Two Sides of the Same Coin for Health: Adaptogenic Botanicals as Nutraceuticals for Nutrition and Pharmaceuticals in Medicine.

Background: Adaptogens, commonly used as traditional herbal medicinal products for the relief of symptoms of stress, such as fatigue and exhaustion, belong to a category of physiologically active compounds related to the physiological process of adaptability to stressors. They are used both as pharmaceuticals in medicine and as dietary supplements or nutraceuticals in nutrition, depending on the doses, indications to treat diseases, or support health functions. However, such a dual-faced nature of adaptogens can lead to inconsistencies and contradictory outcomes from Food and Drug regulatory authorities in various countries. Aims: This narrative literature review aimed to (i) specify five steps of pharmacological testing of adaptogens, (ii) identify the sources of inconsistencies in the assessment of evidence the safety, efficacy, and quality of multitarget adaptogenic botanicals, and (iii) propose potential solutions to address some food and drug regulatory issues, specifically adaptogenic botanicals used for prevention and treatment of complex etiology diseases including stress-induced, and aging-related disorders. Overview: This critically oriented narrative review is focused on (i) five steps of pharmacological testing of adaptogens are required in a sequential order, including appropriate in vivo and in vitro models in animals, in vitro model, and mechanisms of action by a proper biochemical assay and molecular biology technique in combination with network pharmacology analysis, and clinical trials in stress-induced and aging-related disorders; (ii) the differences between the requirements for the quality of pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements of botanical origin; (iii) progress, trends, pitfalls, and challenges in the adaptogens research; (iv) inadequate assignment of some plants to adaptogens, or insufficient scientific data in case of Eurycoma longifolia; (v) inconsistencies in botanical risk assessments in the case of Withania somnifera. Conclusions: This narrative review highlights the importance of harmonized standards, transparent methodologies, and a balanced, evidence-informed approach to ensure consumers receive effective and safe botanicals. Future perspectives and proposed solutions include (i) establish internationally harmonized guidelines for evaluating botanicals based on their intended use (e.g., pharmaceutical vs. dietary supplement), incorporating traditional use data alongside modern scientific methods; (ii) encourage peer review and transparency in national assessments by mandating public disclosure of methodologies, data sources, and expert affiliations; (iii) create a tiered evidence framework that allows differentiated standards of proof for traditional botanical supplements versus pharmaceutical candidates; (iv) promote international scientific dialogs among regulators, researchers, and industry to develop consensus positions and avoid unilateral bans that may lack scientific rigor; (v) formally recognize adaptogens a category of natural products for prevention stress induced brain fatigue, behavioral, and aging related disorders.