The conversation around DNA testing in the natural products industry is changing.
For years, companies asked whether DNA testing “worked” at all. Today, the better question is: Which generation of DNA testing are you using?
Because not all DNA testing is built the same.
First Generation: The Rush to Market
When DNA first entered botanical identity testing around 2016, laboratories moved quickly to offer it. The demand was real. But the infrastructure wasn’t.
Methods were patched together. Databases were incomplete. Authentication standards were inconsistent. Universal genetic markers were assumed to provide species-level resolution across diverse botanicals. Pipelines were not properly validated.
The result was predictable: confusing certificates of analysis, inconsistent identifications and skepticism across the industry.
DNA testing itself wasn’t the problem. The implementation was.
That early phase created a long shadow.
Second Generation: The Era of Universal Barcoding
As the field matured, many labs shifted toward DNA barcoding and metabarcoding approaches built on “universal markers” such as ITS and rbcL.
These markers were originally developed in academic research to compare large groups of species across the tree of life. They are powerful tools for understanding evolutionary relationships.
But evolutionary comparison is not the same as commercial species identification.
Universal markers are universal by design—meaning closely related species share significant overlap in these regions. That overlap increases the risk of false positives and ambiguous conclusions when species-level resolution is required, particularly among closely related taxa.
In addition, these methods typically rely on PCR amplification of a defined marker region. For amplification to succeed, the full span of that DNA marker must be sufficiently intact. In processed materials, DNA is often fragmented, making reliable amplification of the complete marker region inconsistent and further limiting applicability in commercial products.
Published research has documented these limitations. One study evaluating 39 powdered herbal mixtures found that ITS2 achieved only genus-level identification in 55% of samples and family-level identification in 63%. rbcL performed similarly, with genus-level identification in 58% and family-level identification in 73% of cases (Nature).
For commercial natural products companies that require defensible, species-level determinations, that level of resolution is not sufficient.
Yet universal barcodes remain widely used today because they are accessible, inexpensive and built on pre-existing academic databases.
The consequence has been inconsistent results and growing skepticism toward DNA testing. When tools not designed for species-level resolution in complex, processed materials are applied to commercial products, unreliable data follows. That experience has shaped industry perceptions.
Third Generation: Purpose-Built DNA for Commercial Botanicals
At LeafWorks, we built what we call the next generation of botanical DNA testing.
Rather than relying on universal markers and off-the-shelf databases, we crafted our infrastructure specifically to move beyond them — because we knew those approaches could not reliably deliver species-level resolution in commercial materials.
The LeafWorks NGS Platform is built around:
-
Authenticated botanical reference materials
-
Species-specific genomic markers
-
An NGS method that overcomes the issues of PCR-based assays
-
Carefully validated analytical pipelines
-
Databases constructed specifically for commercial botanicals
-
Real-world utility across processed products and complex blends
Our platform does not rely on universal barcodes. Instead, it uses species-specific genomic regions only. The result is greater specificity, stronger discrimination and improved reliability in processed materials.
Before LeafWorks ever offered a single Botanical DNA ID test, we spent nine years building that infrastructure.
Nine years to curate authenticated specimens; sequence thousands of representative botanicals; validate markers and eliminate ambiguous signals; and ensure results hold up across diverse matrices and product types.
We did not rush to market. We built the foundation first, making it entirely purpose driven to serve the botanicals industry.
This is not simply a refinement of earlier methods. It represents a shift in philosophy — from borrowing academic tools to building commercial-grade DNA infrastructure.
What This Means for the Industry
DNA testing in botanicals is not static. Evaluating the entire field based on early-generation methods overlooks how far the science has advanced.
The industry does not need to choose between traditional methods and flawed DNA barcoding. It now has access to purpose-built genomic identity systems designed specifically for commercial botanicals.
At present, LeafWorks is the only laboratory exclusively devoted to state-of-the-art, species-specific DNA testing for botanicals. Why use anyone else? Our platform was built from the ground up around commercial identity challenges—not adapted from academic barcoding models.
The question is no longer whether DNA works. The question is which generation you’re using.
