Why I keep slamming AT suppliers-long

[Guest guest]

This is related to the other chain on what the US regulations might

be.

 

Much of this is old, but for the benefit of new readers, I think it

opportune for me to explain why I have always been so vociferous on

safety issues. Also why it is I am constantly slamming many

aromatherapy suppliers for their lack of caring and competence.

 

While I was training as a herbalist in the middle 1980s, fears were

being voiced then about the way herbalists might be restricted. I

suggested that it was unlikely that herbalists would be forced out of

business directly, but it was much more likely we would see

increasingly stringent regulations on certain herbs. This was a far

easier route by which the pharmaceutical lobby could restrict what we

did. Since that time, we have had several more herbs put on the

restricted list, but some have been banned from herbalists using them

at all. We also have the Codex Alimentarious deliberations which

when final agreement is reached, are legally binding on all of the

member countries including the USA. Those regulations are likely to

be the most draconian the traditional medicines world has ever seen.

Very few of these restrictions are based on sound science and

evidence.

 

The basis of these restrictions has been either recorded adverse

reactions, or that a herb or oil contains a substance which tested

in isolation is dangerouse. This information has then been used by

the Government advisory committees " as evidence " that certain herbs

are harmful. Often the records they use are incomplete and wrong with

their conclusions. These committees NEVER balance the numbers of

adverse reactions to so called traditional medicines against the

deaths caused by pharmaceutical drugs. These committees do not have

herbalists on them despite the World Health Organization saying they

should, I wonder why!!

 

Similarly with aromatherapy and essential oils. There are many

reports of adverse reactions to a fair number of oils, but, put into

context against the equivalent pharmaceutical preparations, those

numbers are often peanuts. However, particularly in America, many AT

suppliers just will not accept that we have to be seen to be whiter

than white on safety issues.

 

The idiot Civil Servants who formulate legislation under the guidance

of their so called " expert scientific advisers " are on the lookout

for ANY adverse reactions no matter how minor to use as an excuse to

restrict what we use. You have already had this in the USA over the

unsound case the FDA made for restricting Ephedra herb and their

statistically flawed " evidence " . I know the FDA are already looking

at European legislation on cosmetic ingredients as a model for them

to use there.

 

This situation of looking for the most minor reactions is precisely

what has happened in Europe over the sensitisers chemicals

regulations, and over the proposed ban on Tea Tree oil. I have heard

that already some Australian growers may be pulling out of the market

ahead of these new regulations. So do not think that a ban in one

part of the world does not affect the rest; it certainly affects

viability of production for growers.

 

It is only by attempting to expose (or in some cases educate) traders

selling known dangerous products, that we can hope to reduce the

numbers of adverse reactions. For example, it has been known for

years what a dangerous photo sensitizer expressed bergamot oil is.

Yet, you will still find numerous aromatherapy suppliers (even here)

selling it without any warnings, or with inadequate warnings. We

know how dangerous certain oils are, yet despite this, we still find

aromatherapy suppliers clamouring to sell you the latest novel

extracts. There are many such extracts on the market about which we

have no idea on their safety, and the uses are often simply invented.

 

As an example of the above, we have known about the dangers of

contaminated bottled waters for years, yet, we still have people

selling them without the first clue as to if they are complying with

health regulations or not. Those who can provide lab test results on

each batch are the only ones I would put anywhere near my mouth or

eyes. Those people who endanger the publics health are the ones who

threaten the very existence of our trade. It took deaths from

consuming unpasturised infused garlic in the USA to push legislation

on those products. That is why I will continue hammering at these

issues.

 

The history of the aromatherapy trade itself is intimately tied up

with this lack of adequate knowledge among the cottage industry

suppliers, but that is something I will work into an article for my

web site.

 

Martin Watt

http://www.aromamedical.com