Essential Oil BS

Essential oil information and education are loaded with BS, meaning “Bad Science.” Seems we’re supposed to follow the science these days. What does that mean? Science is a study of what is, how it is, and sometimes what to do with the how and the what. In the world of essential oils, the how and what of it is not easily translated into the what to do. Though I refer to BS as bad science, other fitting terminology would be “inaccurate science,” or “bad interpretation,” or “marketing science” (there’s a conundrum). Trying to put an acronym to these other phrases just doesn’t get the same attention as saying BS, and with that, it is quite accurate to say that the world of essential oils is, as well, brimming with bullshit.

Follow the science of “therapeutic grade”

Let’s begin with the simple phrase “therapeutic grade” or therapeutic quality. We acknowledge there is ample data regarding the therapeutic efficacy and healing properties of essential oils. This term, however, is used to define a certain quality of oil sold by a company having these scientifically proven therapeutic effects. All good, except this totally falls apart when following other scientific aspects. Since much of the testing showing therapeutic results also isolates specific so-called “active” compounds, these active compounds, when isolated or in an oil's mix, whether added or naturally occurring, should have the therapeutic effects known from these compounds. Therefore, the term therapeutic grade can refer to any quality of essential oil containing natural compounds, adulterated or not. Actually, it wouldn’t even have to be an essential oil, just a mix of the compounds found in essential oils. The CBD and cannabis industry is filled with therapeutic claims due to these single isolated compounds, demonstrating a therapeutic grade of isolated essential oil compounds (terpenes in cannabis lingo).

Often the therapeutic grade label is confirmed through a GC analysis. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) is an analysis of the molecular structure of essential oils. This can be a valuable tool when used appropriately. What it is often used for is a proof of quality. This is a hit or miss proposition, mostly miss and mainly based on BS. It takes a specialist to do and read the analysis. For anyone else, especially the consumer, it is a useless chart showing no detection of essential oil quality. Even for those who can read a GC/MS there is no real way to determine quality through the structure. The molecular composition can show some interesting structure elements to the oil, its complexity, and show whether the analysis matches standards of good quality (this is also a bit of BS, as who is determining what an essential oil should “look” like, among other flaws).

In my courses I use a wine analogy to explain therapeutic quality. A $5 bottle of the industrial wine Yellow Tail and a $350 beautifully constructed Bordeaux are both “therapeutic grade.” They both get you drunk. Here the therapeutic action (if getting drunk can be so loosely alluded to as therapeutic) is not about quality difference. There are certainly huge and obvious differences in the quality. The interpretation of the term therapeutic grade in this wine example, demonstrates how matching therapeutic activity to a quality has its scientific interpretative challenges. The term is weak and simply BS used as marketing.

Lavender is calming

Is any essential oil really calming? Yes, would be the simple answer, but no is correct if you look at the evidence and complexity of essential oil activity and olfactory science. In several studies it was found “verbal cues” can change the activity of an essential oil, or any scent. Putting to question, what makes the essential oil calming?

In one study a group of people were told the oil they were smelling was calming. Skin conductivity tests and brain wave readings showed calming of one-hundred percent of the participants. A second group was tested with an oil they were told was a stimulant, with one hundred percent showing stimulating activity. Using just the information presented it would be assumed that these specific oils have the calming and stimulating effects anticipated. The problem here is, both examples were lavender essential oil. 

Looking at available data, lavender is shown to have anxiolytic, mood stabilizer, sedative and similar calming properties. So science would suggest that lavender is a calming oil. There are also BS reports found on the internet suggesting using “too much” lavender will produce a stimulating effect. There’s no data available to support this, though suggesting this as true, like a verbal cue, could possibly produce a stimulating effect. There is BS when stating the use as “too much,” which is common with information regarding essential oils. Often there are no measurements given with a too much or high amounts definition.

So, is lavender calming? Yes.  No. I mean maybe. It depends. But, depends on what?

Inaccurate science or interpretation of the science

There are so many factors to be considered when deciding the therapeutic outcome of an essential oil. In most cases lavender is likely calming, as are other essential oils with considerable amounts of ester compounds, like clary sage, ylang ylang and Cape chamomile. Scientific data, based on pharmacology, would suggest these oils to be calming. One of the main challenges with the use of essential oils is they don’t always behave the way the science would put forward. 

There is a recent claim among industry experts saying Functional Group Theory (FGT) is BS. Therefore, my statement claiming the functional group of ester compounds to be calming would be BS.

Esters are a functional group, defined by Wikipedia as “a group of atoms in a molecule with distinctive chemical properties.” In essential oil Functional Group Theory (FGT), popularized by Pierre Franchomme, the functional groups are used to describe the therapeutic properties of the oils containing the identified compounds. According to FGT, esters are calming. As I stated earlier, lavender, Cape chamomile, etc. are calming due to their main structure being esters. A recent claim among industry experts is that FGT is BS. Therefore, my statement claiming the functional group of ester compounds to be calming would be BS, based on these professionals claiming FGT as BS. FGT does have some legitimacy, so outright dismissing it as a useful theory is BS. I use the functional group structure-effect diagram (see above) as a teaching tool. When used as a teaching guide that addresses the flaws, FGT is a valuable guide when learning essential oil chemistry and for choosing essential oils. You do find companies and blog writers misinterpreting the use of FGT and GC analysis, suggesting BS explanations of the chemistry and properties of essential oils.

There are several factors involved in the therapeutic outcome of essential oils. The pharmacology is the one paid the most attention to. This becomes a practice of creating a drug-like activity out of essential oils. Though there is data supporting a drug-like, pharmacological activity to essential oils, it is often faulty when taking it from the science lab to the human. Knowing as much as you can about the physiological and pharmacological activity of essential oils is useful and powerful in healing. It weakens when a this-oil-for-that-symptom of practice is used, unless it is combined with a more holistic perspective. Humans and essential oils are far too complex to reduce to a drug-like activity.

The other common way essential oils are explained is through the olfactory response, often interpreted with a trunk load of BS. The olfactory system is a complex sense organ with, may I say, a mind of its own. There are several elements to the function of olfaction and associated essential oil therapeutic properties. Smelling essential oils is generally associated with stress, anxiety, mental stimulation and other emotionally driven uses. This only makes sense sort of. And it’s based on poor interpretation of science and a BS understanding of the olfactory system.

Physiology, biology, chemistry and maybe mysterious quantum effects all play a role in the outcome of essential oil use. These factors result in a holistic synergy that is difficult to isolate, or blind study, into any essential oil scientific data.  Another factor that determines outcome of essential oil use is the placebo effect, which can sometimes be explained in terms of olfactory memory and emotion, verbal cues, metaphysical or energetic responses, and a handful of “I don’t know but it worked” functions. The “I don’t know” is too often filled in using a system of BS by pulling together scientific reports and loosely creating disconnected interpretations.

The olfactory response

Olfaction is still a relatively new scientific study that has many unanswered questions and functions to resolve. Olfaction is a learned sense. Your like, dislike, calming, energizing and other similar emotional responses are learned and triggered from the first experience of the scent. This diminishes the categorization of essential oils having a calming or stress relieving label. It’s difficult to know whether essential oils have physiological calming effects, which is supported through scientific data, or if the response is a learned behavior. Most olfactory scientists claim it to be learned. I would lean toward saying there is a combined molecular physiological response and a learned response to inhaling essential oils.

Inhaling essential oils does have evidence that it is the chemical composition triggering physical responses, generally through a release of emotionally related neurotransmitters, hormones and other ligands. Though with alternate analysis it could be the emotional memory of the oil that triggers the release of the messenger molecules. There are observed physical responses due to essential oil signaling through the limbic system. 

Grapefruit has been studied for its ability to burn fat cells and suppress the appetite. When asking a group of students how they think the oil was used, most say through ingestion. The studies show it is with inhalation that grapefruit, setting off a limbic system response, signals nerves to burn fat cells. Suppressing the appetite is due to a functional mechanism where smelling food for a certain amount of time, as happens when eating, sends a message of satiation to the brain (and belly). 

Essential oils cure cancer

I can cure any cancer with essential oils. I say this often based on the solid evidence in scientific studies. The followup is, only if I can take every tumor out of the body and combine them with essential oils in a petri dish. This is an example of how to misread the data. Yes, oils have been studied for their ability to effectively destroy cancer cells. The situation changes dynamically when trying to “cure” cancer in the human body. I observed a doctor using an IV delivery of essential oils on cancer patients and witnessed the results, some positive, many not so good. 

The tumor studies become BS when translated as a cancer cure. This is true of so many health conditions and the related studies that suggest essential oils as a remedy or cure. It’s misguided and inaccurate, unless these studies are used to assist in the guidance of essential oil use.

It’s not selecting an oil for the symptom, it is more accurately a choice of the oil for the person with the symptom.

Peppermint for a headache, there’s a little BS

Ask an essential oil advocate what to do for a headache and most likely they will say peppermint. Truth is, peppermint only works if it’s a peppermint headache. There isn’t an easy this-for-that use of essential oils. Peppermint has data demonstrating the how and why it relieves headaches. The issue here is that headaches have several potential causes and peppermint doesn’t address many of these conditions. It’s not selecting an oil for the symptom, it is more accurately a choice of the oil for the person with the symptom. If the oil doesn’t work, it will be blamed on essential oils not really doing what people say they do. Instead, it should be viewed as an inaccurate choice of the essential oil for the person using it, along with misguided application. Blending essential oils becomes valuable with the creation of a mix addressing many potential conditions.

It’s ok not to know why

There are so many examples of BS in the use of essential oils. It’s ok not to know the why of essential oil use. Though, the more information available, the better and more effective your essential oil use will be. It’s flawed “facts,” the BS, spread through the essential oil communities and businesses, about essential oils that put them off track, and create a mistrust in those who already think essential oils are a scam.

The complexity of essential oil function is too difficult to comprehend for many people in our pharmaceutically marketed world. Complexity is the stuff of holistic practitioners, though even these professionals sometimes get caught up in a this-for-that mentality. By attempting to appease and satisfy a mainstream medicine mindset, essential oils are explained using common reductionistic medical concepts, using evidence-based medicine and peer reviewed studies, creating a misguided understanding of the use of essential oils and a plethora of BS.

There is so much more that could be written here, displaying other minor to outlandishly ridiculous contributions to the world of essential oil BS.