It is more common for marketers to use the entourage hypothesis than it is to base their claims on evidence. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong.
The Conversation by Jonathan Simone from Brock University
Cannabis products have increased in number dramatically since the legalization of marijuana. They offer a wide range of experiences, including tailored ones to suit any mood, activity, or occasion.
Are you looking for something to calm or uplift? You may be looking for a way to boost your creativity, inspire concentration or help you sleep. Would you rather use THC isolators or full spectrum extracts?
What is it about one plant that can produce such a wide range of experiences? As with many other plants, cannabis contains a lot of active components. It is widely believed that the compounds in cannabis work together as a group to produce a more pleasant experience.
From a consumer standpoint, the idea of custom-tailored experiences guided by key active ingredients is appealing—and it certainly makes things easier. It’s not that simple in the real world.
It can be difficult to make informed choices as a cannabis user. Navigating a menu of products can appear like it takes a degree in chemistry. What do we actually know about the effects of cannabis? We can’t predict how a particular product will affect an individual, but we are able to make some predictions.
What is a “high”?
Most research into cannabis’s effects has focused on two key compounds, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). CBD is nonintoxicating. It is believed to have many therapeutic properties of cannabis. THC, on the otherhand, produces the typical cannabis high.
Up until recently the THC to CBD ratio was the most important information for cannabis consumers. And from a health perspective, Health Canada requires that these two compounds be listed on product labels. Cannabis plants produce over 500 compounds that are bioactive, the most notable being cannabinoids. Terpenes, flavonoids and other phytochemicals.
It is a theory that different cannabis components work together to modulate one another, influencing the overall experience. This concept has been called the “entourage effects.” It seeks to provide an explanation of the cannabis effects that go beyond the individual components, like THC or CBD. This is a simple way of explaining the complex effects of marijuana.
In fact, medical cannabis users have long preferred full-spectrum and broad-spectrum (products with a diverse chemical profile) to single-compound isolators such as THC or CBD purified, due to their superior efficacy and safety.
You will probably get an introductory course on the terpenes when you ask your local budtender to recommend a strain.
This modern acceptance of terpenes pharmacology, natural products chemistry, and entourage effect claims is a reflection of our growing understanding of cannabis’ complexity. However, these are still speculative statements, showing how much more we have to learn.
What is the real science behind this?
The term “entourage” was first used by Israeli and Italian scientists to describe interactions between endogenous molecules (like THC and CBD) produced by the body. This idea is that certain compounds which would be inactive alone could modulate or enhance the activity of other molecules, leading to combined effects more powerful than their sum.
This study examined structurally similar compounds that are produced in the body and brain, not the cannabinoids from the cannabis plant. The idea that cannabis has specific entourage effects was not derived directly from data, but rather from inferences made from this research. These conclusions explained the various effects that cannabis users often report.
In spite of the fact that there is no evidence supporting the use of the term by cannabis companies, they have adopted it and used it to help differentiate their products from those in a highly competitive market.
There are only a handful of small studies, observational and clinical ones. Meta-analyses have also been done to support the entourage effect in humans. Whole-plant extracts could be more effective than isolated compounds for certain conditions such as chronic pain or pediatric epilepsy.
These studies use non-standardized products and cannot identify the chemical interactions that drive effects. There are no direct comparisons between full spectrum and isolate products. Most claims are based on inferences from non-human research (pre-clinical).
This is not to say that the entourage theory does not have merit. It’s a good hypothesis, and it may well be one of the most plausible in explaining the nuanced nature and variety of cannabis effects. Other drug classes have also been known to experience similar effects, but these are usually referred to as synergism or potentiation. They typically only involve a small number of well-known compounds. Unlocking the synergy of cannabis requires unraveling hundreds of molecules, some of which remain poorly understood.
My career has been spent trying to grasp this complexity. In my research on how cannabis-derived chemicals work in the body and brain, I’ve gained an appreciation of how far we have come with our knowledge, and how little is known.
Read between the lines
In an industry that is constantly evolving, it’s important for consumers to be skeptical about product claims. The cannabis plant has a treasure-trove of unknown and unexplored bioactive molecule, which we’ll continue to explore. We are still far from having a full picture.
The entourage effect is a theory that has been co-opted more for marketing purposes than it does based on evidence. It doesn’t make it wrong but we shouldn’t confuse it with science. The question is: Whose responsibility it is to generate this new knowledge?
The cannabis industry should continue to use the entourage effect as a marketing tool and for product differentiation. It must also support research and make contributions that advance the current state of knowledge.
By relying on preclinical studies and academic research instead of direct advancement of science, and validation of real-world claims for products in the marketplace, we risk perpetuating hype and compromising credibility. The industry’s duty is shared by all. It is also the government’s responsibility to fix regulatory barriers that hinder new research.
To create a cannabis market that is credible and backed by science, we must move beyond the hype. The industry must act, as well as the government, in order to give consumers all of the necessary information to make educated decisions.
Jonathan Simone is adjunct professor in biological sciences at Brock University.
The Conversation has licensed this article for republishing under Creative Commons. You can read the original article.
Study Finds Natural Psychedelic Mushrooms Produce ‘Enhanced Effects’ Compared To Synthesized Psilocybin, Suggesting Entourage Effect
MEDCAN24 could not exist without readers’ support. Consider a Patreon subscription if our marijuana advocacy journalism is what you use to keep informed.
