Forst.&

G.Forst.

Casca

d’anta

wod

0/0

0/0

1/0(a*)

#0/0

0/0

1/0

Total

41/19

33/9

117/48

34/13

29/22

252/111

#means

thattheplantoccursinthesameecosystem

wherethemarketislocated(w

ww.florado

brasil.jbrj.gov.br);±

means

thatthespeciesisalreadyused

byph

armaceuticalcompanies

inBrazil

Referencesto

simila

rstud

ies:a*

Hoehn

e(192

0),b*

Cun

ha(194

1),c*

Stellfeld(195

4),d*

Rezende

(196

9);aSilv

a-Filh

oandBrand

ão(199

2),bLuz

(200

1),cParente

andRosa

(200

1),d

Alm

eida

andAlbuq

uerque

(200

2),e

Amaraletal.(20

03),fN

unes

etal.(20

03),gPinto

andMaduro(200

3),h

Carvalho(200

4),i

Azevedo

andSilv

a(200

6),j

Heidenetal.

(200

6),kTresvenzolet

al.(200

6),lAlbuq

uerque

etal.(200

7),m

Maioli-Azevedo

andFon

seca-K

ruel

(200

7),nDickelet

al.(200

7),oDantasandGuimarães(200

7),pMeloet

al.

(200

9),q

Ustulin

etal.(20

09),rMachado

(200

9),s

Leitãoetal.(20

09),tP

illaandAmorozo(200

9),u

Lim

aetal.(20

09),vSantos(200

9),w

Mon

teiroetal.(20

11),xCarneiroetal.

(201

0),yFariaset

al.(201

0),zSou

zaet

al.(2011)


http://www.floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br

name used in this question was the vernacular nameappearing in FBRAS (Table 1). If the plant was sold in

the market, a sample was purchased and transported tothe laboratory for authentication.

Fig. 1 The six different Brazilian ecosystems


Characteristics of the samples

The samples acquired were drugs of botanical origin,including dried seeds, flowers, fruits, leaves, roots andrhizomes. The drugs were found in several forms. Thewood, bark, roots and rhizomes were cut, broken, orsliced. In the laboratory, each sample was recordedand kept under uniform conditions in a climate-controlled room. We sought to collect a maximum of30 samples of each plant, two from each market.Industrialised products, such as toasted mate andlyophilised teas, were not considered.

Study of the authenticity of the samples

We have performed a set of pharmaceutical analysiscurrently used in the quality control of herbal drugs(Eschricher 1988; Langhammer 1989; Oliveira et al.1991; Wagner and Bladt 1996; WHO 1998). The firststep in the analysis was to verify whether the plant partpurchased corresponded to that described in theFBRAS. This analysis was performed by direct obser-vation of the morphological, sensory and microscopiccharacteristics of each type of plant material. If theidentity of the plant part was verified, the sample wassubmitted to chemical characterization by chromato-graphic methods to verify the presence of specific sub-stances and a chemical profile comparable with thosedescribed in the bibliography or found in standard sam-ples. Many samples, such as the seeds of Paullininacupana Kunth (Sapindaceae), the aerial parts ofBaccharis trimera (Less.) DC. (Asteraceae) or theleaves of Mikania hirsutissima DC. (Asteraceae) werevery easy to identify with these methods because theyhave distinct morphological and chemical characteris-tics. In contrast, samples of Stryphnodendron sp.(Leguminosae), Passiflora sp. (Passifloraceae),Copaifera sp. (Leguminosae), Anadenanthera sp.(Leguminosae), Picrasma sp. (Simaroubaceae),Dorstenia sp. (Moraceae), Smilax sp. (Smilacaceae),Chiococca sp. (Rubiaceae) and Simaruba sp.(Simaroubaceae) or Picrasma sp. were impossible toidentify to the species level, because their botanicaland chemical profiles are very similar. Voucher herbar-ium samples are undoubtedly important for the correctidentification of botanical materials, but collecting her-barium samples from market vendors is very difficultbecause the vendors are not the collectors of the plants(Melo et al. 2009). However, the pharmaceutical

analyses that we performed were very helpful in theidentification of these plant materials because the inac-curate identification of the species was a possible sourceof bias.

Results and discussion

Brazil is a country on a continental scale. It is recog-nised for its great diversity of plant species, one of thehighest in the world. The use of plants by the people ofeach region of Brazil depends on cultural traditionsand the types of vegetation found in the region. InAmazonia, for example, traditional medicine is basedon non-timber products extracted directly from theforest, whereas European species brought by immi-grants are predominant in southern Brazil. Studies onthe volume of trade occurring in local medicinal mar-kets are rare, and very little information exists to dateon the composition of the market flora, the origin ofthe plant material and the quantities of plants sold. Inthis study, we searched for samples of 40 native me-dicinal species described in the first edition of FBRASin 15 public markets in different regions of Brazil.

A total of 252 plant samples were purchased in the15 markets, but the laboratory analyses showed thatonly one-half of the samples (126, 50.2 %) wereconfirmed as the same plant so named in FBRAS.The results are shown in Table 1 as “number of pur-chased samples/number of authenticated samples” inthe northern, northeastern, southwestern, central andsouthern geographic regions. The total number ofsamples acquired and authenticated for each plantand each region is also given. Only for Paulliniacupana (guaraná, 16 samples), Achyrocline satur-eioides (Lam) DC. (Asteraceae) (macela, 14)Copaifera spp. (Leguminosae)(balsam, 10), Ilex para-guariensis (mate, 9), Baccharis trimera (carqueja, 7),Pothomorphe umbellata (L.) Miq. (Piperaceae)(capeba, 4), Sambucus australis Cham. & Schltdl.(Adoxaceae) (sabugueiro, 4), Dorstenia sp. (carapiá,2) and Picrasma spp. (quassia, 2) were all the pur-chased samples authenticated with pharmaceuticalmethods. For other well-known species, only a fewsamples were authenticated. From the 19 purchasedsamples of Stryphnodendron spp. (barbatimão), forexample, only 15 were authentic; only 11 of the 17purchased samples of Passiflora (maracujá), six of thenine samples of Anadenanthera spp. (angico), three of


the seven samples of Mikania spp. (guaco), three ofthe six samples of Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi(Anacardiaceae) (aroeira) and two of the six samplesof Jacaranda caroba DC. (Bignoniaceae) (caroba)were authenticated. The trade in unauthenticated sam-ples of these well-known species demonstrates pooridentification or, what is worse, intentional adultera-tion by the suppliers and vendors. The distance be-tween the area in which a plant was collected and themarket in which it was sold could explain the absenceof quality found in these plant materials. However,several of the unauthenticated samples were fromplant species that occur in the same ecosystems inwhich the markets are located (Fig. 1; indicated by #in Table 1). For example, for the 25 species from theCerrado, a natural ecosystem in the central region,only 12.0 % (Passiflora spp., Anadenanthera spp.and S. terebinthifolius) of the samples purchased inmarkets in the central region were authenticated. Noneof the species found in the markets of northeasternBrazil had all of their samples completely authenticat-ed. The best result was observed in the markets ofsouthern Brazil: of 19 plant species found in theAtlantic Forest and the Pampa, two natural ecosystemsof that region, six (31.7 %; Stryphnodendron spp., A.satureoides, Passiflora spp., I. paraguariensis, B. tri-mera and S. australis) were authenticated. Theseresults show that the proximity of the market to thenatural habitat of the plant does not influence thequality of plant products sold in the market. Onlysamples of P. cupana (guarana) and I. paraguariensis(mate) were found in markets in all five regions ofBrazil. All of these samples were completely authen-ticated. However, the reason for this high quality isthat both of these species have been cultivated due tothe demand created by the international market(Shanley and Luz 2003).

Different materials (barks, roots, and leaves) namedcatuaba can be found in the markets in all regions ofBrazil, but none of the samples obtained by this studycorresponded to the original species Anemopaegmaarvense (Vell.) Stellfeld ex De Souza (Bignoniaceae).Plants named catuaba are well known in Brazil due totheir use as aphrodisiacs. Plant material with thenames sucupira and jaborandi were also found in themarkets in all regions of Brazil, but none of the sam-ples obtained by the study corresponded to Bowdichiavirgilioides Kunth (Leguminosae) or Pilocarpus spp.from FBRAS. In contrast, samples of plants named

sucupira or sucupira-branca (white sucupira Pterodonemarginatus Vogel, Leguminosae) can be found in themarkets in all regions, despite be native from theCerrado area. We found that aerial parts of differentspecies of Piperaceae, primarily Piper aduncum L.,were sold as jaborandi. P. aduncum has been widelyused to treat alopecia. This species is used for thispurpose as a substitute for Pilocarpus spp., which isnearly extinct due to extensive exploration for pilocar-pine. Curiously, although jaborandi (Pilocarpus spp.)is a native plant and is found on the plantations of theMerck laboratory farms near São Luis, in Maranhão,no samples of this plant were sold in the market in thatcity. Note that trade in these plants was observed inother studies, primarily those performed before the1970s (a* to d* in Table 1).

For decades, native medicinal species were used bypharmaceutical companies in Brazil to create commer-cial products. These companies are represented bysmall laboratories that evaluate their products on thebasis of traditional formulas. In 1995, the Ministry ofHealth, following the recommendations of the WHO,began to establish herbal regulations to improve thequality of herbal medicines (Brasil 2010). Accordingto these rules, the complete acceptance of an herbalmedicine by Brazilian governmental agencies can oc-cur only after the efficacy and safety of the producthave been scientifically determined (Brandão et al.2010). Another important problem that prevents thecommercial use of tropical American plants is therelative lack of scientific information about theseplants, which are less well known than medicinalspecies from other parts of the world. Since 2002,the WHO has recommended that species used in tra-ditional medicine, including those used in Amerindiancultures, should be evaluated for safety and effective-ness through laboratory studies (WHO 2011). Since2006, Brazil has had a policy to promote better uses ofmedicinal plants, but little or no progress has beenmade towards the adequate use and conservation ofnative Brazilian species. In 2009, for example, theMinistry of Health selected 71 plant species as prioritiesfor pharmacological and toxicological studies, but onlynine plants from Table 1 (A. occidentale, B. trimera,copaiba balsam, M. glomerata or M. laevigata,Passiflora spp., S. terebinthifolius, S. paniculatum, S.microglossa and Stryphnodendron spp.) were selectedfor these studies. Appropriate uses and trading activitiesbased on biodiversity are considered an important


strategy for the conservation of biodiversity and couldbe a solution to the problem of the intensive degradationof native ecosystems in South America (Brandão et al.2009; Li and Vederas 2009; Montagnini and Finney2011). However, extracts from a few South Americanplants are used in industrialised countries. These plantsinclude boldo (Peumus boldus), from Chile; Dragon’sblood (Croton sp. Euphorbiaceae) and Cat’s Claw(Uncaria tomentosa DC. and U. guianensis J.F. Gmel.Rubiaceae) from Bolivia, Colombia and Peru; andcarqueja (Baccharis trimera), macela (Achyroclinesatureoides), urucum (Bixa orellana L. Bixaceae),mate (I. paraguariensis) and guaraná (P. cupana)from Brazil (Desmarchelier 2010). The assuranceof the safety, quality, and efficacy of plants andherbal products, especially those based on indige-nous resources, has now become a key issue, andthe species listed in Table 1 must be prioritised.

Deforestation has been linked with the loss of tra-ditional knowledge in several parts of the world(Edwards and Heinrich 2006; Eyssartier et al. 2008;Bussmann and Sharon 2009) and the absence of sev-eral species used in Brazilian traditional medicine inpopular markets can be also a consequence of thisprocess. The high number of unauthenticated samplesdemonstrates a loss of knowledge of the original na-tive species. In this study, we also observed that theroots and bark of other plant species are collected andmarketed as substitutes for the original plants, a prob-able consequence of the disappearance of the originalspecies. The impact of this practice on the conserva-tion of the substitute species cannot be estimated be-cause these plants are not cultivated and are obtainedfrom unmanaged forests. For this reason, these plantsface the same risk that caused the loss of the originalspecies. Another consequence of the use of substituteswithout proven effects is the influence of this practiceon public health. Development of criteria for the un-equivocal identification of these plants and more con-trol over the extraction of products from naturalhabitats are urgent and necessary.

Conclusions

In this study, we demonstrate major changes in thetrade in native plants used in traditional medicine inpublic markets in Brazil. Half of the market plantsdoes not correspond to the species described in

FBRAS. Several of the unauthenticated samples werefound in markets located in the same ecosystem inwhich the plant occurs. Different plant species arecollected and marketed as substitutes for the original.The impact of this practice on the conservation also ofthese substitute species is worrying. The loss of tradi-tional knowledge is linked with deforestation.Strategies are necessary to promote the better useand conservation of this rich heritage offered byBrazilian biodiversity.

Acknowledgments The authors thank FAPEMIG (APQ01912-10), CNPq (563563/2010-9) and Pró-Reitoria de Pesqui-sas of UFMG for grants and fellowships.

References

Albuquerque, U. P., Monteiro, J. M., Ramos, M. A., & Amorim,E. L. C. (2007). Medicinal and magic plants from a publicmarket in northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnopharmacol-ogy, 110, 76–91.

Almeida, C. F. C. B. R., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2002). Uso econservação de plantas e animais no estado de Pernambuco(Nordeste do Brasil): Um estudo de caso. Interciencia, 27(6), 276–285.

Amaral, F. M. M., Coutinho, D. F., Ribeiro, M. N. S., &Oliveira, M. A. (2003). Avaliação da Qualidade de drogasvegetais comercializadas em São Luís, Maranhão. Brazil-ian Journal of Pharmacognosy, 13(supl.), 27–30.

Azevedo, S. K. S., & Silva, I. M. (2006). Plantas medicinais e deuso religiosas comercializadas em mercados e feiras livresno Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 20(1), 185–194.

Brandão, M. G. L., Grandi, T. S. M., Rocha, E. M. M., Sawyer,D. R., & Krettli, A. U. (1992). Survey of medicinal plantsused as antimalarial on the Amazon. Journal of Ethno-pharmacology, 36(2), 175–182.

Brandão, M. G. L., Diniz, B. G., & Monte-Mór, R. L. M.(2004). Plantas medicinais: um saber ameaçado. CiênciaHoje, 35(206), 64–66.

Brandão, M. G. L., Cosenza, G. P., Grael, C. F. F., Netto-Junior,N. L., & Montemor, R. L. M. (2009). Traditional uses ofAmerican plant species from the 1st edition of BrazilianOfficial Pharmacopoeia. Brazilian Journal of Pharmacog-nosy, 19(2a), 478–487.

Brandão, M. G. L., Cosenza, G. P., Stanislau, A. M., &Fernandes, G. W. (2010). Influence of Brazilian herbalregulations on the use and conservation of native me-dicinal plants. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-ment, 164, 369–377.

Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA).Resolução da Diretoria Colegiada (RDC) Nº 14, de 31 deMarço de 2010. Dispõe sobre o registro de medicamentosfitoterápicos. DOU Nº 63, segunda-feira, 5 de abril de2010.


Brower, V. (2008). Back to nature: extinction of medicinalplants threatens drug Discovery. Journal of the NationalCancer Institute, 100(12), 838–839.

Bussmann, R. W., & Sharon, D. (2009). Shadows of the colonialpast—diverging plant use in Northern Peru and SouthernEcuador. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5(1), 4.

Carneiro, A. M. F., Salame, H. I., Costa, M. F. M., Gomes, J. S.,Carvalho, M. N., & Dolabela, M. F. (2010). Caracteriza-ción de las condiciones higiénico-sanitarias de comerciali-zación de las plantas medicinales em ferias y mercados deBelém-PA, Brasil. Revista Cubana de Plantas Medicinales,15(2), 66–74.

Carvalho, A. R. (2004). Popular use chemical composition andtrade of Cerrado’s medicinal Plants (Goiás, Brazil). Envi-ronment, Development and Sustainability, 6(3), 307–316.

Cunha, N. S. (1941). De Von Martius aos Ervanários da Bahia.Salvador: Dois Mundos. 52p.

Dantas, I. C., & Guimarães, F. R. (2007). Plantas medicinaiscomercializadas no município de Campina Grande, PB.Revista de Biologia e Farmácia, 1(1), 1–13.

Dean, W. (1996). With Broadax and Firebrand: the destructionof the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. 482 p.

Desmarchelier, C. (2010). Neotropics and natural ingredients forpharmaceuticals: why isn’t South American biodiversity onthe crest of the wave? Phytotherapy Research, 24(6), 791–799.

Dickel, M. L., Rates, S. M. K., & Ritter, M. R. (2007). Plantspopularly used for loosing weight purposes in Porto Ale-gre, South Brazil. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 109(1),60–71.

Edwards, E. S., & Heinrich, M. (2006). Redressing culturalerosion and ecological decline in a far North Queenslandaboriginal community (Australia): the Aurukun ethnobiol-ogy database project. Environment, Development and Sus-tainability, 8(4), 569–583.

Eschricher, W. (1988). Pulver Atlas der Drogen des DeutschenArzneibuches. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer. 335 p.

Eyssartier, C., Ladio, A. H., & Lozada, M. (2008). Culturaltransmission of traditional knowledge in two populationsof north-western Patagonia. Jounal of Ethnobiology andEthnomedicine, 4(25), 1–8.

Farias, M. C., França, L. C., Galvão, S. M. R., Freitas, I. M. S.,Barros, C. N. & Mendes, E. S. (2010). Catalogação deervas medicinais comercializadas no Mercado Público deSão José, Recife, PE, associado a sua utilização. X JPEX2010, UFRPE/Recife.

Heiden, G., Macias, L., Vera, L. B., Bobrowski, V. L., & Iganci,J. R. V. (2006). Comercialização de carqueja por ervateirosda zona central de Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul. Revista deBiologia e Ciências da Terra, 6(2), 50–57.

Hoehne, F. C. (1920). O que vendem os hervanarios da cidadede São Paulo. 1° Edição, São Paulo, Brasil. Editora doServiço Sanitário do Estado de São Paulo, 248 p.

Langhammer, L. (1989). Bildatlas zur mikroscopischen Analytikpflanzlicher Arzneidrogen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.241p.

Leitão, F., Fonseca-Kruel, V. S., Silva, I. M., & Reinert, F. (2009).Urban ethnobotany in Petrópolis and Nova Friburgo (Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil). Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy, 19(1b), 333–342.

Li, J. W. H., & Vederas, J. C. (2009). Drug discovery and naturalproducts: end of an era or an endless frontier? Science, 325(5937), 161–165.

Lima, E. P. R., Maia, M. S., & Matos, W. R. (2009). Levanta-mento das plantas medicinais comercializadas na feira livredo município de Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.Saúde & Ambiente em Revista, 4(2), 34–39.

Luz, F. J. F. (2001). Plantas medicinais de uso popular em BoaVista, Roraima, Brasil. Horticultura Brasileira, 19(1), 88–96.

Machado, L. H. B. (2009). As representações entremeadas nocomércio de plantas medicinais em Goiânia, GO. Socie-dade & Natureza, 21(1), 159–172.

Maioli-Azevedo, V., & Fonseca-Kruel, V. S. (2007). Plantasmedicinais e ritualísticas vendidas em feiras livres noMunicípio do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil: estudo de casonas zonas Norte e Sul. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 21(2),263–275.

Melo, J. G., Amorim, E. L. C., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2009).Native medicinal plants commercialized in Brazil, priori-ties for conservation. Environmental Monitoring and As-sessment, 156(1–4), 567–580.

Montagnini, F., & Finney, C. (2011). Payments for environmen-tal services in Latin America as tool for restoration andrural development. Ambio, 40(3), 285–297.

Monteiro, J. M., Ramos, M. A., Araújo, E. L., Amorim, E. L. C.,& Albuquerque, U. P. (2011). Dynamics of medicinalplants knowledge and commerce in an urban ecosystem(Pernambuco, Northeast Brazil). Environmental Monitor-ing and Assessment, 178(1–4), 179–202.

Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2012). Natural products assources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.Journal of Natural Products, 75(3), 311–335.

Nunes, G. P., Silva, M. F., Resende, U. M., & Siqueira, J. M.(2003). Plantas medicinais comercializadas por raizeiros nocentro de Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul. BrazilianJournal of Pharmacognosy, 13(2), 83–92.

Oliveira, F., Akisue, G., & Akisue, M. K. (1991). Farmacog-nosia. São Paulo: Livraria Atheneu Editora. 421p.

Oliveira, V. B., Yamada, L. T., Fagg, C. W., & Brandão, M. G.L. (2012). Native foods from Brazilian biodiversity as asource of bioactive compounds. Food Research Interna-tional, 48(1), 170–179.

Parente, C. E. T., & Rosa, M. M. T. (2001). Plantas comer-cializadas como medicinais no Município de Barra doPiraí, RJ. Rodriguesia, 52(80), 47–59.

Pharmacopoeia Brasileira (1926). 1. ed., São Paulo: Nacional.1149 p.

Pilla, M. A. C., & Amorozo, M. C. M. (2009). O conhecimentosobre os recursos vegetais Alimentares em bairros rurais noVale do Paraíba, SP, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 23(4),1190–1201.

Pinto, A. A. C., & Maduro, C. B. (2003). Produtos e subprodu-tos da medicina popular comercializados na cidade de BoaVista, Roraima. Acta Amazonica, 33(2), 281–290.

Rezende, N. M. S. (1969). Análise de drogas, extratos e tinturasde uso popular das floras de Belo Horizonte. Revista deFarmácia e Bioquímica da UFMG, 1(1), 61–67.


Santos, F. L. (2009). Plantas medicinais vendidas em feiras livreem Petrópolis e Nova Friburgo, RJ e análise fitoquímica deespécies potenciais. Dissertação de Mestrado. UniversidadeFederal do Rio de Janeiro, PPG Biotecnologia Vegetal, 228p.

Sawyer, D. (2008). Climate change, biofuels and eco-socialimpacts in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. Philosoph-ical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 1747–1752.

Shanley, P., & Luz, L. (2003). The impacts of Forest degradationon medicinal plant use and implications for health care ineastern Amazonia. BioScience, 53(6), 573–584.

Shanley, P., & Rosa, N. A. (2005). Conhecimento em erosão:um inventário etnobotânico na fronteira de exploração daAmazônia Oriental. Boletim do Museu Paraense EmílioGoeldi, 1(1), 147–171.

Silva-Filho, P. V., & Brandão, M. (1992). Plantas medicamen-tosas de uso popular coletadas e comercializadas na regiãometropolitana de Belo Horizonte. Daphne, 2(2), 39–53.

Souza, M. Z. S., Andrade, L. R. S., & Fernandes, M. S. M.(2011). Levantamento sobre plantas medicinais comercia-lizadas na feira livre da cidade de Esperança, PB. Revistade Biologia e Farmácia, 5(1), 111–118.

Stellfeld, C. O. (1954). que vendem os ervanários de Pelotas.Tribuna Farmacêutica, 9, 119–123.

Tresvenzol, L. M., Paula, J. R., Ricardo, A. F., Ferreira, H. D., &Zatta, D. T. (2006). Estudo sobre o comércio informal deplantas medicinais em Goiânia e cidades vizinhas. RevistaEletrônica de Farmácia, 3(1), 23–28.

Ustulin, M., Figueiredo, B. B., Tremea, C., Pott, A., Pott, V. J.,Bueno, N. R., & Castilho, R. O. (2009). Plantas medicinaiscomercializadas no mercado municipal de Campo Grande-MS. Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy, 19(3), 805–813.

Voeks, R. A., & Leony, A. (2004). Forgetting the forest: assess-ing medicinal plant erosion in eastern Brazil. EconomicBotany, 58(Supl), 294–306.

Wagner, H., & Bladt, S. (1996). Plant drug analysis. A thinlayer chromatography atlas. Berlin: Springer. 384p.

WHO (World Health Organization). (1998). Quality controlmethods for medicinal plants materials. Geneva: WHO.114p.

WHO (World Health Organization) (2011). The world medi-cines situation 2011. Traditional medicine: global situation,issues and challenges. Geneva, 12p.


Medicinal markets2013

Documents

Transcript of Medicinal markets2013