Common Names: evening primrose oil, EPO

Latin Names: Oenothera biennis

Background

Evening primrose is a plant native to North and South America that also grows throughout Europe and parts of Asia. It has yellow flowers that open at sunset and close during the day. The oil from evening primrose seeds contains omega-6 fatty acids, including gamma-linolenic acid (GLA).

Native Americans made poultices from the evening primrose plant for bruises and wounds and used its stem and leaf juices as topical remedies for skin inflammations. The leaves were taken orally for gastrointestinal complaints and sore throats. In the 17th century, evening primrose oil became a popular folk remedy in Europe, where it was known as “King’s cure-all.”

Today, evening primrose oil dietary supplements are promoted for atopic dermatitis (a type of eczema), rheumatoid arthritis, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), breast pain, menopause symptoms, and other conditions. Evening primrose oil may also be included in products that are applied to the skin.

How Much Do We Know?

Many studies in people have evaluated evening primrose oil for atopic dermatitis or breast pain. Smaller numbers of studies have evaluated it for other health conditions.

What Have We Learned?

There’s not enough evidence to support the use of evening primrose oil for any health condition.

Evening primrose oil, taken orally (by mouth), has not been shown to be helpful for relieving symptoms of atopic dermatitis.

Studies of evening primrose oil for breast pain have not found it to be more effective than a placebo (an inactive substance).

There’s insufficient evidence to show whether evening primrose oil is helpful for other conditions, such as PMS and menopause symptoms.

What Do We Know About Safety?

Evening primrose oil may be safe for use during pregnancy and while breastfeeding, but the evidence is not conclusive.

Evening primrose oil is generally well tolerated. The most common side effects are temporary gastrointestinal symptoms such as abdominal pain, fullness, or nausea.

Evening primrose oil may increase the effects of the HIV medicine lopinavir. As with all dietary supplements, talk with your health care provider before taking evening primrose oil if you are taking any kind of medicine.

Information provided by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

Some nutritional approaches, such as dietary supplements, have a long history of use for symptoms of musculoskeletal inflammatory conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and tendinitis. There isn’t enough evidence to support the use of many of them for inflammatory conditions, but a few may have modest benefits. 

Here are six things to know if you are considering using a dietary supplement for inflammation:

1. There is some evidence that omega-3 fatty acids may provide a modest benefit for symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.
2. Turmeric and willow bark have been used for many years for inflammatory conditions. However, there’s only a small amount of evidence suggesting that willow bark might be helpful for chronic low-back pain and osteoarthritis, and there’s not enough evidence to support the use of turmeric.
3. Bromelain, a mixture of enzymes found in the pineapple plant, may be helpful as an addition to other forms of treatment for acute nasal and sinus inflammation, but there isn’t enough evidence to show whether it’s helpful for other types of inflammation.
4. There’s moderate evidence that Devil’s Claw, a herb native to Africa, is beneficial for osteoarthritis of the spine, hip, and knee. Devil’s Claw may also have modest short-term benefits for low-back pain.
5. It’s unclear whether ginger supplements are beneficial for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or joint and muscle pain.
6. There’s some evidence that thunder god vine — a plant native to China, Japan, and Korea — may reduce some symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis; however, thunder god vine may be associated with serious side effects.

Information provided by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

Butylphenyl methylpropional (BMHCA, CAS No 80-54-6), sometimes referred to by its trade name Lilial®, is a fragrance ingredient used in cosmetic products.

From 1 March 2022, butylphenyl methylpropional will be classified as a Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMR) category 1B substance under the EU and UK Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulations.

Article 15 of the UK and EU Cosmetics Regulations requires CMR-classified substances to undergo an exemption process to assess whether they can continue to be used as cosmetic ingredients. This regulatory process has not yet been completed under the UK Cosmetics Regulations. Therefore, the new EU provisions do not apply in GB. Accordingly, while companies have been working towards the deadline of 1 March 2022 for products for both the EU and UK markets, BMHCA can still be used in cosmetic products in GB until further notice. However, as a ban is expected in GB at a future date, it would be wise to reformulate affected products sooner rather than later.

It is important to stress that the CMR classification of BHMCA and the ban now in force in the EU, and expected in GB in the future, is based on the hazardous properties a substance might have under a worst-case situation and does not take account of whether there is any risk associated with specific uses or exposures. Consumers who have bought cosmetic and personal care products that contain BMHCA, can be reassured that these products are still safe to use. They will have undergone a rigorous safety assessment by an expert safety assessor to ensure their safe use.

Information from the International Fragrance Association and the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association

It’s sometimes difficult to tell the difference between health facts and myths, particularly around complementary and integrative health. Becoming familiar with scientific topics related to health research can help you better understand what you hear and read and so make well-informed health decisions.

These 10 facts can give you a start in learning about the science of health. Some online sources of information on complementary health approaches are useful, but others are inaccurate or misleading. If you’re visiting an online health site for the first time or downloading a new app, ask these questions: Who runs or created the site or app? Do its claims seem too good to be true? Is it up to date? Where does the information come from? Why does the site or app exist? Is it selling something?

1.Some online sources of information on complementary health approaches are useful, but others are inaccurate or misleading. If you’re visiting an online health site for the first time or downloading a new app, ask these questions: Who runs or created the site or app? Do its claims seem too good to be true? Is it up-to-date? Where does the information come from? Why does the site or app exist? Is it selling something?

2.Unless you read and understand the original sources for a health news story, it can be difficult to know whether the story is misleading or has left out important information. But the likelihood that the story is correct increases if it comes from a media outlet that isn’t promoting a point of view or cause, was written by a trained science or health reporter and includes quotes from experts not connected to the study.

3.Sometimes taking a prescription drug and dietary supplement together may increase the drug’s effects. The drug’s effects may become too strong, and unwanted side effects may increase.

4.Sometimes taking a prescription drug and a supplement together may decrease the drug’s effects. This means that you aren’t getting the full benefit from the drug that your health care provider wants you to have.

5.When it comes to medicine, there is no official definition for use of the term natural. And it’s important to know that “natural” does not always mean “safe.”

6.Although many herbal or dietary supplements (and some prescription drugs) come from natural sources, “natural” does not always mean that it’s a better option for your health. Scientists are studying many of these products to identify what ingredients may be active and to better understand their effects in the body.

7.Clinical trials to test whether a treatment is useful and safe in humans may vary in size and type. Well-planned clinical trials give the clearest information about whether a treatment is effective and safe. However, because they’re complicated, lengthy, and very, very expensive, they’re usually done only after smaller preliminary studies have shown some promise that the treatment may be helpful.

8.Studies with large numbers of people generally get results that are more reliable than those of studies with small pools of participants. Larger studies can increase the accuracy of the study findings and reduce the probability that any effect observed in the study was due to chance.

9.The strongest evidence about whether a treatment is useful and safe consists of results from several studies by different investigators. Rarely does a single study provide a final, definitive answer.

10.When looking for information from a study published in a medical journal, try to find out if the study has been peer reviewed. The peer review process subjects a scientist’s research to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field and is considered necessary to ensure academic scientific quality.

Taken from the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health

Quite straight forward, indeed some may say “obvious”, but web brousers have the potential to make every one an instant expert (see my earlier blog), so we need to be mindful when we come across the shock/horror stories, underpinned by reference to unknown ‘experts’.

The above Act went into effect on 1 January 2022 and requires companies selling beauty or personal care products to report the presence of hazardous ingredients. Companies are required to report products via the California Safe Cosmetics Reporting Portal (CSCP), if they sell cosmetic and personal care products in California that contain fragrance and/or flavour ingredients included on one or more of the 22 designated lists in the Health and Safety Code Section 111792.6.

Within the 22 designated lists, there are for example:

• Chemicals classified by the European Union as carcinogens, mutagens, or reproductive toxicants according to Category 1A or 1B in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.
• Group 1, 2A, or 2B carcinogens identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
• Persistent bioaccumulative and toxic priority chemicals that are identified by the federal Environmental Protection Agency National Waste Minimization Program.
• The Washington Department of Ecology’s Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) Chemicals identified in Chapter 173-333 of Title 173 of the Washington Administrative Code.

In addition to reporting the ingredients from the 22 designated lists, companies also have to highlight fragrance allergens. The subset of the California Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act( CFFIRKA) reportable ingredients called “fragrance allergens” has a distinct reporting requirement. Fragrance allergens only need to be reported if they are present in a rinse-off cosmetic product at a concentration at or above 0.01 percent (100 parts per million) or in a leave-on cosmetic product at a concentration at or above 0.001 percent (10 parts per million). Fragrance allergen ingredients must be clearly identified in the CSCP Reportable Ingredients List. All other ingredients appearing on the list must be reported regardless of their concentration in the product.

It is important to note that the law does not require companies to report any of the following: ingredients not included in the designated lists, the weight or amount of an ingredient, or how a product is formulated (ie the recipe).

To assist with reporting, CDPH has compiled a list of reportable ingredients based on lists and reports available from the authoritative scientific bodies cited in the California Health and Safety Code Section 111791.5. 3097 chemicals are identified and they are listed by chemical name (not the same as the INCI name), together with their CAS number, any synonyms, hazard traits and a reference to the authorative source the data has been taken from.

But what about current Federal Law on cosmetics in the USA?

The recent activity in California may preview future federal developments. In the absence of federal regulation, it is not uncommon for individual states to begin applying their own particular requirements. Currently, the FDA applies relatively limited standards to cosmetics. However, it may soon face increased pressure to regulate cosmetics due to growing public concern, whether scientifically justified or arising from uncontrolled social media pressure.

The answer to this perfect example of double talk is –when it is “ISO 16128 – Guidelines on technical definitions and criteria for natural and organic cosmetic ingredients and products“

Background

The above guidelines are specific to the cosmetics sector, taking into account that most existing approaches are written for the agricultural and food sectors and so are not directly transferrable to cosmetics. The purpose of the guidelines is to encourage a wider choice of natural and organic ingredients in the formulation of a diverse variety of cosmetic products, thereby encouraging innovation. ISO 16128 Part 1 covers definitions for ingredients and ISO 16128 Part 2 is concerned with criteria for ingredients and products.

Comment

However, ISO 16128-1 has not been well received, particularly by awarding bodies. Many have taken issue with Note 1 in Section 2.1 which says, “Ingredients from genetically modified plants can be considered as natural ingredients…”. So much so, that the British Standards Institution has included the following paragraph in its national forward to the ISO standard:

“The UK committee draws users’ attention to Note 1 in Section 2.1. The committee feels that the terms ‘natural’ and ‘genetically modified’ are diametrically opposed by definition and deprecates the potential for GMO-sourced ingredients to be listed in a document that defines the criteria for natural and organic cosmetic ingredients.”

DIN (the German standards body) did not agree to the drafts of the guidelines and continues to comment critically on its contents.

There is a general feeling that ISO 16128 fails to deliver on integrity, transparency and clear standards which will lead to inconsistency and the risk of misrepresentation. The guidelines do not involve certification bodies; the calculated percentages written on products by brands will be based on declarations by suppliers – no certification body will check if the percentages are correct.

The guidelines do not list banned ingredients and forbidden processes. Thus, a brand could indicate ‘contains 80% natural ingredients’ on the label/packaging, without any limitation on any synthetic ingredients that might be present in the rest of the product. If this percentage is equal to or greater than 95% the product can be labelled as ‘natural product’, even if the remaining 5% is made up of controversial synthetic ingredients such as silicones, parabens etc. There are no restrictions on petrochemical ingredients; ‘derived natural ingredients’ can be up to 49.9% petrochemical.

It has been suggested ISO 16128 provides a cut-rate definition of ‘natural’ and increases the likelihood of greenwashing by more ‘creative’, unscrupulous brands. COSMOS goes so far as to say, “…we now have an ISO guideline that is deficient, counterproductive and allows misleading consumer information”. Organisations such as BDIH, Natrue and Cosmebio have also come out strongly against the guidelines.

Many feel the standard is in the interests of the cosmetics industry and not the consumer.

The overall perception is that this is a weak ISO standard which is likely to ‘muddy the water’ further, adding to the confusion in the marketplace.

When developing a fragrance, it’s important to look beyond the simple ‘smell’ – ask yourself just what it is you are seeking to achieve and create a description that fits. The style you use may vary.

You might try to tantalise the senses:

A sunshiny Sicilian summer…

The luminous, bright and sparkling aroma of lemon is captured in Lemon Zest fragrance. Fresh notes of lemongrass, mandarin and orange create perfect olfactory harmony in combination with the green notes of cornmint, petitgrain and wormwood. Add woody cedar and it is easy to imagine it is summer and you are in Northern Sicily near Mount Etna, walking through the forest on the slopes of the Nebrodi Mountains.

Bright, optimistic, lively and spontaneous – Lemon Zest fragrance offers all this and more.

Description:

Citrus – Herbaceous – Spicy – Woody

Top note         Lemongrass : Mandarin green : Orange sweet

Middle note    Cornmint : Petitgrain : Wormwood

Base note        Patchouli : Vetiver : Cedar

Or perhaps something more evocative:

An exotic journey with a hint of intrigue

There is frequently an air of excitement about long journeys by train, especially when the train is the Orient Express. This is reflected in its selection by authors such as Agatha Christie (Murder on the Orient Express), Graham Greene (Stamboul Train) and Ian Fleming (From Russia with Love) as the transportation of choice for spies and murderers.

Imagine you have just finished dinner, the air is full of the smells of the wood panelling in the dining car, the leather upholstery, the spices used in the middle eastern food you have just enjoyed and (long before the introduction of legislation) the rich aroma of cigar smoke.

This is the mood created by Orient Express fragrance.  A top note of smoky, leathery cade, softened with the sweet freshness of kumquat and wallflower. The middle note is soft, warm and honey-like and binding everything together is the opulence of leather, with a sweet, woody, slightly spicy contribution from patchouli and cedar.

Description:

Floral – Leather – Spicy – Woody

Top note         Wallflower : Kumquat : Cade

Middle note    Rose : Suede : Heliotrope

Base note        Leather : Patchouli : Cedar

Or maybe you just want to wax lyrical:

“The moon is the reflection of your heart and moonlight is the twinkle of your love.”
Debasish Mridha

The moon evolves and mutates, from deity to muse, from celestial timepiece to a drinking companion in the sky, a cipher of our own struggles on earth. At one moment a pure virgin, at the next a barren old maid; a beneficent, comforting presence, or a trigger for catastrophe. The moon can spark all manner of emotions, but this fragrance is no harbinger of doom. Moon Sparks is warm, natural, comforting – nothing to fear.

Description

Floral – Oriental – Woody – Honey – Musk 

Top note         Freesia : Hawthorn : Pine needles : Orange blossom

Middle note    Rose : Violet : Jasmine

Base note        Musks : Vanilla : Patchouli

Fragrance is more than simply an aroma; it is about mood. Your intention, blending and description should reflect this. Have fun!

Once upon a time, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), followed by the EU, decreed that there should be 26 fragrance chemicals that were so allergenic they could only be present in cosmetics at a designated maximum concentration and that their names should be printed on the label of any cosmetic that contained them. Sixteen of these chemicals occur in essential oils – although some in very few. There was, and still is, much debate about the criteria used when these fragrance ‘allergens’ were selected, and the criteria have never been made clear.

In 2017, the SCCS concluded that one of the listed fragrances, hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (also known as HICC or Lyral), along with atranol and chloroatranol (natural components of oakmoss and treemoss extracts), that were not restricted nor prohibited under the current regulations, although oakmoss and treemoss extracts were, had caused the highest number of contact allergy cases in recent years. Therefore, the European Commission updated the regulations to prohibit the use of these three fragrance allergens from August 2021. As the ban was implemented before the end of the transition period it will continue to apply in the UK as retained EU legislation.

OK – perhaps this all seems a bit boring, but consideration is being given to increasing the list to 82 materials that “…can be categorised as established contact allergens in humans…”, of which 28 are ‘natural extracts’ ie essential oils/absolutes. Some are in general use as fragrances and include: bergamot, lemon, sweet orange, jasmine, lavender, geranium, rose and sandalwood. What I find particularly concerning is that, even if an essential oil is not in itself allergenic, if it contains chemicals that can become allergenic when oxidised it is to be treated as an allergen.

If you make your own retail cosmetic products, then the proposed increase in the number of allergens that have to be declared (if their concentration is greater than 0.001% in a leave-on product or greater than 0.01% in a rinse-off product) will only affect you if the UK government chooses to adopt the same extended list of ‘allergens’ or you want to sell into the EU. Although it should be pointed out that many countries around the world adopt the EU allergens list. Of course, the existing list of declarable allergens continues to apply in the UK as retained EU legislation.

Don’t ask how the additional allergens are going to get onto a product label – that’s for another time!

In these days of social media and the internet, it seems to me that the more people believe something to be true, the more likely it is considered to be true. It doesn’t matter how preposterous or inaccurate a statement is – it’s there on my tablet, laptop or smart phone so it must be right.

What triggered my righteous indignation? When is was drawn to my attention that it was being said that neroli essential oil was contraindicated for those with a cancer diagnosis, because it contained geraniol! And this was supported by a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal.

So I set off on a quest to find who was making these amazing claims. Just by reading the title of the paper I couldn’t see where the inference was coming from. When I read the abstract of the paper I still couldn’t see anything to support the claim. So I got hold of a copy of the paper and that confirmed my initial understanding – this research has not concluded that geraniol is carcinogenic. Far from it in fact, the claim that it does is false. Equally, it does not conclude that geraniol ‘treats’ cancer, that was not the aim of the research and anyway it is not true.

If you’re sitting comfortably, I’ll begin:

First of all, just look at the title of the research paper, “Geraniol, a component of plant essential oils, sensitizes human colonic cancer cells to 5-fluoroacil treatment”. The emphasis is mine. The research is suggesting that geraniol makes the treatment of colonic cancer by 5-fluoroacil more effective ie geraniol does not promote cancer of the colon, it has the opposite effect, making an existing anticancer drug used in colorectal therapy more effective

This is made clear in the abstract, “…geraniol sensitizes colonic cancer cells to 5-fluoroacil treatment, by increasing the cytotoxicity of the drug…” Again, the emphasis is mine. In other words, geraniol enhances the ability of 5-fluoroacil to destroy cancer cells.

To be honest, I didn’t need the paper to make my point but I was able to track down a free download so I thought, why not? Back in 2001 (Carnesecchi S et al Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 298: 197-200), researchers had already identified that geraniol had chemopreventive properties; this team wanted to try and understand the mechanism with regard to a particular human colon cancer cell line and an existing chemotherapy drug. All the experiments were carried out in vitro. I cannot pretend that I understood the biochemistry involved but I can manage the non-technical language (mostly).

The researchers concluded that, “…the interaction of geraniol with the cell membrane prevents the [cell] differentiation process and facilitates the uptake of the chemotherapeutic agent by cancer cells.” They go on to suggest that geraniol may favour cellular uptake of anticancer drugs and that this could “…permit the use of lower concentrations of chemotherapeutic drugs and, at the same time, lower their secondary effects”.

The paper was published in 2002: Geraniol, a component of plant essential oils, sensitizes human colonic cancer cells to 5-fluorouracil treatment. Carnesecchi S, Langley F, Exinger F, Gosse F, Raul F – Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Vol 301 no 2, 625-630.

At the risk of sounding condescending, this shows the dangers of people making a pronouncement on something when they lack a basic understanding of the subject matter. Although I have waxed lyrical about this, simply reading the title of the paper makes it quite clear what the research was about. Just reading, “Geraniol, a component of plant essential oils, sensitizes human colonic cancer cells…” and stopping at that point might cause concern, but you might think before announcing that neroli is contraindicated with clients who have/had cancer, a little more time might have been spent on further investigation. Going on to read the remainder of the title and everything is clear – “to 5-fluoroacil treatment, by increasing the cytotoxicity of the drug…”. 

And what about Chicken Licken? Walking through the wood a falling acorn fell on his head, he immediately decided the sky had fallen and set off to tell the king. On the way he met a number of other feathered farmyard creatures, all of whom accepted what he said about the sky falling, and joined him on his journey to tell the king. Sadly, before they got there, they met a fox who took the trouble to check the facts and then made a meal of them all.

And the moral? Before accepting that the sky has fallen, look up and see if it is still there.

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