Understanding the Controversy: Why did Denmark ban ashwagandha?

October 11, 2025 •

5 min read

In April 2023, Denmark took the dramatic step of prohibiting the sale of ashwagandha in dietary supplements, a decision stemming from a contentious 2020 risk assessment conducted by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). This action sparked a global debate within the herbal medicine community and among consumers seeking to understand why did Denmark ban ashwagandha?

Quick Summary

Based on a 2020 risk assessment, Denmark banned ashwagandha due to alleged hormonal, reproductive, and thyroid risks. The ban is highly debated, with critics pointing to a flawed report that failed to differentiate between plant parts and misrepresented data.

Key Points

The DTU Risk Assessment: The ban was triggered by a 2020 report from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) that raised concerns over the safety of ashwagandha.
Precautionary Principle: Danish authorities banned the herb because the DTU report claimed it was impossible to establish a safe dose, leading to a precautionary public health measure.
Scientific and Industry Backlash: The ashwagandha industry and some researchers have criticized the DTU report for being flawed and misleading, particularly for failing to differentiate between the safe root and potentially more toxic leaves.
Misrepresentation of Evidence: Critics identified a key error involving a misinterpreted citation that incorrectly linked ashwagandha root to abortifacient effects, a claim later refuted by the original source.
International Divergence: While Denmark implemented a total ban, other countries like Poland have set dosage limits, and the UK has initiated a more thorough review, showing a lack of global consensus on the Danish findings.
Focus on Standardized Extracts: The controversy highlights the need for consumers to understand the importance of quality, dosage, and using standardized root extracts, as the use of other plant parts can increase health risks.

The Official Danish Rationale for the Ban

The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (DVFA) based its 2023 ban on ashwagandha on a 2020 risk assessment report from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) Food Institute. The core of the DVFA's decision rested on the DTU's conclusion that, given the available data, it was impossible to establish a safe lower limit for ashwagandha intake. The DTU report identified several potential health concerns associated with the herb, leading the Danish authorities to take a precautionary approach to protect public health.

The primary alleged health risks cited in the DTU report included:

Hormonal Disruption: The report pointed to studies suggesting that ashwagandha could have negative effects on sex hormones, potentially impacting both male and female fertility. One animal study cited found reduced sperm quality and quantity, while a human trial was mentioned where ashwagandha might increase thyroid hormones.
Reproductive Safety Concerns: A more controversial finding cited the possibility of ashwagandha inducing abortions. The report referred to a 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) monograph, which in turn cited a 2000 American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP) monograph regarding this traditional use. However, the reliability of this claim was immediately challenged by industry experts.
Thyroid Effects: The DTU assessment also raised concerns about potential harmful effects on thyroid function, referencing studies where some participants experienced elevated thyroid hormone levels. While these cases were noted as rare, the lack of sufficient data to determine a safe dose prompted regulatory caution.

Industry Pushback and Scientific Criticism

Denmark's ban was immediately met with significant pushback from the ashwagandha industry and scientific experts, who argued that the DTU report was deeply flawed and misleading. Critics, including the World Ashwagandha Council and key manufacturers, highlighted several issues with the scientific basis of the ban.

Flawed Methodology and Misinterpretation

One of the most significant criticisms leveled against the DTU report was its failure to distinguish between different parts of the ashwagandha plant. In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, only the root is used therapeutically, while the leaves and berries, containing higher concentrations of potentially toxic compounds like withaferin A, are not typically consumed internally. Critics argued that the DTU report drew conclusions about the safety of ashwagandha root extracts based on studies involving unspecified plant parts or high doses of leaf extracts, which is not an accurate representation of the traditional, safe use of the root.

Inaccurate Citation and Misrepresentation

The most glaring error highlighted by critics was the misrepresentation of the abortifacient claim. The American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), whose 2000 monograph was cited by the WHO and subsequently by the DTU, clarified that their original document was misrepresented. The AHP stated that, based on a comprehensive review, there is no evidence of an abortifacient effect from ashwagandha root. This demonstrates a 'citation distortion,' where information is repeated uncritically, leading to a misconception.

Ignoring Recent Evidence

Experts also noted that the DTU report appeared to ignore a large body of recent clinical evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of standardized ashwagandha root extracts. Since the 2020 report, numerous studies have been published, including comprehensive dossiers presented by the World Ashwagandha Council and the Ministry of AYUSH, that contradict the DTU's findings and affirm the safety of ashwagandha root.

International Approaches to Ashwagandha Regulation

Denmark's complete ban stands in contrast to the more measured regulatory approaches of other European countries and international bodies. The diverse reactions underscore the complexity of regulating traditional botanical products, especially when scientific evidence is still evolving.

Ashwagandha Regulatory Comparisons


Country/Region	Regulatory Action	Rationale	Basis of Decision
Denmark	Total Ban (2023)	Citing impossibility of finding a safe dose due to potential hormonal, thyroid, and reproductive risks.	2020 DTU Risk Assessment.
Poland	Dosage Limits	Established clear maximum daily limits (e.g., 10mg standardized extract), allowing root use but not leaves.	Science-based, risk-mitigation approach.
France	Precautionary Warning	Issued a warning against use by pregnant/breastfeeding women and those with thyroid, liver, or heart conditions.	Citing reported adverse effects and limited safety data.
Sweden/Finland	Under Review	Considering actions based on the Danish risk assessment, though Sweden's enforcement is less aggressive.	Primarily referencing the Danish DTU findings.
United Kingdom	Awaiting Data	Opted for a comprehensive review rather than an immediate ban, requesting extensive industry safety data.	Evidence-based, data-driven approach.
United States	Dietary Supplement	Classified as a botanical dietary supplement, with regulations differing from drugs.	FDA regulations for botanicals.

The Aftermath and What It Means for Consumers

The Danish ban on ashwagandha, driven by a highly contested report, has highlighted significant issues in the regulation of herbal supplements. The swift and total prohibition, despite international disagreement and industry counter-evidence, has had a major impact on supplement companies operating in the Nordic region.

For consumers, the situation underscores the importance of exercising caution and seeking information from multiple sources. It is crucial to understand that not all ashwagandha products are created equal. The distinction between root and leaf extracts, the use of standardized ingredients, and overall product quality are critical factors affecting safety and efficacy. The debate reminds consumers that while many herbal remedies have a long history of traditional use, they are not without risk and should be approached with an informed perspective. As with any supplement, consulting a healthcare professional is advisable, especially for individuals with underlying health conditions or those who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Conclusion: Precautionary Principle Versus Scientific Flaws

The ultimate answer to why did Denmark ban ashwagandha? is rooted in a precautionary public health measure based on a contested risk assessment. The Danish authorities prioritized consumer protection by acting on a report that highlighted potential safety issues, particularly regarding hormonal and reproductive health, and concluded that a safe dose could not be established. However, the significant scientific and industry pushback, citing flaws in the report's methodology and evidence, suggests the decision may have been an overreaction based on incomplete or misinterpreted data. While Denmark's ban remains in place, the varied responses from other countries demonstrate that a nuanced, evidence-based approach to regulating herbal supplements is essential for navigating the complex balance between traditional use and modern safety standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

The 2020 report claimed that ashwagandha could have negative effects on thyroid and sex hormones, potentially impact reproduction, and might even induce abortions. It concluded that a safe intake limit could not be established based on the available data.

Critics argue the report was flawed because it did not differentiate between ashwagandha root, traditionally used for medicine, and the leaves and berries, which contain higher concentrations of potentially toxic compounds. They also noted that the report relied on misinterpretations and outdated data.

No, ashwagandha is not banned in most countries. While Denmark's decision prompted concern in other places like Sweden and Finland, and a precautionary warning in France, most major regulatory bodies like the FDA in the US and the FSA in the UK have not implemented bans.

In traditional Ayurveda, only the root of the ashwagandha plant is used for medicinal purposes. The leaves contain significantly higher levels of certain potentially toxic compounds. The Danish report was criticized for failing to make this important distinction.

No clinical evidence supports the claim that ashwagandha root causes abortions in humans. The claim originated from a misinterpreted citation chain, which was later clarified by the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia, stating there was no evidence of an abortifacient effect.

Consumers should ensure they are using a reputable, high-quality product, ideally a standardized root extract. It is always best to consult with a healthcare professional before starting or continuing any supplement, especially if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or have pre-existing health conditions like thyroid problems.

The pushback was due to the industry's belief that the Danish decision was based on a flawed and misleading report that ignored a large body of scientific evidence affirming the safety of standardized root extracts. The ban also created significant market disruption for companies operating in the region.