pharmacognosy
Study 04 · Pharmacognosy

How much medicine still starts in a plant.

Aspirin began as willow bark. The contraceptive pill began as a Mexican yam. A front-line cancer drug began as the bark of a Pacific yew. Four decades of approvals show the botanical root runs deeper than most people assume.

By aichabelleUpdated 3 June 2026Reproduce under CC BY 4.0

The most-cited number in pharmacognosy comes from Newman and Cragg. Across nearly four decades of FDA approvals — January 1981 to September 2019 — they found that natural products, their direct derivatives, and synthetic drugs designed around a natural-product pharmacophore account for roughly 65% of all small-molecule drugs approved in that period.

Counted more strictly, 1,059 of the 1,881 new drugs approved in that window — about 56% — are natural products, direct derivatives, or carry the pharmacophore of an active secondary metabolite. The exact percentage moves with the definition. The direction does not: the pharmacy is still, in large part, a herbarium.

~65%
of small-molecule drugs (1981–2019) trace to natural products.
1,059
of 1,881 new drugs approved in the window have natural-product origin.
40
years of FDA approvals analysed by Newman & Cragg.
Figure 1

Where new small-molecule drugs come from

Share of small-molecule approvals (1981–2019) with a natural-product origin, on the broad Newman–Cragg classification.

65% natural-product origin Natural products, derivatives& pharmacophore-based · ~65% Wholly syntheticno natural-product lineage · ~35% Stricter count: 1,059 / 1,881 (56%)
Chart © aichabelle · CC BY 4.0 Source: Newman & Cragg, J. Nat. Prod. 2020, PMC review 2024
Embed this chart
Figure 2

Six medicines that began as plants

A short anthology of source organism, molecule, and use — the journey from field to formulary.

SOURCEMOLECULEUSE Willow barkSalicin → aspirinPain, anti-inflammatory Pacific yewPaclitaxel (Taxol)Chemotherapy Mexican yamDiosgenin → steroidsThe contraceptive pill FoxgloveDigoxinHeart failure Madagascar periwinkleVincristineChildhood leukaemia Sweet wormwoodArtemisininMalaria (Nobel, 2015)
Chart © aichabelle · CC BY 4.0 Source: Newman & Cragg, 2020, Frontiers in Bioeng. & Biotech.
Embed this chart
Why it matters for skincare

The same logic, in a jar.

If two-thirds of the pharmacopeia begins in a plant, the divide between "botanical" and "scientific" beauty is largely false. A botanical active is a chemical story — it simply has a named origin and a chain of custody. That is the whole of our method: find a documented active, trace it to a named place and partnership, and let the molecule do the work it has always done. The forest got there first; the laboratory caught up.

Method

How we read it.

The headline proportions are from Newman & Cragg's Natural Products as Sources of New Drugs over the Nearly Four Decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019 (Journal of Natural Products, 2020), the standard reference in the field, and a 2024 review summarising it. The ~65% figure uses the broad classification (natural products, derivatives, and natural-product-pharmacophore synthetics); the 56% figure is a stricter small-molecule count. The plant-to-drug anthology draws on well-documented histories. We report both percentages because the difference is methodological, not a dispute about the facts.

Cite this study

aichabelle (2026). How much medicine still starts in a plant. The Aichabelle Research Index. aichabelle.com/pages/research-plant-medicine

Licence

Original charts © aichabelle, CC BY 4.0. Reproduce with attribution and a link to this page. Underlying figures © their named sources.
From the cabinet

Every active we use has a named origin.

Our cabinet is built the way this study reads the pharmacopeia: a documented molecule, traced to a place and a partnership. Read the provenance essays, or open the cabinet.

Open the cabinet Read the Journal