Liver injuries caused by herbal and dietary supplements have nearly tripled as a share of all drug-induced liver injury cases tracked by a major U.S. registry, climbing from roughly 7 percent early in the study period to about 20 percent in later years. The shift has occurred alongside a sustained rise in supplement use among American adults, with millions now regularly consuming botanicals that carry documented liver-damage signals. Physicians and federal researchers say the problem is compounded by widespread product mislabeling, making it difficult to identify which ingredients are actually causing harm.
Supplement-linked liver damage is outpacing prescription drug cases
The Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN), a prospective U.S. registry that tracks confirmed cases of liver damage from medications and supplements, recorded a sharp increase in the proportion of cases tied to herbal and dietary products. That proportion rose from approximately 7 percent to roughly 20 percent over the course of the registry’s operation, a finding published in the journal Hepatology by DILIN investigators. A separate clinical overview published in Liver International reported that the herbal and supplement share of liver injury cases continued to grow during the DILIN era, even as clinicians became more aware of the problem and more systematic in documenting suspected cases.
The increase tracks closely with broader consumption patterns. CDC National Center for Health Statistics data, drawn from nationally representative NHANES surveys, show that dietary supplement use among U.S. adults rose across multiple survey cycles from 2007 through 2023. A study in JAMA Network Open quantified exposure to six botanicals with established liver-toxicity signals, including turmeric, green tea extract, ashwagandha, garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, and red yeast rice, and found that millions of U.S. adults had used at least one of these products within a 30-day window.
The convergence of rising consumption and rising injury rates points to a straightforward exposure problem: more people are taking more supplements with known hepatotoxic potential, and the clinical system is catching more of the resulting damage. But the pattern also raises a harder question about whether the risk is concentrated in single-ingredient products or amplified when users combine several botanicals at once. DILIN records have not yet been systematically re-analyzed to measure how often injured patients were taking multiple hepatotoxic supplements simultaneously, a gap that limits the ability to distinguish between single-agent toxicity and cumulative exposure.
Mislabeling and outbreak history reveal a quality-control gap
Even when clinicians suspect a supplement is responsible for liver damage, identifying the actual toxic agent is often difficult. DILIN investigators who chemically analyzed products implicated in adjudicated liver injury cases found that the supplements were frequently mislabeled, with ingredients listed on the packaging that did not match what was actually inside the bottle. That finding, reported in Hepatology, means patients and their doctors cannot reliably determine what was ingested, let alone which compound triggered the injury.
This quality-control gap has produced acute public health consequences before. A 2013 U.S. outbreak of severe liver damage was traced to OxyELITE Pro, a weight-loss and sports supplement. The CDC documented the cluster in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, noting that the outbreak included cases of liver failure and liver transplant. Years earlier, a liver-injury signal tied to Hydroxycut prompted a 2009 regulatory action documented in the NIH LiverTox database. Both episodes followed a similar arc: products sold without pre-market safety review caused serious harm before regulators intervened, and the offending brands were reformulated or removed only after dozens of patients had already been injured.
The pattern is not limited to the United States. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration issued a safety alert on medicines containing turmeric or curcumin after receiving adverse event reports of liver injury. The NIH LiverTox database separately catalogs documented hepatotoxicity cases tied to turmeric and curcumin supplements, reinforcing that the risk extends across borders and regulatory systems. In each setting, regulators acted only after clusters of serious cases emerged, underscoring how little proactive testing occurs in the supplement sector compared with prescription drugs.
Gaps in poly-supplement tracking and post-market testing
Several questions remain open. The DILIN registry’s foundational data on the rising supplement share of liver injuries was published in Hepatology, but updated case proportions and product analyses covering more recent years have not been released publicly. Whether the 20 percent figure has continued to climb, stabilized, or shifted toward different product categories is unknown from available published records. Clinicians treating new cases must therefore rely on patterns that may no longer fully reflect the current marketplace.
A direct statistical link between the NHANES-based exposure estimates for specific botanicals and the adjudicated DILIN cases for those same ingredients has not been established. The JAMA Network Open analysis quantified how many adults use potentially hepatotoxic botanicals, and the DILIN registry tracks confirmed injuries, but no published work has matched these two datasets to calculate product-specific risk rates at a population level. Without that linkage, public health agencies cannot easily say whether a given plant extract causes one liver injury per tens of thousands of users or one per several hundred, making it difficult to prioritize regulatory attention.
The mislabeling problem adds another layer of uncertainty. The chemical analyses of implicated supplements were conducted during the DILIN study period, and post-2019 testing data on current products have not been published. Whether mislabeling rates have improved or worsened as the supplement market has expanded is an open question with direct consumer safety implications. If newer formulations are more accurately labeled, some of the historical risk estimates may overstate current danger; if mislabeling has persisted or intensified, past data may underestimate the true scope of exposure.
Another blind spot involves “poly-supplement” use. Survey data show that many adults take several products at once, often layering a multivitamin with multiple botanicals and sports or weight-loss supplements. Yet most case reports and registry entries focus on identifying a single most likely culprit, rather than parsing out how concurrent use might heighten vulnerability. Without routine documentation of all products and doses taken in the weeks before symptom onset, researchers have limited ability to examine interactions or cumulative toxic thresholds.
What consumers and clinicians can do now
For anyone taking herbal or dietary supplements, the practical first step is to treat these products as pharmacologically active, not as harmless add-ons. Clinicians recommend that patients bring all supplement bottles to medical visits and list them alongside prescription and over-the-counter drugs. That simple disclosure can speed recognition of a potential supplement-related liver injury if symptoms such as jaundice, dark urine, severe fatigue, or right upper abdominal pain appear.
Consumers can also reduce risk by limiting unnecessary combinations. Instead of stacking multiple products that promise similar benefits, experts advise choosing the fewest number of supplements at the lowest effective doses, and avoiding weight-loss and bodybuilding formulations that bundle many stimulants or botanicals. Because mislabeling remains a concern, patients may wish to favor brands that participate in voluntary third-party testing programs, while recognizing that such seals are not a guarantee of safety.
For clinicians, maintaining a high index of suspicion is key. When liver enzymes spike without a clear explanation, asking specifically about recent supplement use and documenting brand names, ingredients, and timing can generate more precise case reports. Where feasible, retaining product samples for later chemical analysis can help fill gaps in the evidence base and clarify which compounds are most hazardous.
Researchers and regulators, meanwhile, face the task of closing data gaps that now limit risk assessment. Linking large-scale exposure surveys to adjudicated injury registries, expanding post-market chemical testing, and incorporating poly-supplement patterns into future analyses would all sharpen understanding of which products warrant the most urgent intervention. Until those systems mature, the existing evidence already points in one direction: herbal and dietary supplements are contributing a growing share of serious liver injuries, and both clinicians and consumers need to factor that risk into everyday decisions.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
