Calling all Essential Oil Experts

Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Location
Dubbo
Instantly disqualified as I'm not an 'expert' but as a user of essential oils I'd say....

Short answer: Truth and Bollocks

Long Answer i think would require many pages to address all the issues the article raises.

There is a whole industry built on perfumes, synthetic and essential oils.

The idea of using essential oils for health benefits is not a new one. I'm not aware of this association for synthetic fragrances.

Possibly the 'establishment' likes to promote synthetic fragrances as organisations such as IFRA can exercise some 'control' over the industry similar to 'big Pharma'.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Location
Piora, Nth NSW
Would the toxic potential depend on the amount of chemicals released? My family owns a panel beating business and I grew up playing with thinners,paints etc. Turns out,I was actually pretty handy with a spray gun and did a lot of painting over the years.Cars,boats,furniture,industrial machinery. Eventually the chemicals affected me in a way that made me,well,very aggressive.Always felt crook too. Exposure to high concentrations over extended periods will cause adverse health situations. Exposure to perfumes,in my opinion,may cause some reactions but one must be subject to exposure of very high concentrations over a very long period.Maybe.It would be interesting to interview or test professional perfumers that have been using the chemicals involved over the majority of their adult lives.
Yes there are some people that will have adverse reactions to some perfumes whether they be organic or synthetic.But there are also people that have food allergies as well.
The article cited toluene.Toluene is used as a paint thinner and ingredient and I have used it extensively. Half a bees dick worth in a fleas tit amount of perfume that someone dabs on their face is not going to hurt anyone.Unless they are extremely sensitive to certain components, that would most likely have nothing to do with exposure to miniscule amounts over the years.
Organic versus synthetic?? I would much rather used a plant/animal sourced product than a lab sourced.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Location
Perth
Would the toxic potential depend on the amount of chemicals released? My family owns a panel beating business and I grew up playing with thinners,paints etc. Turns out,I was actually pretty handy with a spray gun and did a lot of painting over the years.Cars,boats,furniture,industrial machinery. Eventually the chemicals affected me in a way that made me,well,very aggressive.Always felt crook too. Exposure to high concentrations over extended periods will cause adverse health situations. Exposure to perfumes,in my opinion,may cause some reactions but one must be subject to exposure of very high concentrations over a very long period.Maybe.It would be interesting to interview or test professional perfumers that have been using the chemicals involved over the majority of their adult lives.
Yes there are some people that will have adverse reactions to some perfumes whether they be organic or synthetic.But there are also people that have food allergies as well.
The article cited toluene.Toluene is used as a paint thinner and ingredient and I have used it extensively. Half a bees dick worth in a fleas tit amount of perfume that someone dabs on their face is not going to hurt anyone.Unless they are extremely sensitive to certain components, that would most likely have nothing to do with exposure to miniscule amounts over the years.
Organic versus synthetic?? I would much rather used a plant/animal sourced product than a lab sourced.
Actually in terms of toxicity there is no difference between synthetic and natural fragrances
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Location
Piora, Nth NSW
Yes.According to the article.But what about the amount of chemicals released? If 0.000001 gm of Toluene is released per 1gm of product,either organic or not,then how toxic is it? Toluene may be detectable but how much are they detecting?
 

RustyBlade

Active Member
2018 Sabbatical
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Location
Sydney
I'm no expert by far but I do know a synthesized chemical is purer than essential oils as the process of extraction of the latter unfortunately adds other elements into the mix.

Actually in terms of toxicity there is no difference between synthetic and natural fragrances
Disagree, more people have reactions to EO than FO ask the boys. Hence EU regulations and other regulations.

Edit to above* yes both can be a problem though generally speaking FOs are produced to reduce reactions & toxicity. Every product has a threshold.

Another problem is adulterated products as the article mentioned. This is real. Go can try and buy pure oud essence or even honey in Australia even when labeled pure Australian honey.

Think the article had merit but don't be over alarmed as there are regulations in place and commonsense plays a big part of it too.

As mentioned by many people and our local artisans. If you get a reaction to a product then stop using it immediately and wash it off if you can.

Edit* Another point, if an EO or abstract has a medical or beneficial element to it don't believe in it until multiple medical peer reviewed studies state it and this goes for synthetic products that cause cancer or links to possible diseases.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Location
Perth
Things I can safely say:
- There is no evidence of benefit from any of these chemicals, EO or FO, outside of their well known uses. Cineole, for example, from eucalyptus oil, is a well known toxin (we had significant protections from it at work) but it works well for clearing the sinuses.
- There is a massive difference in the concentration of products applied to the skin versus the quantities that are volatilised and inhaled.
- Application to the skin is not a natural thing to do so whether the product is naturally or synthetically derived is pretty much irrelevant to any discussion of potential harm. Although to take the example of limonene, the natural derivation would include a number of additional chemicals, each of which may introduce additional risks.
- This discussion can easily wander into chemophobia. While I like to apply a precautionary principle and limit my exposure to unnecessary chemicals, in the absence of evidence of harm no real conclusion can be drawn on each chemical, either natural or synthetic. It is up to the individual to gauge whether the risk is worth it to them. It will take decades for medical research to draw any real conclusions about any of these chemicals, just like it took decades for tobacco smoke to finally be accepted as the massive carcinogen that it is...

A parallel can also be drawn here with alcohol. We know there is no real evidence of benefit (any benefit from red wine being attributable to the polyphenols from the grapes so it is likely better to just eat the grapes instead!). We also know alcohol is the most harmful drug to society as measured by economic cost. The potential for and mechanism of harm in this case is very clear to see.

Some people can manage the risk of exposure but many can’t. Is it really worth the risk when teetotalling can avoid it entirely? Everyone has a different answer to that... for myself I have given up the booze but I still enjoy riding motorbikes - to each their own. And I try to buy unscented products these days - but the scents really never did anything for me anyway...
 
Last edited:

RustyBlade

Active Member
2018 Sabbatical
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Location
Sydney
Things I can safely say:
- There is no evidence of benefit from any of these chemicals, EO or FO, outside of their well known uses. Cineole, for example, from eucalyptus oil, is a well known toxin (we had significant protections from it at work) but it works well for clearing the sinuses.
- There is a massive difference in the concentration of products applied to the skin versus the quantities that are volatilised and inhaled.
- Application to the skin is not a natural thing to do so whether the product is naturally or synthetically derived is pretty much irrelevant to any discussion of potential harm. Although to take the example of limonene, the natural derivation would include a number of additional chemicals, each of which may introduce additional risks.
- This discussion can easily wander into chemophobia. While I like to apply a precautionary principle and limit my exposure to unnecessary chemicals, in the absence of evidence of harm no real conclusion can be drawn on each chemical, either natural or synthetic. It is up to the individual to gauge whether the risk is worth it to them. It will take decades for medical research to draw any real conclusions about any of these chemicals, just like it took decades for tobacco smoke to finally be accepted as the massive carcinogen that it is...

A parallel can also be drawn here with alcohol. We know there is no real evidence of benefit (any benefit from red wine being attributable to the polyphenols from the grapes so it is likely better to just eat the grapes instead!). We also know alcohol is the most harmful drug to society as measured by economic cost. The potential for and mechanism of harm in this case is very clear to see.

Some people can manage the risk of exposure but many can’t. Is it really worth the risk when teetotalling can avoid it entirely? Everyone has a different answer to that... for myself I have given up the booze but I still enjoy riding motorbikes - to each their own. And I try to buy unscented products these days - but the scents really never did anything for me anyway...
Well said and articulated. (y)(y)
 

todras

est Français pour après-rasage
Menth Dealer
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Location
Sydney
Possibly the 'establishment' likes to promote synthetic fragrances as organisations such as IFRA can exercise some 'control' over the industry similar to 'big Pharma'.

IFRA board is stacked with members from the big 4 so yes :)

I'm too lazy to address any of the other things in the article, but @RazorPlay made some good points.
 
Top