|
|
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!
I have been reading a book called Bad Science by an English doctor, Ben Goldacre. His principal targets are the media (for consistent misinformation), nutritionists and homeopaths, but all “quacks” are fair game, since “quack therapy”, according to Ben, is no more than placebo. He goes to great lengths to explain that the placebo effect is indeed potent, and that he has no problem with “placebo therapy”. But, he thinks it’s time for alternative medicine to either produce some convincing clinical trials, or concede that it is no more than placebo therapy. I think that’s a fair summary of his position.
Aromatherapy is not specifically discussed in Ben’s book, nor on his blog at www.badscience.net. However, thyme oil is fleetingly mentioned on page 70 of the book, and this piqued my interest. He says: Montgomery and Kirsch (1996) told college students that they were taking part in a study on a new local anaesthetic called ‘trivaricaine’. Trivaricaine is brown, you paint it on your skin, it smells like a medicine, and it’s so potent you have to wear gloves when you handle it: or that’s what they implied to the students. In fact it’s made of water, iodine and thyme oil (for the smell), and the experimenter (who also wore a white coat) was only using rubber gloves for a sense of theatre. None of these ingredients will affect pain.
 I looked at Montgomery and Kirch’s paper. Volunteer undergraduate students had the placebo gloop applied to one index finger. They then placed both index fingers in a device which delivered 2,041 g of force to the top of each finger simultaneously. Pain was subjectively assessed, and was significantly lower in “placebo fingers”. There is some discussion about which aspect of the placebo effect might be in evidence. By the way, no effort was made to “blind” the volunteers as to which finger the placebo gloop was applied.
It’s a rather poorly written paper in some respects, so is a curious choice for Ben Goldacre and his high standards of science. The placebo is described as “a mixture of iodine, oil of thyme, and water, which produced a brownish, medicinal-smelling effect when applied topically”. They do not tell us how much thyme oil was used, nor why they believe it to be devoid of analgesic activity.
Now, I’m not here to argue that the placebo effect doesn’t exist, or that placebos can’t have sometimes dramatic effects on pain reduction. I’m just saying – thyme oil is a pretty weird choice for a substance that is supposedly known to be a non-analgesic. Why? About 50-70% of thyme oil consists of a substance called thymol. Here is some information about thymol:
- “Thymol is….also employed as a local anaesthetic” Mrs Grieve, A Modern Herbal, 1931
- “Dentists all over the country are visiting their druggists. They are buying three things: thymol, ethyl alcohol, and sulphuric ether. These are the ingredients of the new Hartman formula that takes the pain out of tooth drilling.” Thymol, alcohol, ether used in new dental pain killer. Science News Letter February 1, 1936.
- US Patent no. 6531115, filed in March 2003, describes an herbal liquid preparation for quick relief of toothache. Thymol is an active ingredient.
- “Although analgesic effects have long been described for thymol, a molecular basis for these effects is still lacking….Antinociceptive and local anaesthetic effects of thymol…might be mediated via blockade of voltage-operated sodium channels with…thymol being as potent as the local anaesthetic lidocaine.” Haeseler G et al 2002 Voltage-dependent block of neuronal and skeletal muscle sodium channels by thymol and menthol. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 19:571-579.
- “On the other hand, the inhibition of the release of noradrenalin in the nerve cells can lead to a reduced conductivity of the nerve structures conducing pain. This means that we can expect an analgesic effect from the application of thymol.” Beer A-M et al 2007 Effect of thymol on the spontaneous contracticle activity of the smooth muscles. Phytomedicine 14:65-69.
I could go on, and refer to papers on transient receptor potential channels, and why both thymol and carvacrol (another common thyme oil constituent) have probable pain-inhibiting effects through TRP channel interaction. But, all I’m trying to do is cast some doubt on the non-analgesic assumption.
So, maybe it was the white coats and rubber gloves performance, but maybe it was the thyme oil. I enjoyed reading Bad Science, even though it’s an attempt to rubbish alternative medicine. But Ben, what made you think that thyme oil could not be analgesic? Did you assume that it wasn’t, as this effect is not mentioned in the medical tomes? Or did you simply assume that the authors of a 1996 paper on the placebo effect had to be right. After all, they were scientists. Well, psychologists anyway.
Most of the consumers I have spoken to, usually visitors to natural product trade shows, know that they don’t want to see parabens in the natural products they use. Most of the same people, when I pressed them for an explanation, had no idea why. But they know with great certainty that parabens are now persona non grata.
In referring to parabens, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics cites the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database. Here you can see that parabens have been linked to, among others, developmental/reproductive toxicity, endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity. Now, I’m not going to present an extensive, drawn-out academic argument here, but I would like to suggest a comparison with tea tree oil, which has also been linked to endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity. And, both parabens and tea tree oil have been “linked to” skin allergies too. The natural products industry, with which I am intimately associated, has decided that tea tree oil is OK – after all, it’s natural – and parabens are not. They are “chemicals”.
The paraben “scare” was based on the fact that parabens were found in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer, even though no causal association was established. Presumably milk might be found in cancerous breast tissue too, but does that mean that milk causes breast cancer? No, the fundamental reason for banishing parabens was that the popular press decided that parabens very likely caused breast cancer. Like a starving rottweiler with a bone, journalists, especially in the UK, decided that parabens should be banned, and they have got their way. Bravo.
Why am I defending parabens? Because I abhor bad science. I do think there are potential concerns about parabens and hormone disruption, and I am NOT saying that I believe them to be completely devoid of risk. But then, nothing in this universe in completely devoid of risk. I’m just saying…what can we learn from this devastatingly effective media-driven campaign and its apparent ignorance of what is, and isn’t, sound science.
 rats love to give massages I have heard it said that a pleasant-smelling massage is surely very relaxing, but there’s nothing more to aromatherapy than that. And if there is, well it’s just that old placebo effect. It must be so because, I am reliably informed, there are no clinical trials showing that the administration of essential oils has any statistically significant therapeutic value. And, if there are any clinical trials showing a real effect, apparently they are flawed. All of them. But, if there happened to be any flawless clinical trials showing an effect, well whatever essential oil they used should be licensed as a medicine. After all, that stuff is not safe in the hands of quacks!
So anyway yes – it’s all just placebo. Now, here’s my point: What about the rats? What about those legions of rats that have been dosed with essential oils in in vivo studies? The ones that, unlike the sorry rats in another group, did NOT grow tumors, or have seizures, or develop some other induced disease state? Did they all attend a lecture on the importance of the placebo effect before their date with a lab technician?”
In 1989, scientists at the University of Wisconsin found that incorporating orange oil at 5% in the diet of rats meant that only 47% developed breast cancer, instead of 80%, as happened in the control group. In another study, rats dosed orally with 200 mg/kg body weight of black seed (Nigella sativa) essential oil for 6-8 weeks fared very much better than control group rats in terms of colon cancer. OK yes, that’s a huge dose. But what about the rats that slept longer because they inhaled valerian oil, or the ones that slept for a shorter time because they inhaled lemon oil?
No, I don’t like the idea of animal testing. And I do appreciate that the rats in these kinds of study were not massaged. They were dosed orally, or by injection, or by inhalation. Sometimes the doses were massive, but sometimes they were not. The point is that real effects have been seen, even with small amounts, and even just with inhalation. Now, I know that the results of animals studies are not always seen in clinical trials. I remember one researcher, when asked by a journalist whether a particular drug under development could really cure cancer, replying “yes, if you’re a rat”.
I’m just saying – what about the rats? What semi-magical hocus pocus made those rats well?
|
|
