|
|
According to Franchomme & Pénöel (1990), clary sage oil is estrogen-like, due to its content of sclareol, which is said to be structurally similar to human estrogens. The sclareol content of clary sage oil is given as 1.6-7.0%. In gas chromatographic analyses of clary sage oil, a sclareol content of 0.1-0.4% is typical. However sclareol concentrations tend to be underestimated due to the very low volatility of the molecule, so 1.6-7.0% is probably reasonable. Clary sage absolute is a solid material, and contains about 70% sclareol, which is also solid.
Some of the more common Internet comments about the hormonal effects of clary sage oil include:
* Clary sage essential oil contains sclareol, which mimics the effects of estrogen.
* Sclareol has an estrogen-like structure, contributing to clary sage’s effectiveness in treating amenorrhea, cramps, and menstrual pain.
* Sclareol, a compound in clary sage, is not an estrogen, although it can mimic estrogen if there is an estrogen deficiency. If there is not an estrogen deficiency, sclareol will not create more estrogen in the body.
* Certain essential oils have phytoestrogenic activity. For example, sclareol, a constituent of clary sage, stimulates the body to produce its own estrogen.
* The high sclareol content gives clary sage essential oil its powerful action for relieving premenstrual tension in women as it has a balancing effect on hormones.
Note that four distinct claims are made in the above:
1) Clary sage/sclareol mimics the effects of natural estrogens.
2) Clary sage/sclareol mimics the effects of natural estrogens, but only if there is an estrogen deficiency.
3) Clary sage/sclareol stimulates the body to produce its own estrogen.
4) Clary sage/sclareol balances hormones.
Only the first of these is in line with the original statement made by Franchomme & Pénöel (1990). But is any of this supported by evidence? One of my first blogs was about parabens, and I made reference to the possibility that these chemicals might have estrogen-like effects. Many people avoid parabens for this very reason. Substances with such “hormone-disrupting” action are suspected of adversely affecting male fertility and breast cancer, among others.
 So, let me pose an obvious question: if clary sage oil has an estrogen-like effect, and if you avoid parabens because you believe that they have estrogen-like effects, do you similarly avoid clary sage oil?
If you look at Dene Godfrey’s comment on The Paraben Parable you will see that butylparaben was indeed estrogen-like in an in vitro study, with an action 100,000 times weaker than estradiol. But one in vitro test tells us very little about in vivo effects. As for sclareol, I am aware of no research that has any bearing on a possible hormonal action. [Clary sage oil is sometimes contraindicated in pregnancy, though there is no supporting evidence for this. It was used in two childbirth studies in the UK, with no apparent adverse effects (Burns et al 2000, 2007)].
Both estradiol and butylparaben contain a phenol functional group: a hydroxyl group (OH) attached to a benzene ring. The phenolic structure is important for estrogenicity, as is the presence of a second ring (Anstead et al 1997, Blair et al 2000). However, sclareol does not contain a phenolic structure, it doesn’t even contain a benzene ring. Sclareol is a labdane diterpene, and this class of molecule does not incorporate estrogen-like structures, nor is it noted for estrogenic activity (Topçu and Gören 2007).
Therefore, on the basis of its structure, sclareol is unlikely to have any estrogenic action. Even if sclareol was estrogenic, at about 4% of clary sage oil, it would have to have a very high binding affinity for estrogen receptor sites for the essential oil to have any effect, and this is extremely unlikely.
This does not mean that clary sage oil is not effective. It may well be useful in relieving menstrual pain, pre-menstrual symptoms, menopausal symptoms and other problems, but none of this necessitates an estrogen-like action. And, I’m not saying that sclareol could not possibly be estrogen-like, I’m just saying there’s no evidence that it is, nor does its structure suggest such an effect. This also means that there’s no evidence to support clary sage oil “balancing hormones”, mimicking estrogens only if there is an estrogen deficiency, or stimulating the body to produce natural estrogens.
Sclareol does have an interesting anticancer activity, including in vitro action against human breast cancer MCF-7 cells (Dimas et al 2006). An isomer, 13-epi-sclareol, which is also present in clary sage oil, inhibits the growth of breast and uterine cancers in vitro, and was slightly more potent than Tamoxifen, but was not toxic to normal cells (Sashidhara et al 2007). This suggests the possibility that sclareol might actually inhibit estrogen, and might after all have some capacity to interact with estrogen receptor sites. What we do know is that sclareol will not give you breast cancer.
Thanks to Sherrie Bitts for raising the question of sclareol safety on the Aromatherapy Thymes blog, and to Lora Cantele for suggesting this to me as a subject.
References
Anstead GM, Carlson KE, Katzenellenbogen JA 1997 The estradiol pharmacophore: ligand structure-estrogen receptor binding affinity relationships and a model for the receptor binding site.
Blair RM, Fang H, Branham WS et al 2000 The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicological Sciences 54:138-153
Burns E E, Blamey C, Ersser S J et al 2000 An investigation into the use of aromatherapy in intrapartum midwifery practice. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 6:141-147
Burns E, Zobbi V, Panzeri D et al 2007 Aromatherapy in childbirth: a pilot randomised controlled trial. BJOG 114:838-844
Dimas K, Papadaki M, Tsimplouli C et al 2006 Labd-14-ene-8,13-diol (sclareol) induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in human breast cancer cells and enhances the activity of anticancer drugs. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 60:127-133
Franchomme P, Pénöel D 1990 L’aromathérapie exactement. Jollois, Limoges
Sashidhara KV, Rosaiah JN, Kumar A 2007 Cell growth inhibitory action of an unusual labdane diterpene, 13-epi-sclareol in breast and uterine cancers in vitro. Phytotherapy Research 21:1105-1108
Topçu G, Gören AC 2007 Biological activity of diterpenoids isolated from Anatolian Lamiaceae plants. Records of Natural Products 1:1-16
Dear Massage Magazine,
I submitted an article, which you published as a Guest Editorial on page 22 of your March 2010 issue, entitled Essential Oils: Premium Quality Yields Premium Results. On page 10, your Contents Page, this was listed as: Guest Editorial: Read about therapeutic grade essential oils in “Powerful Tools in A Small Bottle”, by Dawn-Mari Yurkovic, at www.massagemag.com/powerfultools. Don’t you agree this is a little weird? One person writes a two-page article, and a completely different person/article is listed on the Contents page of the magazine?
 In my article I explain why “such terms as pharmaceutical grade, therapeutic grade or food grade have no meaning in relation to the quality of essential oils for aromatherapy.” But, at the end of the article, you inserted a box, with: Read about therapeutic grade essential oils in “Powerful Tools in A Small Bottle”, by Dawn-Mari Yurkovic at www.massagemag.com/powerfultools. OK, I can take a hint, even if it’s thrust in my face.
In Dawn-Mari’s pitch (she’s basically selling her classes and her essential oils) she makes the following comment: Only therapeutic grade essential oils should be used to ensure safety and that there are no synthetic or toxic chemicals being introduced to the body. Unfortunately, less than 2 percent of the essential oil found in health-food stores and the like are actually therapeutic grade, even though the label might say something like “100-percent pure”.
On speaking to Karen Menehan and Stanford Erickson, two of your editors, I was told that one role of a publication was to present alternative viewpoints. A fair point in principle, but I have read dozens of editorials, guest and otherwise, and don’t remember a single one that presented opposing views in this way. And, I’m still confused as to how my article was listed as someone else’s.
As for “therapeutic grade” essential oils, I agree with Dawn-Mari that synthetic or toxic chemicals are best avoided in aromatherapy. (Though I would add that these terms are not synonymous, and some essential oils naturally contain toxic constituents.) Also, I totally agree with the sentiment that essential oils used in aromatherapy should be of a grade suitable for the task. I’m just saying that there is no independent, industry standard that is known as “therapeutic grade.”
 Aura Cacia's Tim Blakely (center) helping with a distillation project in Nepal And, I’m not at all sure where the idea that “less than 2% of essential oils sold in health stores are appropriate for aromatherapy” comes from. This is quite simply pure and unadulterated fantasy! Perhaps the most common retail brand is Aura Cacia, and if you go to their website you will find 27 organically certified essential oils listed. A very high percentage of essential oils now sold for use in aromatherapy is organically certified, and some of the ones that are not are simply not available as certified organic oils. This not only applies in the USA, the same is true in most regions. Is an organically certified essential oil not suitable for aromatherapy?
I was personally offended by the way my article was treated; at the very least you could have let me know your intentions ahead of time. And, I appreciate that you have apologized to me for this. As journalists, if you are going to present opposing views, I submit that it is your duty to do some fact checking. You have told me that, since you know nothing about aromatherapy, this would not be appropriate. I respectfully disagree, and in this instance you have contributed, perhaps significantly, to misinformation about essential oils for aromatherapy. Fact and fiction are not “differences of opinion.”
Sincerely,
Robert Tisserand
In May 1967 my mother went to Paris to hear a lecture by Dr. Jean Valnet, and came back with a signed copy of his book. I was 19. At that time, this was the only in-print book on the subject of aromatherapy that was available in any language. Within ten years, I had trained in soft-tissue massage, and had written my own aromatherapy book. I wrote it as a kind of “companion book” to Valnet’s; his was all about the science of aromatherapy, so I called mine The Art of Aromatherapy. It took me two years to research the material, and another year to write the book. During the 6 months publication process, I worked as a gardener for the London Borough of Southwark. We had lots of tea breaks. I spent most of the time raking leaves, and dreaming about seeing my book in print.
 One rainy autumn afternoon, while I was still working on the book, I took a train from London to Cambridge, because I knew that Trinity College Library had a copy of a book I wanted to look at. It had no apparent title, was hand-written in the 13th century, and was described in the catalogue as “A medical work in French apparently based on the Chirurgia of Roger of Salerno.” I don’t remember why I thought it would be useful.
By the time I got to Trinity College Library, filled out a book application, and waited about 30 minutes for the small, compact volume to be delivered to my seat, there wasn’t much time left before the library closed. Old manuscripts are written in a dense, gothic script. Even English manuscripts sometimes look at first like another language. You have to read each word with great care to decipher it. This was my first experience of Medieval French. Time was pressing hard, and I was looking for some words about essential oils! I settled on a passage about frankincense. Not quite the treasure I had hoped for but at least something aromatic, with a rare reference to energetic properties.
Handling old, hand-written books has always been an awesome experience for me, almost like going back in time and feeling what the person who wrote the book was feeling. Most times, I would imagine that I had written it myself, in a previous incarnation. But not this time. In spite of my French heritage (my father was French) the book seemed totally foreign.
As I made my way back home on the rattling train in the dark wet evening I was excited. I was re-discovering the ancient roots of aromatherapy. I was fulfilling a self-appointed mission. In the 1970s there was not much published scientific research on essential oils, and the past seemed an equally valid route to knowledge. So, I had plunged in. My father helped me translate my ten lines, but even so, two of the words resisted translation. Here is the result of my afternoon’s adventures:
Olibanum ceo est encens, il est chaud et Seche el secunde de grei; il ad verru de conforter et de afermer, de traire ensemble, et de rettreindre. Il est bon, en auttre, les fermer des oyls et la dolur de denz, et encontre le hunel et encontre la grossesse et la rouillor des nariles et encontre in digestiun et amer eruc tuations et pur les mameles en greder un podre confit ad eysil e enplastre sur un dray e nus sur le mameles. roine chaude et seche el secunde de grei. Ele advertu a de faire e a degant.
Olibanum is known as frankincense, it is hot and dry in the second degree; it has the capacity to comfort and to fortify, to bring together, and to bind. It is also good for the shutting of the eyes, toothache, and against le hunel [?], and against pregnancy and soreness of the nostrils, and also indigestion and sour eructations. For the breasts, make up a powder prepared with vinegar and plaster on a sheet, and place it on the naked breasts. An excellent remedy, hot and dry in the second degree, it has the property of forming and degant [?].
The last word “gant” here is a verb. As a noun, it means “glove”. Perhaps “de gant” was another way of saying to hold, to bind, to bring together.
ANAHEIM, CA – On Friday March 12, 2010, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a watchdog group with over 850,000 members, and The Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG), led by environmental health consumer advocate David Steinman (in cooperation with The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC), a national coalition of health and environmental groups) announced the details of an agreement from Procter and Gamble (P&G) to reformulate 18 products from its top-selling Herbal Essences brand to reduce levels of the carcinogenic petrochemical 1,4-dioxane. In addition, they announced new results from a continuing study that has tested over 150 consumer products for the toxic chemical, which is a contaminant and therefore not listed on product labels. This year, 20 laundry detergents were tested, including major “natural” and conventional brands. Ironically, the seven laundry detergent brands from P&G had by far the highest levels of 1,4-dioxane overall. The independent third-party laboratory, Exova, known for rigorous testing and chain-of-custody protocols, performed all testing.
P&G’s promise to reformulate its Herbal Essences line follows a notice of intent to file a lawsuit filed by the GPWG against P&G (as well as lawsuits filed by the California Attorney General’s office in June 2008 directed at other manufacturers) for dangerous levels of 1,4-dioxane as established by proposition 65. The OCA, CSC, and GPWG consider cooperation from industry leader P&G (with a 40% share of the hair care market in 2003) to be a significant step forward in the campaign for all brands to remove unnecessary 1,4-dioxane and other carcinogenic and harmful chemicals from consumer products.
1,4-dioxane is generated as a byproduct of ethoxylation, a cheap shortcut used by companies to provide mildness to harsh cleaning ingredients, which requires use of the cancer-causing petrochemical ethylene oxide. 1,4-dioxane is considered a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” under proposition 65, and is also suspected as a kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant and respiratory toxicant, among others, according to the California EPA.
While previous press conferences on this topic have revealed the presence of 1,4-dioxane in personal care and household cleaning products (including products targeted at babies and children) and tracked improvement as certain “natural” and conventional brands reformulated, this year’s press conference will focus on the problem of groundwater and reclaimed water contamination resulting from the toxin’s presence in laundry detergents, and health risks from the chemical’s presence in drinking water. David Steinman is the author of Diet for a Poisoned Planet and formerly represented the public interest on a committee at the National Academy of Sciences.
One of the reasons given for supporting the Colorado bill was that the targeted ingredients are more stringently restricted in Europe than in the USA. It’s true that the FDA has prohibited only 9 substances as cosmetic ingredients, compared to 1,233 currently prohibited in Europe. Well, clearly “no contest” in the legal stringency stakes. But, the great majority of the 1,233 are petroleum derivatives, and many are pharmaceutical drugs, industrial solvents, or poisons such as curare, strychnine and arsenic – you can read the full list here. Very few of them would ever be considered as cosmetic ingredients, unless your idea of a totally yummy facial cleanser includes aircraft fuel with a soupcon of antibiotics and a touch of TNT. Should the same substances be prohibited in cosmetics in the USA? It’s a good question, but remember that most potential cosmetic ingredients are already regulated in the USA too. Not prohibited, but controlled to specific maximum levels.
There is an assumption that safety legislation passed in Europe is somehow intrinsically right, of a higher standard, and deserving of our close attention. Some of it may indeed be, but the general assumption is misplaced. The bill that has created the most anguish, controversy and chaos –  in Europe – concerns allergens. It is regarded with skepticism by some dermatologists, and its scientific basis is seriously flawed, as I will explain momentarily. There is no evidence so far that it has done anything to reduce adverse reactions to cosmetics, but it has negatively affected essential oil production and availability. Many suspect that it has spurred the larger fragrance manufacturers to turn to alternative synthetic materials that have not been subject to such stringent safety testing. Even in Europe, fragrance ingredients do not have to be listed.
Linalool is one of the 26 fragrance materials listed as an allergen in the European Union. If present in a cosmetic product at over 100 ppm (0.01%) in a wash-off product or 10 ppm (0.001%) in a leave-on product, linalool must be declared on the ingredient list if sold in an EU member state. Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? The problem is, neither manufacturers nor retailers want to get sued, or branded as selling unsafe products, and most retailers will only carry cosmetics that have passed an independent safety assessment, which is almost entirely based on looking at the levels of “allergens”. So the de facto result is that very few manufacturers take the risk of having a “known allergen” in a product at over the declarable amount.
Linalool is a major constituent of ho wood, ho leaf, rosewood, coriander seed, neroli, lavender, lavandin, bergamot, ylang-ylang, clary sage and petitgrain, and is found in some 200 other essential oils. But the really strange part is, linalool is not a high-risk allergen. In fact, it’s superlatively safe on the skin. Between 1969 and 2007 (38 years), a total of thirteen dermatitis patients out of the 25,164 tested, (0.05%) were allergic to linalool when patch tested, and less than this actually had allergic reactions to products containing linalool. Yes, 0.05% is more than zero, but it’s pretty close to the 0.03% reaction rate for petrolatum, the least dermally allergenic substance known to mankind. One way of looking at this is that adding linalool to a product increases risk by about 0.02%. That’s probably less than almost any other known cosmetic ingredient.
So why did the EU list linalool as an allergen? Because – according to their own report – five dermatitis patients had allergic reactions to it over a five-year period on patch testing, and at the time, their criteria for listing a substance included two or more reports of allergic reaction. Incredible, but true. Considering that linalool is (or at least used to be) one of the most commonly-occurring fragrance materials, an average of one reported reaction per year, on planet earth, is about a negligible as it is possible to get.
So, I’m just saying… if you think European safety regulations are a shining example of how things should be done, I suggest you re-consider. This one, at least, has been a massively expensive and largely misdirected fiasco.
The Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act failed today at approximately 8:44 pm EST on a 7-to-4 vote.
Among the ingredients that would be forbidden in personal care products in the event the Colorado bill passes are di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and 5-methoxypsoralen. DEHP is listed by the National Toxicology Program as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”. Well, who wants phthalates in their products anyway?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but cold-pressed citrus oils like bergamot contain about 1 ppm of DEHP, because it leaches out of plastic tubing used in the extraction process. One part per million in a citrus oil isn’t much, and once that oil is incorporated into a product, the 1 ppm turns into less than 10 ppb. But, here’s the problem – zero tolerance on DEHP (as is being proposed in Colorado) would mean no more cold-pressed citrus oils in any personal care products.
 Bergapten (5-methoxypsoralen) is also found in citrus peel and cold-pressed citrus oils. It is listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. What they forgot to add was “but only in the presence of UVA”. So, if you have bergapten in a sun cream or other leave-on product, there might be a problem, but not in a shampoo or shower product.
This is why the International Fragrance Association has set a limit of 15 ppm for bergapten, but only in leave-on products. Don’t allow the state of Colorado to ban citrus oils out of hand! Go to Facebook page here. (Safe cold-pressed citrus oil use for leave-on products: bergamot 0.4%, lime 0.7%, orange 1.25%, lemon 2.0%, grapefruit 4.0%).
People should expect reasonable and sensible protection from harm by those who regulate consumer products, and vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women may need special consideration. Therefore, cosmetics that are totally free of all carcinogens and teratogens may sound like a good idea. But is it realistic? And is more legislation needed?
One problem is in that word “totally”. If you want to avoid encountering one molecule of a toxic substance, then you need to either live in a bubble, or stop eating, drinking, and breathing. Traces of cyanide, for instance, are found in foods and beverages, both natural and manufactured. That doesn’t mean its OK to consume in quantity, but toxicity is avoided by limiting the permitted amount to a few parts per million. The same goes for heavy metals and in fact most other toxins.
Why not zero tolerance? Well, in many cases it is both unrealistic, and unnecessary. All toxic substances have NOAELs (No-Adverse-Effect-Levels) even carcinogens. NOAELs are established in animal studies, and then ratcheted down by 100 or 500 or 1,000 times. These mathematical excursions are a bit arbitrary sometimes, but if anything, they result in too much protection, not too little.
A “zero tolerance” bill is on the table in the state of Colorado, and you can find more information about it here and here. Enacting this bill would mean, for example, that any amount of acetaldehyde would not be permitted in personal care products. Your body produces acetaldehyde whenever you drink alcohol, as it’s the major metabolite of ethanol. And chronic alcoholism can lead to cancer, with acetaldehyde the main suspect. Acetaldehyde is also a trace constituent of apples, bananas, bilberries, cherries, citrus fruits, cranberries, grapes, olives, passionfruit, peaches, plums, strawberries, raspberries, carrots, celery, cucumbers, garlic, onions, peas, potatoes and tomatoes. So, goodbye fruit extracts in cosmetics.
 If you see a strawberry only as something that contains acetaldehyde (tunnel vision), then suddenly, everything you thought was good for you, is now bad for you. But (problem number two), fruits and vegetables contain a plethora of antioxidants and antimutagens that more than compensate for any toxicity from the tiny traces of acetaldehyde they contain.
Also, goodbye to rose otto and rose absolute. It was nice knowing you. And so long to nutmeg oil, mace oil, myrtle oil, basil oil, holy basil oil, citronella oil, ho leaf oil (linalool ct), elemi oil, and many other less common essential oils. Not because they contain acetaldehyde, but because they contain methyleugenol (ME). ME is occasionally found in traces in rosemary oil, clove oil, hyssop oil, tea tree oil, cananga oil, mastic oil, cassia oil, cinnamon leaf oil, savory oil, black pepper oil and, again, many others. Have you eaten any fresh basil or pesto lately? Then you have been consuming ME. But, neither fresh basil nor pesto is carcinogenic, because they also contain antimutagens and anticarcinogens that counteract any toxic effect of ME. I’m not just saying this, it has been demonstrated. The same goes for holy basil oil, to take one example – not only is it non-carcinogenic, but it is actually anticarcinogenic. The high content of geraniol in rose otto is almost certainly protective because of its anticarcinogenic action.
Does this make a difference? Not if you have tunnel vision.
The Environmental Working Group (and associated Skin Deep and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) is an increasingly vociferous pressure group, which is now flexing its political muscle. Everywhere these people look, they find dangerous toxins, and guess what – if you look for them you will find them. And, if your vision becomes so narrow that all you can see is toxins, and the poor fetuses and children that you convince yourself they must be harming, it becomes difficult to take a step back and see the big picture. The EWG do not seem to appreciate that finding a substance in human tissue does not necessarily mean that the owner of that tissue has been harmed.
Risk assessment has many facets (problem number three) but basically it is about deciding whether exposure to a substance in a particular way is or is not actually harmful, and where safety thresholds lie. Risk assessment is not about scaremongering, it’s not about getting people fired up about “chemicals”, and it should not be about pre-emptive and sweeping legislation. It should be about ensuring safety by looking at all aspects of a problem, and then making the best decision you can. I agree with many of the EWG campaigns. It’s just a shame that they have adopted the same “single-chemical” view of essential oils that has infected the EC legislation.
If you live in Colorado and you agree with my opinion, you should act. If you don’t live in Colorado stay vigilant, because there’s more of the same on the way.
Reports on the effects of aromatherapy massage on pain, anxiety and depression in cancer patients are inconsistent, with some finding significant effects, and others not. One that did find an effect (Imanishi et al 2007) was authored by a group of researchers from four Japanese Universities. In 12 patients with breast cancer, anxiety was significantly reduced over a 4 week period. The patients receved two 30 minute massage sessions each week, using diluted sweet orange, lavender and sandalwood oils. STAI (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) scores were significantly lower after a massage session than before it, and the reduction was progressive. Even one month after the last session, anxiety levels remained low.
 One possible reason for the positive outcome is that a blend of oils was used – many studies use a single oil, most commonly lavender. Another interesting finding was that the aromatherapy massage increased lymphocytes, demonstrating an improvement in immune function. But was the positive effect on the immune system due to the fact that the patients were feeling less anxious, or was it a direct immunological action?
In an earlier study (Kuriyama et al 2005), some of the same researchers measured STAI before and after a single 30 minute massage session, in 11 volunteers. Although there was a significant anxiety reduction after aromatherapy massage, there was a similar reduction after plain oil massage. But, only the aromatherapy massage increased white blood cell counts, with increases in CD8+ and CD16+ lymphocytes. In the 2007 report, CD8+ lymphocytes were also increased, but CD16+ lymphocytes were reduced. However, the 2005 report used a different oil blend – lavender, cypress, marjoram and tea tree.
What this suggests is that anxiety can be reduced by aromatherapy massage, but whether an effect takes place, and if so what effect, may depend on the specific essential oils used. Evidence of anxiety reduction from aromatherapy massage is not exactly riveting news. What is more interesting, is that it can significantly affect white blood cell count, and this is not because of the anxiety reduction. If it was, white blood cells would also have increased in the plain oil massage group in the 2005 study, and they did not. In this instance, it’s the oils, not the massage. I’m just saying…
Yes, they were very small studies, but the results imply that the benefits of aromatherapy massage go some way beyond relaxation. You will find both articles here.
OK, here’s the problem as I see it. And, if you’re not an essential oil aficionado, I advise you to stop reading now. There is an oil produced from Ravensara aromatica, and it is known by the (somewhat uninventive) name of “Ravensara” or, occasionally, “ravensare” It is produced only in Madagascar, and the name derives from a Malagasy word meaning “fragrant leaf” – or something similar.
But, and here’s the rub, there is another Madagascan oil, this one produced from Cinnamomum camphora leaves, and it is known as “ravintsara” in the aromatherapy community. I guess there are a lot of fragrant leaves in Madagascar. But really, is this the best we can do? And what am I to think when I read someone blogging about “ravinsara” oil, as I did yesterday – which one are they talking about? And in a discussion, lecture, whatever, every time you say ravensara, or ravintsara, you have to stop and make sure your audience knows exactly which oil you are referring to. How to create confusion with minimum effort!
So please, can we stop this nonsense? Chinese Cinnamomum camphora leaf oil is known as “ho leaf” oil – it comes in several chemotypes, and the 1,8-cineole chemotype is the same tree that grows in Madagascar. So, I’m just saying…”ravintsara oil” is actually ho leaf oil – from Madagascar. Lots of essential oils come from different countries, and have corresponding minor differences. We still call them by the same name. I’m not saying it has to be called ho leaf oil – call it anything you like, call it Malagasy oil, Moonbuggy oil, Make-my-day oil, but please, not Ravintsara!
|
|
