EUTECNIQ Sciences

See every page on one mapArrow keys move through results · Enter opens · Esc closes

Sustainability and LCA Published data, checked October 2026

A “green” extract claim holds only for a stated functional unit and boundary, and a legal, reliable supply

Life-cycle method, published assessments of extraction routes, solvent rankings, aquatic toxicity tests, wild-harvest pressure and U.S. import data, each from a cited primary source.

Status. EUTECNIQ has no facility, suppliers or data and has run no life-cycle assessment. The studies shown are published work by others.

Wild harvest dominates medicinal-plant trade, few traded species have been assessed, and one “green” route emitted 11.5 times moreThird-party analysis Peer-reviewed Trade data
30,000plant species with well-documented medicinal or aromatic use (TRAFFIC 2018)
60–90%of medicinal and aromatic plant trade volume is wild-collected (TRAFFIC 2018)
7%of those species assessed against extinction-risk criteria (TRAFFIC 2018)
11.5×carbon footprint of supercritical CO₂ over subcritical water, apple pomace, per gram of bioactives (Bruna et al. 2025)
US$555MU.S. imports of HS 1211 plant material in 2024, CIF, from 105 countries (UN Comtrade)
TRAFFIC, Wild at Home (2018); Bruna et al., Cleaner Environmental Systems 2025;18:100311 (ratio computed: 71.42 ÷ 6.20); UN Comtrade public API, retrieved Oct 24, 2026.
Life-cycle assessment

A life-cycle assessment compares two routes only per the same functional unit and inside the same system boundary

ISO 14040 framework: four phases, with interpretation linked to eachInternational standard (structure)
ISO 14040 life cycle assessment framework: goal and scope, inventory analysis and impact assessment, each linked both ways to interpretation; direct applications sit outside the standardLife cycle assessment framework (ISO 14040:2006)1Goal and scope definitionPurpose and audience, the function, the functional unitand the system boundary2Inventory analysis (LCI)Inputs and outputs of every unit process, per functionalunit: energy, materials, emissions, wastes3Impact assessment (LCIA)Inventory results assigned to impact categories, forexample climate change in kg CO₂-eq4InterpretationConclusions, limitations andrecommendations, checkedagainst the goal and scope;it runs alongside every otherphaseDirect applicationsProduct development,improvement, marketing, policy.Outside the scope of thestandardFunctional unit“Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit” (ISO 14040:2006). Example: 1 g of extracted bioactivecompounds.System boundaryWhich unit processes are counted. Two routes compare fairly only per the same functional unit inside the same boundary.ISO 14040 life cycle assessment framework, phone layoutISO 14040:2006 phases1Goal and scope definitionPurpose and audience, the function, the functionalunit and the system boundary2Inventory analysis (LCI)Inputs and outputs of every unit process, perfunctional unit: energy, materials, emissions, wastes3Impact assessment (LCIA)Inventory results assigned to impact categories, forexample climate change in kg CO₂-eq4InterpretationConclusions, limitations and recommendations,checked against the goal and scope; it runsalongside every other phaseInterpretation is linked both ways to phases 1 to 3.Functional unit: “quantified performance of a product systemfor use as a reference unit”.System boundary: the unit processes counted.
ISO 14040:2006 (edition 2; Amd 1:2020) and ISO 14044:2006 (Amd 1:2017, Amd 2:2020), both confirmed in 2022 (iso.org). Functional-unit definition as quoted in the European Commission glossary.
Cradle-to-gate boundary of a botanical extract, with the plant gate-to-gate box inside itSchematic, not to scale
Cradle-to-gate system boundary of a botanical extract: cultivation or wild collection, drying and milling, extraction with solvent recovery, evaporation, drying and packing, with utilities in and emissions out; use and end of life lie outsideCradle-to-gate boundaryGate-to-gate: the extraction plantCultivation orwild collectionLand, fertilizer,harvest, transportDrying, millingSolvent make-upMExtractionSeparationEvaporationDryingPacked extractSpent plantRecovered solventUse and end oflifeOutsidecradle-to-gateElectricity, heat, cooling waterEmissions to air and water, and wastes, leave every unit process; each is counted per functional unit.
Generic extraction train for illustration; no plant design is implied. Boundary terms as used in ISO 14040/14044 studies.

Change the functional unit or the boundary and the ranking of two routes can change, so the study's goal and scope come first.

Explanation, details and sources

ISO 14040 sets the principles and framework; ISO 14044 sets requirements and guidelines for the same four phases, plus reporting, critical review and limitations. ISO 14040 does not specify methodologies for the individual phases. The functional unit fixes what is compared, for example one gram of extracted bioactive compounds or one kilogram of dry extract at a stated marker content. A cradle-to-gate study stops at the factory gate; a cradle-to-grave study adds use and end of life.

An extract made by a route that uses less energy per batch can still have a larger footprint per functional unit if its yield or selectivity is lower. That is why routes are compared per unit of delivered function, not per batch or per kilogram of plant.

Published extraction LCAs

In published LCAs, the extraction route described as green is sometimes the one with the larger carbon footprint

Apple pomace, per gram of extracted bioactive compounds: supercritical CO₂ 71.42 kg CO₂-eq, subcritical water 6.20Peer-reviewed study
Carbon footprint of extracting 1 g of bioactive compounds from apple pomace: supercritical CO2 71.42 kg CO2-eq; subcritical water 6.20 kg CO2-eqkg CO₂-eq per 1 g of extracted bioactive compounds (cradle-to-gate; SimaPro, ecoinvent)Supercritical CO₂ extractionSupercritical CO2: 71.42 kg CO2-eq per g71.42Subcritical water extractionSubcritical water: 6.20 kg CO2-eq per g6.2002040608011.5×higher for the routeoften called “green”
Bruna L, Marty C, Draye M, Cravotto G, Chatel G. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2025;18:100311 (cradle-to-gate; SimaPro with ecoinvent).
Data table
Carbon footprint per functional unit, Bruna et al. 2025
Routekg CO₂-eq per g of bioactive compounds
Supercritical CO₂ extraction71.42
Subcritical water extraction6.20
Ratio (computed)11.5
Across 70 supercritical-fluid LCAs, results for extraction span about three orders of magnitude, and benchmarks against conventional routes split both waysPeer-reviewed review
A critical review of 70 LCA studies of supercritical-fluid processes: 27 benchmarking studies found lower impacts and 18 found higher; extraction results span 0.2 to 153 kg CO2-eq per kg of inputBenchmarking outcome in the reviewLower impact than theconventional route27 studies27 studiesHigher impact than theconventional route18 studies18 studiesOf 70 LCA studies reviewed (Gaalich et al.), across allsupercritical-fluid applications. Energy was the main hotspot.Global warming result, extraction studiesExtraction: 0.2 to 153 kg CO2-eq per kg of input0.2153about 3 orders of magnitude0.11101001000kg CO₂-eq per kg of input (log scale)Spread depends on feed and scale. Sensitivity analyses point to theelectricity mix, feed concentration and solvent recycling. Gasificationstudies: −0.2 to 5 kg CO₂-eq per kg of input.
Gaalich I, Lee D, Aymonier C, Sonnemann G, Olchowka J, Philippot G, Loubet P. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2026;116:108106.
Data table
Findings stated in the review abstract
ItemValue
LCA studies reviewed70
Benchmarks: lower impact for the supercritical process27 studies
Benchmarks: higher impact for the supercritical process18 studies
Extraction, global warming0.2 to 153 kg CO₂-eq per kg of input
Gasification, global warming−0.2 to 5 kg CO₂-eq per kg of input

Energy is the usual hotspot, so the electricity mix, feed concentration and solvent recycling decide which route wins.

Explanation, details and sources

The apple-pomace study's authors conclude that "a technology labeled as 'green' is not necessarily environmentally superior." The review's ranges are per kilogram of input, which is a different basis from the apple-pomace study's per-gram-of-product unit, so the two figures are not placed on one axis.

Results from one feed, one scale and one electricity grid do not transfer to another botanical. A credible comparison would repeat the assessment with the actual process data.

Solvent greenness

The CHEM21 guide scores 53 solvents for safety, health and environment: water, ethanol and ethyl acetate are recommended, hexane and dichloromethane hazardous

CHEM21 scores for 28 extraction solvents (1 = lowest concern): select a column heading to sortPeer-reviewed guide
Prat D et al. Green Chem 2016;18:288–296 (CHEM21 selection guide), scores as distributed in the open Solvent Guide dataset (Heeley J, Boobier S, Hirst JD. J Cheminform 2024;16:60). Residual-solvent classes: ICH Q3C(R9), Step 4, Jan 24, 2024.
Screen 49 solvents at once: drag along any axis to keep only those inside the ranges you setPeer-reviewed guide
Same CHEM21 data. Water, dichloromethane, chloroform and carbon tetrachloride have no flash point and appear in the heat map and table only.
Data table: all 53 CHEM21 solvents
CHEM21 scores and rankings (Prat et al. 2016); boiling and flash points in °C as listed by CHEM21; ICH Q3C(R9) class
SolventFamilyBPFPSafetyHealthEnv.Default rankingAfter discussionICH Q3C
1,2-DichloroethaneHalogenated84134103HazardousHighly hazardousClass 1
1,2-DimethoxyethaneEthers85-67103HazardousHazardousClass 2
1,3-Dimethyl-3,4,5,6-tetrahydro-2(1H)-pyrimidinoneAprotic polar246121167ProblematicProblematic–
2-MethoxyethanolMiscellaneous12542393HazardousHazardousClass 2
2-MethyltetrahydrofuranEthers80-11653ProblematicProblematicClass 3
Acetic acidAcids11839373ProblematicProblematicClass 3
Acetic anhydrideAcids13949373ProblematicProblematic–
AcetoneKetones56-18535ProblematicRecommendedClass 3
AcetonitrileAprotic polar822433RecommendedProblematicClass 2
AnisoleEthers15452415ProblematicRecommendedClass 3
BenzeneHydrocarbons80-116103HazardousHighly hazardousClass 1
Benzyl alcoholAlcohols206101127ProblematicProblematic–
Carbon disulfideMiscellaneous46-30977HazardousHighly hazardous–
Carbon tetrachlorideHalogenated77–2710HazardousHighly hazardousClass 1
ChlorobenzeneHalogenated13229327ProblematicProblematicClass 2
ChloroformHalogenated61–275ProblematicHighly hazardousClass 2
CyclohexaneHydrocarbons81-17637ProblematicProblematicClass 2
CyclohexanoneKetones15643325RecommendedProblematic–
DichloromethaneHalogenated40–177HazardousHazardousClass 2
Diethyl etherEthers34-451037HazardousHighly hazardousClass 3
Diisopropyl etherEthers69-28935HazardousHazardousTable 4
Dimethyl sulfoxideAprotic polar18995115RecommendedProblematicClass 3
DioxaneEthers10112763ProblematicHazardousClass 2
EthanolAlcohols7813433RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
Ethyl acetateEsters77-4533RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
Ethylene glycolAlcohols198116125RecommendedRecommendedClass 2
Formic acidAcids10149373ProblematicProblematicClass 3
HeptaneHydrocarbons98-4627ProblematicProblematicClass 3
HexamethylphosphoramideAprotic polar>200144197HazardousHighly hazardous–
HexaneHydrocarbons69-22877HazardousHazardousClass 2
Isopropyl acetateEsters892423RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
Isopropyl alcoholAlcohols8212433RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
MethanolAlcohols6511475ProblematicRecommendedClass 2
Methyl acetateEsters57-10535ProblematicProblematicClass 3
Methyl cyclohexaneHydrocarbons101-4627ProblematicProblematicClass 2
Methyl ethyl ketoneKetones80-6533RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
Methyl isobutyl ketoneKetones11713423RecommendedRecommendedClass 2
Methyl tert-butyl etherEthers55-28835HazardousHazardousClass 3
N,N-DimethylacetamideAprotic polar16670195HazardousHazardousClass 2
N,N-DimethylformamideAprotic polar15358395HazardousHazardousClass 2
n-ButanolAlcohols11829343RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
n-Butyl acetateEsters12622423RecommendedRecommendedClass 3
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinoneAprotic polar20296197HazardousHazardousClass 2
NitromethaneAprotic polar101351023HazardousHighly hazardousClass 2
PentaneHydrocarbons36-40837HazardousHazardousClass 3
PyridineAmines11523423RecommendedHazardousClass 2
SulfolaneAprotic polar287177197HazardousHazardousClass 2
t-ButanolAlcohols8211433RecommendedRecommendedClass 2
TetrahydrofuranEthers66-14675ProblematicProblematicClass 2
TolueneHydrocarbons1114563ProblematicProblematicClass 2
TriethylamineAmines89-6673ProblematicHazardousClass 3
WaterWater100–111RecommendedRecommended–
XylenesHydrocarbons14027425ProblematicProblematicClass 2

Of the 28 extraction solvents, 12 score 7 or more somewhere; 8, including water and ethanol, score 4 or less on all three.

Explanation, details and sources

CHEM21 scores safety from flash point and other physical hazards, health from GHS H3xx statements and boiling point, and environment from H4xx statements, boiling point and other criteria. The overall ranking follows the most stringent criterion, not a sum, and the authors adjusted some rankings after discussion: methanol and acetone moved from problematic to recommended. Heeley et al. note that the guide was designed for the pharmaceutical sector and that its scores may need modification for other applications, for example where distillation favors a higher boiling point.

ICH Q3C is a guideline for residual solvents in medicines. It is not binding on dietary supplements, but it is a common reference when an extract specification sets residual-solvent limits. Class 3 solvents such as ethanol, acetone and ethyl acetate have low toxic potential (50 mg per day or less acceptable without justification); Class 2 solvents such as hexane (2.9 mg per day) and methanol (30 mg per day) have permitted daily exposures.

Ecotoxicity

Aquatic toxicity is tested on algae, daphnids and fish, and the lowest result normally sets the hazard category

GHS short-term aquatic hazard: one set of concentration bands, applied to fish, crustacean and algal resultsUN classification criteria
GHS short-term aquatic hazard categories on a log concentration axis: Acute 1 at or below 1 mg/L, Acute 2 above 1 to 10, Acute 3 above 10 to 100; the same bands apply to the fish, crustacean and algal resultsAcute 1≤ 1 mg/LAcute 2> 1 to 10Acute 3> 10 to 100Not classified (acute)> 100Fish96 h LC₅₀, OECD TG 203Crustacea (Daphnia)48 h EC₅₀, OECD TG 202Algae or cyanobacteria72 h ErC₅₀, OECD TG 2010.010.11101001000L(E)C₅₀, mg/L (log scale)Solid line: 100 mg/L limit test in TG 202 and TG 203Dashed line: optional sub-band at 0.1 mg/LThe lowest value acrossfish, crustacea and algaenormally sets the category.
UN GHS, tenth revised edition (2023), ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.10, Chapter 4.1, Table 4.1.1 and 4.1.2; OECD Test Guidelines 201, 202 and 203.
Data table: GHS short-term (acute) aquatic categories
Table 4.1.1(a), GHS Rev.10
Category96 h LC₅₀ fish, 48 h EC₅₀ crustacea or 72/96 h ErC₅₀ algae
Acute 1≤ 1 mg/L (may be subdivided at ≤ 0.1 mg/L)
Acute 2> 1 but ≤ 10 mg/L
Acute 3> 10 but ≤ 100 mg/L
Three OECD aquatic tests and the matching U.S. EPA pesticide data requirementsTest guidelines and regulation
Three OECD aquatic toxicity test guidelines compared: organism, exposure, endpoint, minimum design and the matching U.S. EPA pesticide data requirementGuidelineOrganismExposureEndpointMinimum designEPA pesticide data requirement (40CFR 158)OECD TG 201Freshwater microalgaeand/or cyanobacteriaNormally 72 hGrowth inhibitionversus controlsAt least 5 concentrations; 3replicates each850.4400 / 850.5400 aquatic plantgrowth: required (R) for terrestrial andaquatic uses, § 158.660OECD TG 202Daphnia sp., under 24 hold48 hImmobilisation; EC₅₀ at48 hAt least 5 concentrations; at least20 animals each, as 4 × 5. Limit test100 mg/L850.1010 acute toxicity, freshwaterinvertebrates: R, § 158.630OECD TG 203FishPreferably 96hMortality; LC₅₀At least 5 concentrations in ageometric series; at least 7 fisheach. Limit test 100 mg/L850.1075 freshwater fish toxicity: R,§ 158.630Three OECD aquatic toxicity test guidelines, phone layoutOECD TG 201Organism: Freshwater microalgae and/or cyanobacteriaExposure: Normally 72 hEndpoint: Growth inhibition versus controlsMinimum design: At least 5 concentrations; 3 replicateseachEPA pesticide data requirement (40 CFR 158): 850.4400 /850.5400 aquatic plant growth: required (R) for terrestrialand aquatic uses, § 158.660OECD TG 202Organism: Daphnia sp., under 24 h oldExposure: 48 hEndpoint: Immobilisation; EC₅₀ at 48 hMinimum design: At least 5 concentrations; at least 20animals each, as 4 × 5. Limit test 100 mg/LEPA pesticide data requirement (40 CFR 158): 850.1010acute toxicity, freshwater invertebrates: R, § 158.630OECD TG 203Organism: FishExposure: Preferably 96 hEndpoint: Mortality; LC₅₀Minimum design: At least 5 concentrations in a geometricseries; at least 7 fish each. Limit test 100 mg/LEPA pesticide data requirement (40 CFR 158): 850.1075freshwater fish toxicity: R, § 158.630
OECD Test No. 201, 202 and 203 (oecd.org summaries); eCFR 40 CFR 158.630 and 158.660, current to Oct 21, 2026.

In the United States these data are required for pesticide registration; for solvents and extracts they feed GHS classification, and Section 12 of a U.S. safety data sheet is optional.

Explanation, details and sources

Under OSHA's hazard communication standard, Sections 12 to 15 of a safety data sheet, including Section 12 (ecological information), "may be included in the SDS, but are not mandatory" (29 CFR 1910.1200, Appendix D). Pesticide registrants must supply aquatic data under 40 CFR Part 158: freshwater fish toxicity (OCSPP 850.1075) and acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates (850.1010) are required for terrestrial and aquatic uses in § 158.630, and aquatic plant growth (850.4400/850.5400) in § 158.660.

The CHEM21 environment score uses GHS H4xx statements: hexane carries H411 ("toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects") and heptane and cyclohexane H410 ("very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects"). These come from classification data, not new tests.

Wild harvest and conservation

Most medicinal and aromatic plant trade is wild-collected, and few of the species have been assessed for extinction risk

From documented species to assessed and threatened species: each bar is a share of the base named beside itThird-party analysis (TRAFFIC)
Medicinal and aromatic plants: about 30,000 species with documented use, about 3,000 in international trade, 60 to 90 percent of trade volume wild-collected, 7 percent assessed against extinction criteria and 1 in 5 of those threatened~30,000 specieswith well-documented medicinal or aromaticuseAbout 30,000 plant species with documented medicinal or aromatic use~3,000 speciesin international trade as medicinal or aromaticplantsAbout 3,000 species in international trade (about 10% of 30,000)share of the 30,000 documented species60–90% of volumeof that trade is wild-collected material (rangeas published)At least 60% wild-collectedBetween 60% and 90% of trade volume is wild-collectedshare of trade volume (0 to 100%)7% of speciesassessed against IUCN extinction-risk criteriaOnly 7% of medicinal and aromatic plant species assessedshare of all medicinal and aromatic plant species1 in 5 assessedof the assessed species are threatened withextinction in the wild1 in 5 of the assessed species are threatenedshare of the 7% assessed
Jenkins M, Timoshyna A, Cornthwaite M. Wild at Home: Exploring the global harvest, trade and use of wild plant ingredients. TRAFFIC, 2018 ("Plant trade at a glance"); IUCN news release, June 28, 2018.
Data table
Figures as stated by TRAFFIC (2018)
MeasureValue
Species with well-documented medicinal or aromatic use~30,000
In international trade as medicinal or aromatic plants~3,000
Share of trade volume that is wild-collected60% to 90%
Share of species assessed against extinction-threat criteria7%
Assessed species threatened with extinction in the wild1 in 5
Global HS 1211 trade value, 2015over US$3 billion (threefold growth, 1999–2015)
Wild American ginseng leaves the United States only after five checks under CITES Appendix IITreaty and federal program
Legal export path for wild American ginseng roots: harvest from plants at least five years old, State or Tribal certification, a Fish and Wildlife Service export permit with a non-detriment finding, USDA-APHIS inspection, then export1Harvest in seasonFrom plants at least 5years old (4 or morestem scars); seasonsstart in September2State or TribalcertificationBefore roots leave theState or Tribe; 19States and 1 Tribehave approvedprograms3FWS export permitLegal-acquisition andnon-detrimentfindings under CITESAppendix II4USDA-APHISinspectionStem scars counted,so the root neck muststay attached5ExportShipment leaves withthe CITES permitCITES Appendix II listings that touch U.S. botanical supply1975American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)1997Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), effective Sept. 18, 1997Covered: live plants, whole and sliced roots and root parts; not powders,pills or extracts (1999 notice)Legal export path for wild American ginseng roots, phone layout1Harvest in seasonFrom plants at least 5 years old (4 or more stemscars); seasons start in September2State or Tribal certificationBefore roots leave the State or Tribe; 19 States and 1Tribe have approved programs3FWS export permitLegal-acquisition and non-detriment findings underCITES Appendix II4USDA-APHIS inspectionStem scars counted, so the root neck must stayattached5ExportShipment leaves with the CITES permitCITES Appendix II1975: American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)1997: goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis); live plants androots, not powders, pills or extracts (1999 notice)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Information for Ginseng Diggers, Dealers, and Exporters" (accessed Oct 24, 2026); Federal Register, Apr. 26, 1999 (FR Doc. 99-10342), goldenseal listing.

For a CITES-listed plant, legality is documented shipment by shipment; whether an extract is covered depends on the listing's annotation.

Explanation, details and sources

American ginseng has been in CITES Appendix II since 1975. Nineteen States and one Tribe (the Menominee Indian Tribe Reservation of Wisconsin) have approved export programs; some States require plants to be 10 years old, and most require three compound leaves. Goldenseal was added to Appendix II at the tenth Conference of the Parties, effective September 18, 1997; the 1999 notice describes the listing as covering live plants and whole and sliced roots and root parts, and excluding manufactured parts or derivatives such as powders, pills, extracts, tonics and teas. Annotations can change, so a proposed EUTECNIQ sourcing procedure would check the current CITES Appendices for each shipment.

TRAFFIC's figures are a 2018 synthesis. The IUCN Red List is updated continuously, so the share of species assessed has likely changed; the 7% figure is shown as published.

Supply reliability and cost

U.S. botanical imports depend on few origins, and their unit values swing by double digits in some years

U.S. imports of HS 1211 medicinal and aromatic plant material in 2024, by origin: select a tile for its value and shareGovernment trade data
UN Comtrade public API, reporter United States (842), imports, HS 1211, 2024, CIF primary value in US$, retrieved Oct 24, 2026. Regions: UN M49. Top 20 origins shown by name.
Data table: top 20 origins, HS 1211, 2024
U.S. imports, HS 1211, 2024 (UN Comtrade, CIF)
OriginUN M49 regionUS$ millionNet weight, tShare of value
IndiaAsia172.4624,87831.1%
MexicoAmericas61.3020,79911.0%
ChinaAsia30.923,9045.6%
GermanyEurope29.152,6085.3%
ColombiaAmericas24.494,7724.4%
EgyptAfrica24.076,6694.3%
NigeriaAfrica20.747,8673.7%
AlbaniaEurope18.213,6073.3%
CanadaAmericas14.805742.7%
FijiOceania13.393252.4%
China, Hong Kong SARAsia11.259182.0%
VanuatuOceania11.202142.0%
TürkiyeAsia10.712,1051.9%
AustraliaOceania10.355261.9%
Sri LankaAsia9.493661.7%
FranceEurope7.694641.4%
IndonesiaAsia5.943,5341.1%
MoroccoAfrica5.761,8961.0%
BulgariaEurope5.414911.0%
SpainEurope5.254210.9%
Other 85 countries–62.595,90611.3%
Total (105 countries)–555.1692,844100%
U.S. import unit values, 2015–2024: choose a measureGovernment trade data

UN Comtrade public API, United States imports from World, HS 1211, 1211.20 and 0910.30, 2015–2024, CIF primary value and net weight, retrieved Oct 24, 2026. Unit value = value ÷ net weight (computed).
Data table: value, net weight and unit value by year
U.S. imports from World: US$ million CIF / net weight in tonnes / unit value in US$ per kg
YearHS 1211HS 0910.30 turmericHS 1211.20 ginseng roots
2015393.6 / 64,574.9 / 6.1023.6 / 6,336.6 / 3.7338.7 / 483.8 / 79.92
2016413.4 / 66,691.9 / 6.2030.9 / 7,991.9 / 3.8650.8 / 541.9 / 93.80
2017409.8 / 71,729.6 / 5.7135.1 / 9,371.9 / 3.7438.6 / 483.1 / 79.85
2018453.0 / 85,419.0 / 5.3038.0 / 9,652.8 / 3.9337.9 / 482.9 / 78.54
2019403.1 / 85,042.7 / 4.7433.9 / 9,881.0 / 3.4314.7 / 272.5 / 54.00
2020433.6 / 91,462.8 / 4.7447.6 / 12,917.3 / 3.696.3 / 112.5 / 55.93
2021490.0 / 98,892.7 / 4.9662.7 / 13,194.9 / 4.755.4 / 100.3 / 53.44
2022544.8 / 93,417.1 / 5.8349.8 / 10,755.6 / 4.638.7 / 147.0 / 59.39
2023510.9 / 83,295.2 / 6.1350.8 / 11,976.3 / 4.2412.8 / 209.6 / 60.86
2024555.2 / 92,844.4 / 5.9856.2 / 13,666.1 / 4.1118.0 / 222.7 / 80.84
Turmeric imports are far more concentrated than HS 1211 as a whole: HHI 4,982 against 1,251Government trade data
Origin concentration of U.S. imports in 2024: HS 1211 medicinal plant parts, India 31.1 percent, top five 57.3 percent, HHI 1,251; turmeric, India 66.8 percent and Fiji 22.5 percent, HHI 4,982HS 1211 plants and parts for pharmacy, perfumeryUS$555.2 million CIF from 105 countries; HHI 1,251IndiaIndia: US$172.5 million, 31.1%31.1%MexicoMexico: US$61.3 million, 11.0%11.0%ChinaChina: US$30.9 million, 5.6%5.6%GermanyGermany: US$29.1 million, 5.3%5.3%ColombiaColombia: US$24.5 million, 4.4%4.4%EgyptEgypt: US$24.1 million, 4.3%4.3%Other 99 countriesOther 99 countries: 38.3%38.3%HS 0910.30 turmericUS$56.2 million CIF from 43 countries; HHI 4,982IndiaIndia: US$37.6 million, 66.8%66.8%FijiFiji: US$12.6 million, 22.5%22.5%ThailandThailand: US$0.8 million, 1.4%1.4%Other 40 countriesOther 40 countries: 9.2%9.2%HHI: sum of squared percentage shares of supplier countries (10,000 = one country). Computed from UN Comtrade partner values.
UN Comtrade, United States imports by partner, 2024, CIF. HHI computed on this page from partner shares.
Data table: turmeric (HS 0910.30) origins, 2024
U.S. imports, HS 0910.30 turmeric, 2024 (UN Comtrade, CIF)
OriginUS$ millionNet weight, tShare of value
India37.568,84666.8%
Fiji12.633,54622.5%
Thailand0.811451.4%
Indonesia0.722551.3%
Jamaica0.662211.2%
China0.61751.1%
Japan0.30410.5%
Spain0.30780.5%
Viet Nam0.24920.4%
Italy0.2320.4%
Other 33 countries2.133673.8%
Total (43 countries); HHI 4,98256.1813,666100%

India supplied 31.1% of the value and the top five origins 57.3%; 105 countries shipped HS 1211 material to the United States in 2024.

Explanation, details and sources

A unit value is customs value divided by net weight. It is a price proxy, not a price: it moves when the product mix inside a code changes as well as when prices change. HS 1211 covers whole, cut or powdered plants used mainly in pharmacy, perfumery or as pesticides; turmeric is in heading 09.10 and plant extracts in 13.02, so no single code measures the botanical ingredient market. Comtrade records U.S. imports at CIF value, which runs about 5% above the customs (FOB/FAS-type) value for HS 1211.

Ginseng-root unit values moved from US$93.80 to US$53.44 per kg between 2016 and 2021, then back to US$80.84 in 2024. Over 2015–2024 the coefficient of variation of the annual unit value was 9.9% for HS 1211, 10.0% for turmeric and 19.7% for ginseng roots (computed). The largest one-year moves were −31.2% (ginseng, 2018 to 2019), +32.8% (ginseng, 2023 to 2024) and +29.0% (turmeric, 2020 to 2021).

A proposed EUTECNIQ supply plan would qualify at least two origins for each critical botanical where trade data show concentration, document legal acquisition for any CITES-listed species, and test identity on receipt. These are plans; no suppliers have been qualified.

A route comparison starts with the functional unit and ends with supply risk

Ask how such a comparison would be scoped for an ingredient.