WHO and AYUSH MoU 2025: What It Actually Means for Ayurveda Research
In May 2025, India and WHO signed a landmark traditional-medicine agreement that has been described in Indian media as "global recognition for Ayurveda." The reality is more nuanced — and more interesting. Here is what the MoU actually does, what it doesn't, and what consumers should watch for over the next two years.
The 30-second version
On May 24, 2025, India's Ministry of AYUSH and the World Health Organization signed a US$3 million Memorandum of Understanding to support the inclusion of Traditional Medicine in the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI). A separate MoU committed both parties to co-host the Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine in New Delhi from December 17-19, 2025. Together, these agreements signal genuine institutional engagement between WHO and Indian traditional medicine systems — but they are not WHO endorsement of specific Ayurvedic herbs, products, or treatment claims.
What actually happened — a timeline
The 2025 MoU did not appear in a vacuum. It is the most recent step in a multi-year engagement that began with the establishment of the WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine in Jamnagar in 2022, continued through the first Global Summit on Traditional Medicine in Gandhinagar in 2023, and now extends into formal classification and standardisation work.
What the MoU actually commits to
The 2025 MoU has two main components.
Component 1 — Traditional Medicine module under ICHI. The International Classification of Health Interventions is WHO's framework for documenting health-related procedures, treatments, and interventions globally. It currently does not have a structured way to record Ayurvedic, Siddha, Unani, or other traditional medicine interventions in standardised terminology. The MoU funds a dedicated module within ICHI that would let healthcare systems classify, code, and document traditional medicine interventions in the same structured way they document conventional procedures. Component 2 — Co-hosting Global Summit on Traditional Medicine. A separate MoU committed both parties to hosting the Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine in New Delhi (December 17-19, 2025), bringing together health ministers, researchers, and policy-makers to discuss integration of traditional medicine into national health systems globally.A third related deliverable: WHO is preparing a Traditional Medicine Global Strategy 2025-34, with technical support from the Ministry of AYUSH, that will set the agenda for traditional medicine integration into WHO's broader health frameworks over the next decade.
What it does NOT mean — common misinterpretations
This is the section most consumer media in India has handled poorly, so let me be specific.
Misinterpretation 1 — "WHO has approved Ayurvedic medicines." No. WHO does not approve individual medicines or supplements; that is the role of national regulatory authorities. The MoU is about classification standards, not about WHO endorsing specific products. Misinterpretation 2 — "Specific herbs are now WHO-certified." No. There is no "WHO certification" for Ayurvedic herbs. Brands that claim "WHO-certified Ashwagandha" or similar phrases on packaging are misrepresenting what the MoU actually does. Misinterpretation 3 — "Ayurveda is now globally recognised as effective medicine." Partially. The MoU recognises traditional medicine as a category worth integrating into global health frameworks. It does not equate to clinical-efficacy recognition for specific Ayurvedic claims. Recognition of a system as worth studying is different from validation of specific treatments within that system. Misinterpretation 4 — "This will change how Ayurvedic supplements are sold globally." Probably not in the short term. The MoU's effects are at the policy and classification level, not at the retail-supplement-sales level. Consumer Ayurveda marketing will continue to be regulated by national authorities (FDA, FSSAI, EU EFSA, etc.), not by WHO directly.Why the MoU genuinely matters
Stripping away the hype, the MoU does three substantive things that matter for Ayurveda research over the next decade.
First, it creates infrastructure for documenting traditional medicine interventions in standardised ways across countries. This may sound bureaucratic, but it is foundational for serious research — without standardised classification, you cannot compare outcomes across studies, integrate traditional medicine data into health insurance frameworks, or run multi-country trials at scale.
Second, it signals to research funders, journals, and academic institutions that traditional medicine is a legitimate area for sustained investigation. This is not the same as saying "Ayurveda works." It is saying "Ayurveda is worth investing the methodological infrastructure to study properly." The distinction matters.
Third, it positions India specifically as a hub for traditional-medicine research and standardisation. The Jamnagar centre, the December 2025 Delhi summit, and the ongoing Strategy 2025-34 collaboration all reinforce that. Indian researchers — including CCRAS-affiliated institutions — are likely to play a larger role in shaping global traditional-medicine research over the next decade than they have historically.
How this connects to existing Ayurveda research infrastructure
This is the bridge most consumer coverage misses. The MoU strengthens — but does not replace — existing Indian Ayurveda research infrastructure.
The Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) continues to be the primary government body running Indian Ayurvedic clinical trials (we covered CCRAS's role in detail in our [What Is CCRAS](/research/what-is-ccras) explainer). The MoU may channel additional resources and international collaboration opportunities to CCRAS-aligned research, but CCRAS's mandate, funding pipeline, and trial registration remain Indian-government-led.
The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India continues to define official quality standards for individual herbs and compound formulations. The MoU may align some of these standards with WHO classification frameworks, but the Pharmacopoeia's authority remains domestic.
What changes: the visibility, fundability, and international-collaboration potential of Indian Ayurveda research increases meaningfully. What doesn't change: the day-to-day infrastructure and regulatory framework that produces the actual research.
What I expect to see over the next 24 months
Three concrete developments worth tracking.
Increased multi-country clinical trials with Indian research participation. The MoU's classification work makes it easier to design trials that include both Indian and non-Indian sites. Expect more papers in international journals featuring Indian Ayurveda researchers as co-investigators rather than just co-authors. Updated quality and safety standards for Indian retail Ayurveda products. The MoU pushes toward harmonisation with international quality frameworks. This may eventually translate into stricter labelling requirements for FSSAI-registered Ayurveda supplements — particularly around ingredient standardisation and heavy-metal testing. More aggressive international marketing of Indian Ayurveda brands. Wave-three Indian DTC brands (Kapiva, Wellbeing Nutrition, similar) are likely to leverage the MoU framing in their international expansion. Expect "WHO traditional medicine" language in supplement marketing — most of which will be technically misleading even if not literally false.What this means for HerbVerdict's evidence framework
Three things change in our editorial approach as the MoU's implementation develops.
We will continue to read CCRAS-published trials with the same rigour we apply to industry-funded and international research. The MoU does not change how we evaluate methodological quality. A well-designed CCRAS trial counts; a poorly-designed one doesn't, regardless of institutional context.
We will track the ICHI Traditional Medicine module as it develops. Once published, it will become part of how we describe Ayurvedic interventions in our scorecards — particularly for terminology consistency.
We will keep the gap visible between institutional engagement and clinical evidence. The MoU is institutional progress. It is not clinical evidence. Conflating the two is the editorial mistake we will keep flagging in our coverage.
Where to read the official documents
For readers who want to engage with the primary sources rather than media coverage:
The Press Information Bureau release on the original WHO–AYUSH Project Collaboration Agreement is available at [pib.gov.in](https://www.pib.gov.in/). The WHO 78th World Health Assembly statement covering traditional medicine integration is available at [who.int](https://www.who.int/news/item/02-06-2025-wha78--traditional-medicine-takes-centre-stage). The Ministry of AYUSH website ([ayush.gov.in](https://www.ayush.gov.in/)) maintains the Indian-government-side documentation.
Reading these primary sources is more useful than reading Indian media interpretation, which has tended toward triumphalist framing. The actual documents are more measured and more useful for understanding what the MoU actually does.
How the MoU compares to similar WHO traditional-medicine agreements globally
WHO has signed traditional-medicine collaboration agreements with several countries beyond India over the past decade — including with China, Brazil, and South Korea covering their respective traditional medicine systems. The India agreement is notable for its scale (the US$3M commitment is substantial) and for the scope of the ICHI classification work.
What the comparison teaches: WHO's broader framework treats traditional medicine systems as legitimate areas for institutional engagement and classification work. The India MoU is a particularly developed example of this pattern, not an isolated novel agreement.
For Indian readers, this is useful context: the MoU strengthens India's position within WHO's traditional medicine framework but does not give Ayurveda a uniquely privileged status compared to other traditional medicine systems globally.
What's missing from the current MoU framework
I want to flag what the MoU does not yet address, because consumer expectations sometimes assume it covers more than it does.
The MoU does not include a clinical-trial registry alignment for traditional medicine specifically. Indian CTRI registrations and WHO ICTRP integration remain separate.
The MoU does not include pharmacovigilance harmonisation for adverse events from traditional medicines. The 2022 Hepatology Communications multi-centre Giloy liver-injury case series and similar pharmacovigilance work remain outside the MoU's direct scope.
The MoU does not include retail supplement quality enforcement. Heavy-metal testing, label transparency requirements, and active-ingredient standardisation for retail products remain national regulatory questions.
These gaps are not failings of the MoU — they would have been outside its mandate. They are areas where future agreements could meaningfully extend the framework.
Why classification work matters more than it sounds
I want to spend a section on the ICHI classification work specifically because it sounds like dry bureaucratic infrastructure but is actually one of the most consequential things WHO can do for traditional medicine.
Classification systems determine what counts as a documentable, billable, researchable health intervention globally. The ICD (International Classification of Diseases) shapes how diseases are tracked across countries; without standard ICD codes, comparing disease incidence across health systems would be impossible. The ICHI does the analogous work for health interventions — procedures, treatments, behavioural interventions, and now traditional medicine practices.
Without a Traditional Medicine module in ICHI, an Ayurvedic intervention performed in a Mumbai clinic and a similar intervention performed in a Bangkok clinic cannot be coded, compared, or aggregated for outcomes research. With the module, multi-country trials become methodologically feasible in ways they currently aren't, health insurance integration becomes more tractable in markets that recognise traditional medicine, and academic researchers gain a shared vocabulary for designing studies.
The MoU's $3M classification commitment is not a flashy policy announcement. It is foundational research-infrastructure work whose payoff comes over a decade or longer. Most consumer media coverage missed this because the work doesn't translate into immediate commercial implications. The long-term implications are substantial.
How journalists got this story partially right and partially wrong
I want to flag patterns in Indian and international coverage of the MoU that readers should be aware of.
Indian media outlets — particularly business and Hindi-language press — overwhelmingly framed the MoU as "WHO recognition for Ayurveda" or "global validation of traditional Indian medicine." This framing is partially accurate (institutional engagement is real recognition) and partially misleading (it implies clinical-efficacy validation that the MoU does not provide).
International medical media — including STAT News, BMJ News, and similar outlets — covered the MoU more cautiously, emphasising its classification-and-policy nature without the validation framing. This is more accurate but also less attention-grabbing for general readers.
Wellness-supplement media — particularly DTC supplement brand publications and influencer commentary — leaned into the validation framing more aggressively, sometimes implying specific products had received WHO endorsement. This crosses from misleading into specifically actionable misrepresentation.
The pattern reveals how the same factual event gets translated through different editorial lenses. Readers who consume only one type of coverage end up with very different mental models of what actually happened.
What the December 2025 Delhi Summit actually produced
The Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine ran from December 17-19, 2025 in New Delhi as planned. The summit produced several deliverables worth noting.
A renewed Delhi Declaration on Traditional Medicine was issued, building on the 2023 Gandhinagar Declaration with stronger commitments on classification, research collaboration, and quality standards harmonisation.
Multiple bilateral and multilateral discussions occurred between WHO and various national health ministries on integrating traditional medicine into national health systems. Specific frameworks emerged for several countries beyond India.
The traditional medicine research funding pipeline was discussed, with various development bank and philanthropic commitments to support multi-country clinical research. The specific dollar amounts and timelines remain to be confirmed in subsequent reporting.
For Indian readers specifically, the summit cemented New Delhi's position as a hub for traditional medicine research and policy work — a positioning that may persist regardless of specific commercial outcomes from the MoU.
What the MoU might enable over a decade — speculation grounded in policy patterns
This is forward-looking analysis rather than reporting, so treat it as speculation grounded in policy precedent.
Over the next 5-10 years, the MoU framework could plausibly enable multi-country Ayurveda clinical trials at scale that currently aren't methodologically feasible. WHO classification standards could become the basis for harmonised regulatory frameworks for traditional medicine products in multiple jurisdictions. Indian research infrastructure (CCRAS, AYUSH-affiliated institutions) could become the global hub for serious traditional medicine clinical research.
What the MoU is unlikely to enable, even over 10 years: WHO endorsement of specific Ayurvedic products at the consumer level, regulatory harmonisation that bypasses national authorities, or rapid commercial expansion of Indian Ayurveda brands into Western pharmaceutical markets without trial-data demonstration.
The optimistic scenario produces a healthier global research ecosystem for traditional medicine. The pessimistic scenario sees the MoU's infrastructure work get used primarily for Indian government soft power rather than for clinical-evidence development. Both are possible. Which one materialises depends on choices made by researchers, regulators, and consumers over the coming decade.
Frequently asked questions
What is the WHO AYUSH MoU 2025?
A US$3 million Memorandum of Understanding signed on May 24, 2025, between India's Ministry of AYUSH and the World Health Organization. The MoU funds the development of a Traditional Medicine module within WHO's International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI), enabling standardised classification of Ayurvedic, Siddha, Unani, and other traditional medicine interventions globally.
Does the MoU mean WHO has approved Ayurvedic medicines?
No. WHO does not approve individual medicines or supplements — that is the role of national regulators (FSSAI in India, FDA in the US, EFSA in the EU). The MoU is about classification standards and policy coordination, not product-level endorsement.
Will this make Ayurvedic supplements available globally?
Probably not in the short term. The MoU's effects are at the policy and classification level. Retail supplement availability continues to depend on national regulatory frameworks, which the MoU does not directly change.
What is the Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine?
A WHO–India co-hosted summit held in New Delhi from December 17-19, 2025, bringing together health ministers, researchers, and policy-makers to discuss traditional medicine integration into national health systems. It was the second in a series; the first was held in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in August 2023.
How can I tell if a brand is misrepresenting the WHO–AYUSH MoU?
Watch for phrases like "WHO-approved," "WHO-certified," or "WHO-endorsed" on Ayurvedic supplement packaging. The MoU does not provide product-level approval or certification. Any brand claiming such certification is misrepresenting the agreement.
References
- Press Information Bureau, Government of India. WHO and Ministry of Ayush sign Project Collaboration Agreement. 2023. PIB.gov.in
- World Health Organization. WHA78: Traditional medicine takes centre stage. 2025. WHO.int
- India.UN.org. Global Health Roadmap with Delhi Declaration for Traditional Medicine. 2023. UN India
- Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. Official website. ayush.gov.in
- WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine, Jamnagar. WHO Global TM Centre