The differences is best described with the following analogy:Manufacture standardized poly-constituent is like a whole carrot that has been juiced. It has all the carrot's nutritional and constituent properties present in their natural ratio-intact state and synergy, only the fibrous part of the carrot is missing and in some instances the juice is concentrated, but 'whole' all the same.Mono-constituent phytopharmaceutical 'Standardized' is like that same whole carrot having only its vitamin A content removed and super concentrated while all the other nutritional and constituent properties are dramatically reduced or altogether discarded along with the fiber, leaving only the isolate/fractionate mono-constituent based vitamin A part present in the finished product… sort of like a faucet in a kitchen but with no sink, countertop, drains or plumbing for it to work with.From a pure health building perspective, we believe the manufacture standardized 'whole' poly-constituent approach is the most health restoring and nutritionally supplemental approach for improving and sustaining health and well-being. In other words, Cedar Bear 'manufacture standardized' approach is poly-constituent based, while the 'Standardized' of the isolate/fractionate phytopharmaceutical driven approach is mono-constituent based.The difference between manufacture standardized poly-constituent and mono-constituent 'Standardized' is really simple, but substantial in its ramifications.A poly-constituent approach seeks to obtain and sustain the naturally occurring synergy, interrelated ratios and biological viability of the broad base of primary, secondary and tertiary constituents and compounds that are intrinsic to a 'whole' unprocessed herb ingredient, whereas the mono-constituent approach seeks to isolate, fractionate and concentrate a singular 'active' constituent or single group of constituents from an herb without consideration for the myriad of other secondary and tertiary constituents and compounds the 'Standardized' marker constituent was originally a part of.In the simplest of terms, the poly-constituent approach is more supplemental, nutritive, tonifying, building, regenerating, revivifying, and 'whole', whereas the mono-constituent approach, is more drug-like, isolate, detached and apart from, and and better suited for prescribing by a qualified clinically trained and pharma-experienced individual due to its drug-like intent and nature.As for one being better than the other, Cedar Bear is of the opinion that 'whole' poly-constituent based herbal products are best suited for general distribution and sales to the public and most closely meet the intent of the 1994 D.S.H.E.A. standard as well as the technical and scientific definition of a 'natural' based dietary supplement, whereas the mono-constituent phytopharmaceutical driven 'Standardized' potency based products are best suited for restricted distribution and sales through qualified clinically trained practitioners, especially where known highly active constituents in a fractionate/isolate state that are potency increased in a product are used that can actually trigger or exacerbate many health conditions, that wouldn't happen with a more 'whole' herb based product.To be sure, the bad media, negative press and public scares concerning certain herbs since the late 1980′s, and especially since 1994, has been caused by the misuse, mislabeling, over-reaching and misplaced confidence in the photopharmaceutical driven isolate/fractionate mono-constituent based 'Standardized' potency enhanced category of botanical sourced products, not the whole herb poly-constituent based herbal products like Cedar Bear Naturales produces.Ephedra is a good example of this observation. Of 1,400 or so cases cited by FDA concerning Ephedra's adverse events, only one case cited a whole ephedra product (as a simple steeped tea) as being a possible contributor to the event recorded – and then, only as a 'possible' contributor, meaning the evidence was lacking to affirmatively substantiate that a whole herb based product of ephedra was ever a problem at any time in the adverse event reporting process. It was the phytopharmaceutical driven 'Standardized' drug-like ephedrine products that caused the ban, not the 'whole' herb based products. And yes! There is a substantial difference between the two, one FDA chose to ignore and continues to ignore.