**7. Shortcomings (if available) of phytomedicine to the conventional or modern medicine**

 Globally, the high demand of use for herbal medicine for the treatment of illnesses is undisputable, and one begs to ask or wonder whether these products are actually of good quality, safe, and effective. There are assumptions and/or claims that despite general usage, few of them have been attributed to illnesses and fatalities as some of them have reported to cause liver and kidney damage [62–64]. In fact, this was also attributed to why they have not been globally accepted as par with conventional medicine within the national health care policy of many countries. The reason for this was not far-fetched. A lot of people believed that many herbal formulations lacked safety evaluations such as clinical trials as to why they cannot be placed in the same pedigree with modern medicine, but this was somehow disagreed by some researchers and/or policy makers who opined that clinical trials may be conducted only when large batches are intended. Additionally, in clinical practice, the failure to integrate phytotherapy as one of the courses or modules in medical school was seen in some quarters as the reason why it became somehow extremely difficult for medical practitioners to prescribe it, hence, the advantage convention medicine enjoys nowadays. Other problems include but not limited to storage conditions, inexplicit dosage, wrong labeling information, individualization of prescription with numerous active ingredients and other components, lack of information on the industrial use of MPs, little or no fact on the market benefit and business potentials, etc. [65]. It is worthy of mention that despite these limitations, phytotherapy had the potentials in salvaging numerous human diseases.
