Guest guest Posted January 12, 2004 Report Share Posted January 12, 2004 Hey Martin, > Butch said: > " My answer is a question. WHO do you know .. or have you EVER > HEARD .. of a problem using Cocoa Absolute on skin? I have not " . > > That argument is the standard one used by aromatherapy essential oil > suppliers and it just does not hold water. I disagree .. but this has been your position on any and all safety issues since I have known you. I don't use standard arguments ... I'm more original than that. > There is no mechanism within aromatherapy (other than urban rumour) for > reporting adverse skin reactions. Due to that, no one knows what adverse > effects there may be from essential oils and other extracts that have > not undergone formal safety evaluation. I disagree here too. There is a large community out and about .. I'm on over 30 lists .. folks talk about this all the time .. folks have come on line (even on this list) and declared their sensitization to Lavender and Tea Tree .. which is generally taught to be safe for use neat. As for formal safety testing .. I fall back on my comments that if we wait for formal testing then the number of EO we can use will be cut drastically .. for both dermal use and inhalation. > Instead, AT suppliers operate on a bandwagon effect selling anything > that there seems to be a demand for. You are too general .. be more specific. Are you talking about ME? If you then say so .. I don't want to be put into a large group. Whether I am right or wrong .. I'm ME and my opinions are MINE. > Some even seek out novel extracts simply to create a market for them > among aromatherapists and home soap makers. That demand is often > pushed by aromatherapy teachers who just love inventing new uses for > novel extracts that have never been used in traditional medicine. In > no time at all these products become 'accepted as safe' but no one > knows, that is certain. Well .. as for nobody knowing for certain if something is safe .. I will bet a purty that even the degree of testing reported by the agencies I mentioned earlier can't guarantee that. They report the results of random dermal testing but you don't see them considering Tea Tree or Lavandula angustifolia as being oils that sensitize either .. but folks have become sensitized by them. And .. the fact that the results of a test shows that an 8% dilution of Humma-Humma oil caused no irritation or sensitization among the 86 folks involved in the test does NOT mean that they could not have gotten the same results with a 12% dilution .. but their mission was to test at 8% simply because the pharmaceutical company paying for the test had no intentions of going above 8% .. it was the level in their recipe. As for novel extracts or blends or whatever .. I don't deal with either so I guess you must be talking about someone else. And .. I don't sell any EO I don't believe in .. no Melissa, Wintergreen, Sweet Birch and a few others. > By the way, we will hear exactly the same argument used by Young > Living over their raindrop therapy. They use oils known to be > dangerous and in ways known to represent significant hazards, yet > they will tell you they do not hear of bad results- surprise-surprise! Bovine Excrement. You take it way too far now. They're using a large number of highly irritating oils NEAT .. no dilution whatsoever. And there are many, many reports of irritation and sensitization from those oils. You are not on IDMA now .. Kathleen just reported some a couple of days ago on Idma. > Adverse skin reactions to fragranced products is a fast growing > problem. The statistics of people reporting to dermatology clinics > are becoming alarming and that is why in Europe we are being hammered > with legislation affecting the sales of both essential oils and > products they are used in. In Japan, that growth in adverse skin > reactions *coincides exactly with the growth in the aromatherapy > products market*. So my advice is do not use any oils or absolutes > for skin application purposes on which there is no formal safety > information. > Martin I believe adverse skin reactions are becoming more frequent because of synthetics and the fact that the fragrance oil producers (many people use FOs) have successfully lobbied and win approval to not list ingredients; they are considered trade secrets. Try to GC a fragrance oil. And the western population is now at risk from multiple chemical sensitivity because of the lack of natural products in almost all the things they use on a daily basis. As for why you are being hammered with legislation in Europe .. you know the real reason .. it has to do with the European Union having built one more layer of government with nothing to do .. no mission. They must do something to justify their presence. And you also know well that those regulations they are hammering you with are dead WRONG .. they are not well thought out, they totally disregard advice of the expect and whole complete oils and concentrate on the isolated chemical components. I am going to stick with my comments that there is a big difference in saying something is UNSAFE and saying something has not been tested. Y'all keep smiling. Butch http://www.AV-AT.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2004 Report Share Posted January 12, 2004 Butch said: >There is a large community out and about .. I'm on over 30 lists. Agreed, but there is no co-ordination mechanism and no checking to see if these reports are real. The vast majority of newsgroup members do not know how to spot a sensitization reaction. Most AT courses still do not teach this subject, therefore how can therapists or joe public possibly know if there is a real problem or not and what the nature of the problem is? Even with what I know on this subject, I cannot be certain if someone has got a sensitization reaction or simply irritation. Only a dermatologist can tell that for sure. So I put no credibility at all in vague reports on newsgroups giving any idea on safety. Butch said: >I fall back on my comments that if we wait for formal testing then >the number of EO we can use will be cut drastically I dispute that statement. In Plant Aromatics I have listed well over 150 oils where safety is known. In addition, most if not all the therapeutic uses claimed for novel oils can be met from among those oils which have been formally tested. >Instead, AT suppliers operate on a bandwagon effect selling anything >that there seems to be a demand for. >You are too general .. be more specific. Are you talking about ME? Not specifically no, I am talking about 99.5% of aromatherapy oil suppliers. This trade is NOT pushed by the *need* for new therapeutic oils, it is pushed by the suppliers wanting to *sell* 'new' oils as if they are magic bullets. I have sitting on my table 20 samples of novel oils from Australia. With the exeption of lemon tea tree, none of those oils have anything to offer that our existing oils don't, indeed some smell dreadful. We do not need them so why are they produced? For nothing other than commercial reasons, often from Government sponsored projects to increase exports. In other words, the oils are produced first and then the market for them among aromatherapists in particular is invented. Butch said: >I am going to stick with my comments that there is a big difference >in saying something is UNSAFE and saying something has not been >tested. I agree, and I never say untested extracts are unsafe. What I say is we do not know and until we have at least some idea, why use them when we have hundreds of known oils that can do whatever is claimed for most of the untested oils. Please people remember my comments are only to do with skin safety, I have no problem with novel oils being used in diffusers, candles and suchlike as that is far less risky. I hope people on this list don't get confused by these conflicts of opinion, there will always be differing opinions on this subject particularly where sales are involved. The first person in aromatherapy to investigate adverse skin reactions in depth was myself and I started that nearly 15 years ago. I have far more detailed information than I can publish. It is the result of all those years of study and data collection that leads me to my conclusions in regards the safe use of plant extracts. When I can find the time, and feel well enough, I intend writing a series of exposes of certain claims for various essential oils, where the claims originate and compare that with the claims made for them. Martin =============================================== , Butch Owen <butchbsi@s...> wrote: > Hey Martin, > > > Butch said: > > " My answer is a question. WHO do you know .. or have you EVER > > HEARD .. of a problem using Cocoa Absolute on skin? I have not " . > > > > That argument is the standard one used by aromatherapy essential oil > > suppliers and it just does not hold water. > > I disagree .. but this has been your position on any and all safety > issues since I have known you. I don't use standard arguments ... I'm > more original than that. > > > There is no mechanism within aromatherapy (other than urban rumour) for > > reporting adverse skin reactions. Due to that, no one knows what adverse > > effects there may be from essential oils and other extracts that have > > not undergone formal safety evaluation. > > I disagree here too. There is a large community out and about .. I'm > on over 30 lists .. folks talk about this all the time .. folks have > come on line (even on this list) and declared their sensitization to > Lavender and Tea Tree .. which is generally taught to be safe for use > neat. As for formal safety testing .. I fall back on my comments that > if we wait for formal testing then the number of EO we can use will be > cut drastically .. for both dermal use and inhalation. > > > Instead, AT suppliers operate on a bandwagon effect selling anything > > that there seems to be a demand for. > > You are too general .. be more specific. Are you talking about ME? If > you then say so .. I don't want to be put into a large group. Whether I > am right or wrong .. I'm ME and my opinions are MINE. > > > Some even seek out novel extracts simply to create a market for them > > among aromatherapists and home soap makers. That demand is often > > pushed by aromatherapy teachers who just love inventing new uses for > > novel extracts that have never been used in traditional medicine. In > > no time at all these products become 'accepted as safe' but no one > > knows, that is certain. > > Well .. as for nobody knowing for certain if something is safe .. I will > bet a purty that even the degree of testing reported by the agencies I > mentioned earlier can't guarantee that. They report the results of > random dermal testing but you don't see them considering Tea Tree or > Lavandula angustifolia as being oils that sensitize either .. but folks > have become sensitized by them. > > And .. the fact that the results of a test shows that an 8% dilution of > Humma-Humma oil caused no irritation or sensitization among the 86 folks > involved in the test does NOT mean that they could not have gotten the > same results with a 12% dilution .. but their mission was to test at 8% > simply because the pharmaceutical company paying for the test had no > intentions of going above 8% .. it was the level in their recipe. > > As for novel extracts or blends or whatever .. I don't deal with either > so I guess you must be talking about someone else. And .. I don't sell > any EO I don't believe in .. no Melissa, Wintergreen, Sweet Birch and a > few others. > > > By the way, we will hear exactly the same argument used by Young > > Living over their raindrop therapy. They use oils known to be > > dangerous and in ways known to represent significant hazards, yet > > they will tell you they do not hear of bad results- surprise- surprise! > > Bovine Excrement. You take it way too far now. They're using a large > number of highly irritating oils NEAT .. no dilution whatsoever. And > there are many, many reports of irritation and sensitization from those > oils. You are not on IDMA now .. Kathleen just reported some a couple > of days ago on Idma. > > > Adverse skin reactions to fragranced products is a fast growing > > problem. The statistics of people reporting to dermatology clinics > > are becoming alarming and that is why in Europe we are being hammered > > with legislation affecting the sales of both essential oils and > > products they are used in. In Japan, that growth in adverse skin > > reactions *coincides exactly with the growth in the aromatherapy > > products market*. So my advice is do not use any oils or absolutes > > for skin application purposes on which there is no formal safety > > information. > > Martin > > I believe adverse skin reactions are becoming more frequent because of > synthetics and the fact that the fragrance oil producers (many people > use FOs) have successfully lobbied and win approval to not list > ingredients; > they are considered trade secrets. Try to GC a fragrance oil. And the > western population is now at risk from multiple chemical sensitivity > because of the lack of natural products in almost all the things they > use on a daily basis. > > As for why you are being hammered with legislation in Europe .. you know > the real reason .. it has to do with the European Union having built one > more layer of government with nothing to do .. no mission. They must do > something to justify their presence. And you also know well that those > regulations they are hammering you with are dead WRONG .. they are not > well thought out, they totally disregard advice of the expect and whole > complete oils and concentrate on the isolated chemical components. > > I am going to stick with my comments that there is a big difference in > saying something is UNSAFE and saying something has not been tested. > > Y'all keep smiling. Butch http://www.AV-AT.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.