When looking to purchase essential oils this is what comes leaping out at you:
‘Highest quality’: ‘100% pure’: ‘Finest natural ingredients…’: ‘100% natural pure essential oils’ and so on. At times there almost appears to be competition as to which company carries out not just the most tests but the most rigorous tests. Claims are made about ‘approvals’ and ‘standards’; you might read, “Our essential oils are the only ones to satisfy the xyz standard”. The name of the standard is frequently accompanied by the use of this symbol – ® showing it to be a registered trademark. This means the name of the standard cannot be used by anyone else – it is protected, so of course that supplier’s oils are the only ones that can use this claim, even if others carry out identical testing.
Let’s begin by stating the blindingly obvious – no natural essential oil can be better than the plant that produced it ie how the plant is grown matters, as does why the plant is grown. Clearly, plants are grown for money but for what purpose? Are the essential oils destined for use in flavouring, fragrance, as commodities or for aromatherapeutic purposes? What is right for one is not necessarily right for the others.
Quality is a ‘notion’, defined by end use so our starting point then is ‘fitness for purpose’. Obviously, as complementary health practitioners, we want our essential oils to be of the highest quality but just what does that mean? To answer that question, we have to consider points such as:
Plant material – was it from a single named botanical species?
Harvesting – how was the plant material obtained? Was yield the overriding factor?
Extraction – was the correct type of plant material used and the correct extraction method?
Composition – has anything been taken out and/or added?
Let’s look at some examples:
Plant material: Lavandula spp is not the same as Lavandula angustifolia, it indicates a blend of different lavenders, most of which are likely to be lavandin and so make the essential oil cheaper.
Harvesting: was the grower trying to gather every last piece of plant material in order to maximise yield or were they prepared to leave some behind, in order to ensure it was just the appropriate part that was taken.
Extraction: as we all know, steam distillation is the technique most widely used but it can be carried at atmospheric pressure or using high pressure steam. High pressure shortens the batch time but some components are lost. Atmospheric pressure takes longer but ensures the ‘whole’ essential oil is obtained and of course, time equals money.
Composition: ‘standardised’ oils are just that, chemicals have been added to the essential oil to achieve a required composition. An example of this is Lavender 40/42; good quality natural Lavandula angustifolia tends to contain between 40 and 42% of linalyl acetate and as a result can demand a premium price. Adding linalyl acetate to achieve the ‘magic’ 40-42% gives the supplier the opportunity to obtain a higher price.
Now, what about ‘standards’? Again, let’s state the blindingly obvious – nature is diverse, not standard. As described above, the only way to achieve a standard essential oil is to adjust its composition. Standards indicate consistency, not quality:
- Standards are industry norms, not quality features.
- There are no formal standards against which essential oils can be measured.
- For inclusion in the British Pharmacopeia, essential oils must meet a set composition and this can only be achieved by making adjustments.
What about testing? Well, throwing a battery of tests at an essential oil does not assure its quality. Testing is a verification process, not the arbiter of quality and in general suppliers will produce what is required by the market they service.
It is reasonable to expect quality control checks to be carried out, such as colour, smell, specific gravity and refractive index for example. But how many of us would know how to interpret a gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy trace or a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy print out? I do wonder if any essential oil has ever been rejected because of a failed chirality test. Quality is not directly proportional to the number of checks carried out.
Terms to look out for:
Nature identical – not authentic but allows a botanical name to be used.
True – surely the essential oil either is or is not what is on the label; often applied to lavender and Melissa essential oils.
Medical quality/therapeutic grade – I believe these to be terms that flatter to deceive. They imply the absolute highest level of ‘quality’ but in reality are meaningless. Any essential oil that is obtained from a single, named botanical species, using appropriate plant material and the correct extraction process, by a producer who wants to provide the very best essential oils suitable for therapy, could rightly be termed ‘medical/therapeutic grade’.
What to do? Establish your needs, decide what your practice requires and find a supplier that gives you what you want. You set the parameters, not some individual wearing a business suit or a white coat.
To my mind when it comes to essential oils, quality is about the care taken at every stage of the process from plant all the way to bottle. Not very scientific I guess but it’s how I feel – does that make me a ‘bad’ person, going all ‘right-brained’ when we should be adopting a more ‘left-brain’ approach to our therapy? I don’t know, you decide.
I will leave you with the words of John Ruskin: (1819 – 1900):
“It is unwise to pay too much, but worse to pay too little. When you pay too much you lose a little money, that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do.”
“There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man’s lawful prey.”
Ian Cambray-Smith FIFPA, MSCS, BSc, MSc, PGCE
naturalscienceconsultants.org 