The Historical Origins, Conceptual Essence, and Contemporary Development of the “Food‑Medicine Homology” Principle
Author: Wang Xudong, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, currently serves as Director of the Center for the History of Science and Technology at the Institute of Science, Technology and Humanities of Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. He also holds concurrent positions as Vice President of the Nanjing Society of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chairman of the Jiangsu Provincial Research Association on Medicinal Cuisine, and Deputy Director of the Committee on the Philosophy of Traditional Chinese Medicine under the Chinese Society for the History of Philosophy, among others.
During the implementation of the Healthy China initiative, the guiding principle of prevention‑first has spurred a transformation in the medical paradigm, leading to unprecedented attention being paid to the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) concepts of “combining prevention and treatment” and “integrating therapy with health preservation,” as well as to the “medicine–food homology” philosophy. However, at present, academic understanding of the “medicine–food homology” concept remains unclear. Contemporary policies on the dual use of medicines and foods have co-opted the insights of this time‑honored philosophical tradition, resulting in imprecise definitions, ambiguous connotations, and a narrowing of its scope, thereby giving rise to instrumentalization and vulgarization. Both the scholarly community and the government should adhere to the intrinsic essence of TCM, clarify the conceptual content of the “medicine–food homology” principle, fully tap into TCM textual resources, draw on folk dietary practices, and refine existing regulations governing the management of substances with dual medicinal and food applications, so that this distinguished principle may serve as a vital source for promoting public health.
In recent years, the “medicine–food homology” principle within the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) knowledge system has garnered increasing attention. Beyond the TCM sector, industries such as agriculture, food, culture, and tourism have all embraced it with great enthusiasm, while governments, investors, civil society, and the general public alike have wholeheartedly championed it. This trend is certainly linked to the strategic direction outlined in the Healthy China 2030 Plan; even more significantly, it reflects evolving consumer needs. As living standards rise across the board, dietary hygiene and nutritional literacy become more widespread, and public health awareness continues to grow, people are placing greater emphasis on preventive care and wellness. Meanwhile, concerns about “iatrogenic diseases” and “drug‑induced illnesses” within the medical community have prompted the public to recognize that prevention is paramount, encouraging a return to nature and a search for more natural healing approaches. Consequently, the practice of “seeking medicinal benefits from food” has emerged. Yet perhaps most importantly, we live surrounded by an extraordinarily rich treasure trove: traditional Chinese medicine, along with its vast body of knowledge on dietary therapy and health‑preserving practices.
1 The Origins and Essence of “Medicine and Food Share a Common Source”
As a specialized academic term, “yao-shi tong yuan” (medicine and food share a common origin) is a new concept proposed in recent years by scholars in the field of traditional Chinese medicine, based on an accumulation of historical experience and related theoretical frameworks. It evolved from the “yi-shi tong yuan” (medicine and food share a common origin) concept that emerged in the 1930s. The widespread use of this term, which has since become a popular expression, can be attributed to the promulgation of the “Administrative Measures for the Catalogue of Substances That Are Both Food and Traditional Chinese Medicinal Materials,” issued by the General Office of the National Health Commission—commonly referred to as the “yao-shi liang-yong” (dual‑use of medicine and food) management measures. Notably, neither the phrase “yao-shi tong yuan” nor “yao-shi liang-yong” appears in the classical texts of traditional Chinese medicine dating back to the late Qing dynasty and the early Republican period.
The reason lies in the fact that, within the framework of modern science, the term “yao‑shi liang‑yong” conflates two categories of substances—medicine and food—into a hybrid concept, which is semantically illogical. From a modern scientific standpoint, medicine is medicine, and food is food; the two cannot be mixed. However, traditional Chinese thought has long approached the world through a holistic, macroscopic lens, characterized by dialectical logic. Accordingly, certain items can serve as both food and, under specific conditions, as medicine. To resolve this logical tension, modern scholars naturally turned to traditional culture for theoretical support, and thus the historical practice of combining medicinal and dietary uses came to be encapsulated in the “yao‑shi tong yuan” (medicine and food share a common origin) theory. The most fundamental basis for this theory is the passage in the Huainanzi stating, “Shennong tasted a hundred herbs and encountered seventy kinds of poison in a single day,” as well as the occupational division described in the Zhou Li’s “Tian Guan,” where “food physicians” were distinguished from other practitioners.
Although the technical term “medicine and food share a common origin” only emerged in modern times, the practice of using medicine and food interchangeably—and the notion that they spring from a single source—has permeated the entire history of traditional Chinese medicine and indeed the entire trajectory of Chinese civilization. Beyond the aforementioned “Rites of Zhou,” classical texts such as the “Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine” accord equal importance to the health‑promoting and therapeutic effects of food as to its primary function of satisfying hunger. The blurring of distinctions between medicine and food was not merely a product of the cognitive limitations of the era; more significantly, it reflected the early Chinese understanding of the cosmos and the world.
During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, “qi” monism was the dominant intellectual paradigm: qi was regarded as the fundamental constituent of all things in the universe, akin to the “material category” in Western philosophy. As the saying goes, “When qi combines, forms take shape; through transformation, names are rightly assigned”—that is, the universe’s matter exhibits “common origin, diverse configurations.” All substances, without exception, arise from qi through different modes of change, giving rise to distinct categories. Moreover, every material composed of qi is classified and categorized according to the five elements, leaving no clear demarcation between species. In the Five Elements theory of traditional Chinese medicine, animals, plants, minerals, and even seasons, climates, colors, and sounds can all be interconnected via the five elements. This way of perceiving the world fostered among ancient peoples the belief that “all things may serve my purposes,” “all things may be eaten,” and “all things may be used as medicine”—so long as they share the same qi, they can “seek one another.” The criterion for such assessment lies in the harmony of qi and the generative–control relationships among the five elements. From this it follows that, in early human thought, there was no strict distinction between “medicine” and “food.” Indeed, Shennong’s tasting of a hundred herbs was never an act of searching for medicinal remedies; rather, it was an effort to secure sustenance. As the Huainanzi states: “Instruct the people to know what to avoid and what to embrace,” clearly indicating that Shennong’s herbal tastings were not aimed at discovering drugs, but at teaching the common people which foods should be avoided.
At the outset, the notion was that all things could serve as sustenance; yet not every plant or herb could satisfy hunger. Some possessed repugnant odors or were violently toxic and thus unfit for consumption. It became necessary to “avoid and embrace” certain substances, and these avoided or embraced items came to be regarded as foods suitable only in specific circumstances—namely, as remedies for illness. “Physicians oversee medical policies and regulations, gathering poisonous herbs to support medical practice.” This marks the beginning of a conceptual distinction between medicine and food. Initially, the boundary was rather vague: broadly speaking, it involved excluding toxic substances from the realm of food, thereby transforming those very toxins into medicines. In other words, medicine emerged as a derivative, an offshoot of food.
2 Problems in the Modern Application of the Theory of “Food and Medicine Sharing a Common Origin”
2.1 The Narrowing Phenomenon of the Theory of Food-Medicine Homology
Since the principle of “medicine and food share a common origin” provides the theoretical foundation for the list of substances that are both medicinal and edible, it should not be divorced from its original philosophical roots. At its core, this concept holds that “everything in the universe can be used as medicine,” a principle that ancient Chinese medical practitioners followed in their clinical work. Contemporary approaches to dietary therapy, nutritional medicine, and preventive health care should likewise adhere to this fundamental premise. However, the current regulatory framework for “substances with dual medicinal and food functions” merely selects items from the pharmacopeia that happen to possess food‑related properties and subjects them to oversight. As a result, this approach diverges sharply from the traditional Chinese medical understanding of medicine–food duality, creating a profound contradiction: the theory of medicine–food unity in Chinese medicine has been severely narrowed.
In classical herbal texts, staple grains such as rice and millet, as well as poultry, fish, and meat, are all described in terms of their nature, flavor, and therapeutic effects. Throughout the dynasties, numerous works on dietary therapy and food‑medicine have cataloged hundreds or even thousands of species with purported healing properties. From Meng Shen’s “Shi Liao Ben Cao” of the Tang dynasty to the countless similar treatises of the Ming and Qing periods, this tradition has persisted. For instance, the “Shi Wu Ben Cao,” attributed to Li Gao in the Ming era, lists no fewer than 1,689 items. By contrast, the current official compendium of substances that are both medicinal and edible includes only slightly over one hundred entries, a scope far narrower than that found in ancient texts. This disparity stems primarily from the differing philosophical foundations underlying the two approaches: the modern list overlooks the traditional medical and health‑preserving principles that underpin these ancient traditions, as well as the empirical realities they reflect.
2.2 The Phenomenon of Superficiality in the List of Foods and Medicinals with Dual Uses
At present, the list of substances with both medicinal and food uses has identified Chinese medicinal varieties that are permissible for consumption and has compiled a corresponding regulatory roster; however, it does not yet fully adhere to sound and rational underlying principles and still contains numerous shortcomings.
In the list of substances with both food and medicinal uses, a large number of commonly consumed foods have been brought under regulatory control, such as Chinese yam, hyacinth bean, sesame, and lily. In the general public’s perception, these items are hardly regarded as “medicines,” and even when used for health maintenance, they are seldom classified as such. Consequently, their medicinal status can be said to be an artificial designation imposed by regulators, with the attribution of “medicinal” properties to these food items based on their inclusion in the Pharmacopoeia or similar normative documents.
The inclusion of food items in pharmacopoeial and similar regulatory frameworks, thereby classifying them as “medicinal substances,” stems from two main considerations: first, respect for traditional Chinese medicine and the realities of everyday life; second, adherence to the principle of “relatively well‑defined constituents,” favoring those with clearly identified active or toxic components. The latter criterion dictates that such normative documents as the Pharmacopoeia can only adopt a selective approach to inclusion. As a legal instrument for drug regulation, the Pharmacopoeia is entirely appropriate; however, limiting the selection of foods‑medicines to those listed in such regulatory texts narrows the scope excessively and risks a lack of sufficient rigor.
Furthermore, in everyday life, the general public tends to interpret substances that are both food and medicine primarily as “edible”—that is, they assume that any substance listed in the catalog of such dual‑purpose items can be consumed regularly. However, this is not necessarily the case. For example, ginseng and angelica root are rarely regarded as foods; at most, they are used as food additives. This practice effectively reorients substances whose primary attributes lie in their medicinal properties toward being essential for sustaining life and replenishing nutrition. Such a selective orientation, in turn, blurs the boundaries between medicinal and dietary characteristics.
In other words, the current regulatory catalog not only suffers from a narrowing effect but, when assessed against the standards of traditional Chinese medicine theory, also exhibits a “marking the boat to find the sword” mindset, thereby rendering it superficial.
3 Reasons for the problems in the management approach to foods and medicines with dual uses
3.1 It departs from the fundamental principle of Traditional Chinese Medicine that humans and nature are unified.
As noted above, the fundamental principle underlying the TCM concept of “food and medicine share a common origin” lies in the unity of matter; it is the concrete manifestation, in food selection, of the ideas of the oneness of heaven and humanity and the harmony between them. At its core, this approach seeks to maximize the sources of resources and to fully harness their potential benefits. Compared with the prevailing notion of “dual use of food and medicine,” the TCM perspective of “food and medicine share a common origin” calls for the most thorough, in-depth, and broad‑based utilization of materials, making it an expansive, open‑minded, and proactive philosophy. This理念 aligns with the holistic principles of TCM and embodies the experience and wisdom of the Chinese people’s way of life.
Currently, the management approach for substances that are both medicinal and food‑based—commonly employed in the fields of health preservation and dietary therapy—consists of selecting from “traditional medicines” those categories that possess food‑like characteristics, or identifying drug varieties that either lack toxic side effects or exhibit only mild ones, and then applying modern scientific methods to regulate them, thereby preventing harmful constituents from causing harm to the human body. Consequently, the purpose of compiling lists of such dual‑use substances is targeted, selective, and proactive; while this approach does align with the normative requirements of contemporary goal‑oriented management, it essentially seeks to constrain overly permissive approaches to food selection or drug utilization. This represents a fundamental departure from the principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin,” even though both categories ultimately involve “food.” It distorts the underlying philosophy of openly leveraging food resources in accordance with that principle. As a result, it naturally falls short of the original intent of regulators to standardize food categories, and the ensuing consequences are bound to be rather awkward.
3.2 Neglected the time-honored traditional customs that have been passed down through millennia in folk culture
The fundamental principles of the “medicine–food homology” concept are rooted in millennia of Chinese daily life and medical practice. However, the current regulations governing the dual use of substances as both medicine and food depart from the Chinese public’s basic understanding of food and artificially blur the legal definition of “food.” Moreover, regulating food‑ingredient management through the lens of medicine–food duality is likely to generate unnecessary complications and lead to excessive resource waste.
The list of substances with both medicinal and culinary uses excludes many traditional Chinese medicinal ingredients commonly employed in everyday life, such as Aconite, widely used in Sichuan, Yunnan, and Guizhou; garlic and tea, found throughout the country; Prunella vulgaris, Buzha Ye, and Plumeria flowers, frequently used in the Guangdong and Guangxi regions; and common medicinal‑diet ingredients like Cuscuta seed, Semen Cassiae, processed Polygonum multiflorum, Panax notoginseng, and pearl. Although these items possess stronger pharmacological properties, they are also staples in folk cuisine. Through appropriate processing, judicious ingredient pairings, and skillful preparation techniques, they have been transformed into seasonings or flavorings for dishes like braised chicken and roast duck, as well as for teas and soups, thereby delivering notable nutritional benefits and auxiliary therapeutic effects.
The distortion of the “medicine–food dual‑use” concept has given rise to numerous problems in both everyday life and industrial practice, often leading to conflicts between government authorities and the public. When the author was invited to deliver a lecture at a training session organized by the Law Enforcement Bureau of the National Health Commission, law enforcement officers widely reported feeling at a loss when applying the law to matters involving medicine–food dual‑use products, unsure how to strike an appropriate balance: if they accommodate traditional dietary practices, they risk failing to enforce regulations; if they adhere strictly to the official list of medicine–food dual‑use items, they may fail to respect established folk customs. Similarly, in the health‑food sector, there have been instances—such as the use of Prunella vulgaris in herbal teas—where, under the pretext of “respecting tradition,” alternative regulatory pathways were carved out.
3.3 Theoretical research on the principle of “food and medicine sharing a common origin” in traditional Chinese medicine has been omitted.
The principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” is an integral part of traditional Chinese medicine, from which the concept of substances that serve both medicinal and dietary purposes—and the corresponding varieties—has emerged. Yet, as the architect of the regulatory framework for such dual‑purpose substances, this approach has neglected in-depth scholarly inquiry into the theoretical foundations of this TCM doctrine and has failed to initiate meaningful deliberations or solicit expert opinions within the TCM community. Fundamental research remains virtually nonexistent: there is a conspicuous lack of systematic investigation into the concepts of “medicine–food homology” and “dual‑purpose substances,” including their definitions, scopes, criteria, standards, historical evolution, limitations, and the interplay between traditional modes of thought and modern regulatory norms. Moreover, no substantial, well‑grounded findings have been produced—particularly in the realms of macro‑level, philosophical, and theoretical inquiry. According to relevant search platforms, although publications on “medicine–food homology” have proliferated in recent years, the vast majority fall into three categories: first, studies focused on food‑industry development; second, analyses of the constituent elements of dual‑purpose species—such as volatile compounds, polysaccharides, phenylpropanoids, quinones, flavonoids, tannins, terpenes, sterols and their glycosides, alkaloids, and other organic and inorganic constituents—with most research concentrating on single‑ingredient varieties; and third, popular‑science efforts that largely aim to promote TCM dietary culture and the philosophy of medicine–food homology.
In addition to the lack of in-depth research, the neglect of classical textual studies is another significant shortcoming. Countless ancient Chinese medical texts—such as the “Shi Liao Ben Cao,” the “Yin Shan Zheng Yao,” and the “Jiu Huang Ben Cao”—record numerous species that are both medicinal and edible, along with practical experience in their use, while also implicitly embodying the underlying principles of the “medicine–food homology” concept and the guidelines for their application. Yet none of this has been reflected in relevant policies or regulations.
It is precisely for the reasons outlined above that the concept of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” has become distorted: its concepts and definitions remain unclear, its connotations are ill-defined, its scope has narrowed, and the range of substances classified as both medicine and food has diverged from tradition and failed to reflect reality. The number of such substances is too limited, and the underlying principles are explained in overly simplistic terms—often even leading to self‑contradictions. For example, if a substance is both a medicine and a food, it naturally possesses both therapeutic and nutritional functions; yet, finished products derived from it may not advertise any curative effects. If therapeutic claims are prohibited, how, then, can its medicinal properties be effectively implemented?
3.4 The legislator’s original intent is inconsistent with the principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin.”
The principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” was intended to provide China’s civilian food sector with broader development prospects and a richer variety of products. However, in practice, it has merely served as an interpretive tool for the “List of Foods That Are Also Medicines,” failing to operate in accordance with the intrinsic mechanisms underlying this principle and unable to fully resolve the logical paradox of “both food and medicine” from a modern perspective. In other words, without the List of Foods That Are Also Medicines, the concept of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” cannot adequately convey its characteristic of opening up food resources and leveraging the auxiliary and supportive functions of medicinal substances in dietary applications.
According to the Ministry of Health’s “Notice on Further Standardizing the Management of Health Food Raw Materials” (Wei Fa Jian Fa [2002] No. 51), “In order to further standardize the management of health food raw materials, and in accordance with the Food Hygiene Law of the People’s Republic of China, the ‘List of Items That Are Both Food and Medicinal Products,’ the ‘List of Items Permitted for Use in Health Foods,’ and the ‘List of Prohibited Items for Health Foods’ are hereby issued.” On August 16, 2016, this was proposed to be revised to the “Administrative Measures for the Catalogue of Substances That Are Traditionally Both Food and Chinese Medicinal Materials.” It is thus evident that the establishment of the list of substances suitable for both food and medicine was intended to regulate health food raw materials. Clearly, this underlying intention runs counter to the principle of “food and medicine sharing a common origin,” as the catalogue includes only slightly over one hundred items—far fewer than the actual number of substances eligible for use as health food ingredients.
According to the National Health Commission’s reply dated August 16, 2016, to Proposal No. 1603 of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and its reply dated September 17, 2019, to Proposal No. 105, the current catalog has been formulated and revised by the National Health Commission, the State Food and Drug Administration, and the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Although it has been published in three batches, it includes only about one hundred items. Upon examining the selection criteria, two factors stand out: first, the items must be listed in the Pharmacopoeia or other relevant standards for Chinese medicinal materials; second, they must be safe and non‑toxic. While these criteria are sound, the fact that the catalog merely draws from existing regulations—selecting only those substances already covered by new regulatory frameworks—may strike some as overly cautious.
For example, the realities of traditional Chinese medicine have not been adequately taken into account. TCM’s assessment of safety and non-toxicity is conditional: while He Shou Wu has long been regarded as a longevity‑promoting food, modern laboratory studies now identify it as hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic—precisely because, when used as a longevity remedy, it is processed through a nine‑fold steaming and drying procedure involving black beans, honeysuckle, and rice-washing water. Such nuances were overlooked in the formulation of the table of contents. Similarly, the longstanding folk tradition of incorporating herbal medicines into food has been entirely excluded; for instance, local practices prevalent in Guangdong and Guangxi—such as the extensive use of Bu Zha Ye and frangipani flowers—have failed to gain recognition within expert circles.
As for the list of substances that are both food and medicine, it likewise fails to meet the expectations of practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine and pharmacologists. For instance, the list includes too few entries and lacks essential information such as the source, part used, variety, processing methods, compatibility, and dosage; it merely lists the names of the medicinal herbs, which is clearly far too rudimentary.
4 Promote the theory of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” and refine policies on the dual use of medicinal and edible substances.
The theory of the unity of medicine and food fully embodies Traditional Chinese Medicine’s understanding of the world and represents a harmonious integration of humanity and nature. However, TCM’s excessive emphasis on the common origins of things has led it to overlook the distinctive characteristics of each entity. Consequently, much like the holistic philosophy of TCM, this theory tends to exhibit tendencies toward overgeneralization, mystification, abstraction, and individualization. In contemporary society, such overly broad theories pose practical challenges: they become vast yet impractical, empty yet devoid of concrete substance. Consider that if everything can be consumed as food and every medicinal substance can be incorporated into the diet, while this expands our horizons in utilizing natural resources, it also makes it difficult to establish appropriate safety thresholds. Therefore, implementing effective regulation in this area is indeed an essential measure.
Although the “Regulations on the Administration of the Catalogue of Substances That Are Both Food and Traditional Chinese Medicinal Materials” have the aforementioned shortcomings, their underlying rationale aligns with societal needs. In light of the diverse health demands of the public, the tension between the broad vision of integrating food and medicine and the existing legal framework constitutes a pressing issue that must be addressed to refine policies governing substances with dual food‑medicine applications.
4.1 Adhering to the essence of Traditional Chinese Medicine, clearly defining the connotations and scope of the “medicine–food homology” concept.
The modern pharmaceutical and food industries indeed require standardized, science-based management and practical, enforceable regulatory frameworks. As the state vigorously promotes the concept of “medicine and food sharing a common origin,” it is all the more imperative to establish a clear “substance‑based definition” for products that serve both medicinal and dietary purposes, thereby delineating their scope—this is an essential measure to fully safeguard public health. However, since the principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” is a distinctive feature of traditional Chinese medicine, it must be firmly grounded in TCM theory, set aside Western modes of thinking, clearly distinguish between toxic and non‑toxic substances, and pursue the expansion and enhancement of food resources. Only then can we truly leverage the strengths and unique characteristics of TCM and forge a health‑preserving food industry with distinctly Chinese attributes.
Through meticulous study of traditional Chinese medicine literature, we fully leverage the wisdom and historical experience of past scholars. We have redefined the concepts of “medicinal substances,” “foodstuffs,” and “both‑medicinal‑and‑food” items, clarifying their respective connotations and extensions, as well as the specific scopes they encompass. First, adhering to the fundamental principles of the holistic perspective in TCM, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the essential nature and ideological implications of the concepts of “medicine and food share a common origin” and “both‑medicinal‑and‑food.” Drawing on classical TCM texts and materia medica works, and referencing the conventional definitions and regulatory frameworks for modern foods and pharmaceuticals, we delineate the scope and categories that fall within the purview of the “both‑medicinal‑and‑food” concept, thereby establishing the necessary conventions and guiding principles for macro‑level, holistic, and complex food and medicinal systems.
4.2 Fully Exploit Traditional Chinese Medicine Literature Resources
The Huangdi Neijing contains extensive theoretical discussions on the principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” and on the criteria distinguishing between medicinal substances and foods. The Shennong Bencao Jing records numerous commonly used foods—such as jujubes, ginger, walnuts, lotus seeds, honey, and lilies—arranged according to a three‑grade classification system (upper, middle, and lower), and it also specifies the standards for determining when a substance can serve both as medicine and as food.
During the Southern and Northern Dynasties, under the Liang dynasty, Tao Hongjing’s “Compendium of Annotations to the Classic of Materia Medica” classified medicinal substances according to their natural attributes, such as “fruits, vegetables, and grains,” and devoted an entire section to foods. This system of classification was carried forward through the Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties; works like the “Newly Revised Compendium of Materia Medica” and the “Compendium of Materia Medica with Illustrations” likewise grouped edible medicinal materials separately. In the Tang dynasty, Sun Simiao’s “Essential Formulas Worth a Thousand Gold Pieces for Emergencies” included a chapter on dietary therapy, which subdivided foods into sections such as “fruits,” “vegetables,” “grains,” and “birds and beasts (with insects and fish),” listing a total of 155 species of fruits, vegetables, grains, birds, beasts, fish, and insects. Sun Simiao’s disciple, Meng Shen, authored the “Materia Medica for Dietary Therapy,” the earliest extant specialized treatise on food‑based health preservation in China.
In the Song dynasty, the officially compiled “Taiping Shenghui Fang” included a section titled “Dietary Therapy,” which recorded 160 medicinal‑diet formulas. During the Yuan dynasty, Hu Sihui, the Imperial Physician of Dietetics, authored the “Yinshan Zhengyao,” the earliest specialized treatise in China on dietary hygiene and nutrition, featuring 230 single‑ingredient substances that serve both as food and medicine. In the Ming dynasty, the work “Shiwu Bencao,” attributed to Li Gao, listed 1,689 items that are both food and medicinal, making it the most comprehensive compendium of its kind. By the Ming period, Li Shizhen’s “Compendium of Materia Medica” cataloged over 300 food‑based medicinal substances, organized into five sections—herbs, grains, vegetables, fruits, and trees—and also included discussions of dietary taboos and contraindications. After the Ming and Qing dynasties, similar works proliferated, such as “Shiwu Bencao,” “Shijian Bencao,” “Yinshi Xuzhi,” and “Suixiju Yinshi Pu.”
The aforementioned literature constitutes an inexhaustible repository of the theory of “medicine and food sharing a common origin,” as well as an endless resource for medicinal–food dual‑purpose varieties. Only on the foundation of traditional Chinese medicine theory and its classical texts can we develop food categories that truly embody Chinese characteristics, integrating nutrition, health preservation, wellness, rehabilitation, and medical care.
4.3 Improving the Current Administrative Measures for Varieties Classified as Both Food and Medicine
(1) As noted above, on the basis of relatively precise conceptual definitions and connotations, we should abandon the approach of selecting varieties solely from the Pharmacopoeia, fully leverage the philosophical insights inherent in the principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin,” broaden the scope of this principle, and delve into its underlying intellectual essence.
(2) Distinguish between staple foods and complementary foods (seasonings and condiments); classify and differentiate the raw materials of staple foods from those of complementary foods; clearly define and categorize items intended for use as seasonings versus those intended as staple foods, and implement categorized management.
(3) Distinguish between regulatory targets: remove items with clearly defined food characteristics from the catalog or establish separate categories to relax controls. For products with obvious pharmaceutical attributes, the range of eligible varieties should be expanded and fully leveraged. The principle of category-based management must also take into account differences across industries, population groups, and diverse needs—such as health maintenance, rehabilitation, and beauty—and further refine industry classification under the “food‑medicine homology” framework. At the same time, it is essential to emphasize the principles underlying the properties of traditional Chinese medicines, with detailed specifications regarding product types, origins, processing methods, and herbal combinations.
(4) Fully take into account regional characteristics, ethnic customs, and dietary habits to develop management measures that are attuned to local conditions and imbued with warmth.
In summary, the essence of the principle of “medicine and food sharing a common origin” is encapsulated in Sun Simiao’s words from the “Beiji Qianjin Yaofang—On Medicinal Names”: “All things in the world are living medicines; among all creations, there is not a single thing that is not medicinal.” The same holds true for food. It is on this intellectual foundation that the concept of medicine–food homology acquires its significance in enhancing public well-being. To promote the distinctive features of traditional Chinese medicine, we must begin with TCM itself, thoroughly excavate its historical legacy, and thereby uncover additional food resources for contemporary humanity while identifying more medicinal resources to support health maintenance and disease prevention. This, indeed, is the ultimate purpose of our efforts to systematize and explore the theory of medicine–food homology.
Citation: Wang Xudong. The Historical Origins, Conceptual Essence, and Contemporary Development of the “Medicine–Food Homology” Principle [J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 39(9): 809–813.
Article reprinted from: The Official Account of the Chinese Herbal Medicine Cultivation and Breeding Professional Committee
