What's new

Watch out for tea-tree and lavendar oil with kids

I was interested by what I read and attempted to find further information regarding the claim of breast development and kids. Someone else, I can not recall who and for that I am sorry but someone had mentioned something about perhaps all the men should be concerned regarding the use of Lavender and Tea Tree oil products. Upon researching both Derek Henley's name (he was one of the principal researchers involved in the study) and Clifford Bloch (another researcher) I was unable to find anything on PubMed. As you can see by the link I have included:
http://http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=533503

I can't make the links as small as others here, sorry.

As you see from the story, Henley stops short of admitting that the gynecomastia is a cause and effect relationship (cause and effect is very hard to prove in any discipline, let alone when you factor in the research onto humans). As well, the findings were noted on kids, as mentioned in the beginning of the thread. Specifically addressed in the article I linked too is that young boys, who do not produce much or any testosterone of their own, are the most likely to be effected. That much would make sense since grown men, who are producing testosterone in fairly large quantities (at least until they get older) would be able to combat the effect. Without seeing the actual research myself, I would be hesitant as was Henley, to make any recommendations based on the findings.

Tea Tree oil in particular is found in a lot of acne medicines and creams; I know the Body Shop has an entire line devoted to Tea Tree products.

I find it interesting that during a Google search, the top few hits led back to a blog by Debbie Schlussel. In her blog when she mentions the findings of this one study (July 6, 2006), she refers to the making of "girlie men" and that by men using products to look after themselves, going to spas, getting facials, masks and the like, it will make them "girlie men". Those such treatments should be "left in the domain of women". I don't know about you, but the rantings of anyone who will insult a person for their desire to use quality products to look after themselves is reason enough to be concerned and to disregard the comments. If one was to analyze her comments futher, they would be found to filled with misleading and emotion inducing comments like "girlie men". Insults will not be enough to convince me to do anything.

Drawing generalizations on any research study is a tall order. Without being able to find the actual study to look at the figures, the significance of the findings and such, I would hesitate to draw conclusions. That being said, would I allow my children to use those products, I don't think so. The same way I would not allow my children to use other products that are potentially dangerous. Why take the risk?

My 2 cents,

Darren
 
I agree with Darren. It's tough enough trying to seperate fact from fiction these days whenever someone cites scientific studies. There's so much junk science out there I think most of the time it's best to just use your horse sense.

I figure if these items truly caused adverse side effects I think you'd see them yanked from the shelves faster than you can say rumpelstiltskin as a lot of companies overreact and cya at the first sign of problems (a la red m&m's). But in all the years they've been around I've never heard of such problems relating to them. Just my 2¢.

Chris
 
Here are the references:

Henley, D.V., C.A. Bloch, and K.S. Korach. 2006. Components of health care products associated with male prepubertal gynecomastia possess estrogenic and antiandrogenic activities. Endocrine Society meeting. June 24-27. Boston.

Further Readings:

Harder, B. 2002. Look Ma, too much soy: Hormone in infant food reduces immunity in mice. Science News 161(May 25):325. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020525/fob5.asp.

Raloff, J. 2000. Girls may face risks from phthalates. Science News 158(Sept. 9):165. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000909/fob3.asp.

Sources:

Clifford A. Bloch
Pediatric Endocrine Associates
499 E. Hampden Avenue, Suite 290
Englewood, CO 80113-2792

Derek V. Henley
Receptor Biology Section
Laboratory of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology
MD E4-01, P.O. Box 12233
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Institutes of Health
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Ken Ong
MRC – Epidemiology Unit
Strangeways Research Laboratory
Worts Causeway
Cambridge CB1 8RN
United Kingdom

Edward O. Reiter
Baystate Medical Center
Tufts University School of Medicine
759 Chestnut Street
Springfield, MA 01199

Perhaps I simply should not have posted the article, but it seemed to me to be something that parents of young children would be interested in.
 
Oh, and yes: I think the article makes clear that the findings would apply only to the young:

"Prepubertal children have low sex hormone concentrations, so relatively small amounts of hormone-mimicking compounds might upset their physiologic balance at that age, says Reiter."

And I found the evidence as quoted in the study pretty convincing. YMMV, of course. But stopping the tea-tree products and then having the condition vanish was certainly indicative of something. Perhaps he should have done controlled experiments, double-blind, but experimenting on humans in general and young children in particular is difficult to justify. In this case, any harm involved in avoiding the use of products of this sort with young children seems neglible.
 
Thank you Leisureguy. I could not find the actual studies. I appreciate you posting the links. I am glad you posted the information. I like to educate myself both formally (am AGAIN attending school :frown: ) and informally. I particularly enjoy (yes, enjoy) reading research as I find it challenging for several reasons, which I needn't go into here.

Anyway, my response was in no means intended to be disrespectful and I hope that it was not taken that way. I was just adding my thoughts to the fray.

Unfortunately, via my school connections, The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences does not make any of their publications available via online access (like many journals and such). So I was unable to connect to any information that was actually directly from the NIEHS. My interest in the subject does not compel me to go to the basement of the library and pull microfilm.

Darren
 
Please, no one take this the wrong way as I'm not arguing either side of the issue.

Prior to the birth of my precious daughter (she is 19 months now), my wife and I became very interested in natural parenting. Among other things, this includes using all natural products. Feeding this niche market are currently many products that contain the very two ingredients in question (one of which is wet-wipes). Now, natural parenting is not a new concept by any means and many of these products have been around for years. Because of this, I would really hope that if, in fact, these studies prove to be credible within the scientific community that the products (especially those made for babies) that contain these ingredients would be quickly removed from the shelves.
 
No problem at all. I should have included the references from the start. I would also imagine that this is one of those things (like a shaving cream that irritates the faces of some and not of others) that would affect some young boys and not others, due to the vagaries of individual differences.

Regarding El Alamein's comment that harmful products would be immediately pulled from the shelves, I would point out that cigarettes are still sold, though quite clearly harmful, and secondhand smoke, even though the Surgeon General has specifically spelled out its dangers, is something that most localities still allow in offices, bars, restaurants, and the like. (I recall when New York City moved to ban smoking in public places the bars and restaurants claimed that they would be ruined by such a ban. The ban went through, no one was ruined and the people who work in bars and restaurants and had the most exposure to the smoke are now quite grateful.)
 
Kyle, I agree with you, but sometimes regulators are slow to act or the political environment prevents action. Regarding the natural products issue, I recall reading some time back about a couple who were very eager to have children and were being quite careful--no alcohol for either, stayed away from smokers, no caffeine, only herbal teas, etc. She did become pregnant, but then miscarried, and they later discovered that the natural herbal tea she had been drinking, pennyroyal, was well known to herbalists as an abortifacient. Natural does not necessarily mean safe.
 
Kyle, I understand your concern. As I mentioned I was unable to find the specifics related to the studies (sample size etc) but I understand the studies were done on human breast tissue in a petri dish under laboratory conditions. My hope would be the same as yours, if it is found to be harmful in any way then it would be voluntarily pulled off the market.

As Michael mentioned, not every dangerous product is pulled off the market, but as we learn more we place warnings on things. Cigarettes will not be pulled until the cigarette lobby and hence the money it provides to our lawmakers, is controlled.

Anyway, good luck Kyle, raising a girl, that is scary (I remember what I was like as a teen age boy!!!!!!!!!! :blushing: ) You have weapons? (other than your razors that is) :lol: :lol: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Have a good night,

Darren
 
While I don’t dispute the findings being discussed here (I haven’t reviewed the studies and don’t know that I ever will) and I certainly don’t want to be disrespectful to a topic that many parents are certainly taking very seriously… but I would wager that Nintendo (or X-box) and fast-food are responsible for many more little boys having breasts than is lavender and tea tree oil (even combined).
 
These are some very interesting thoughts from all involved here. NMMB, I would wager that your video game hypothesis would be more easily proven and more readily accepted than the lavender and tea tree studies.

One thing that I find amazing about this is that a reporter has not run across this info. This is the type of thing that American reporters tend to gravitate towards.

Darren, I don't have any good weapons yet. Are you offering to sell?:biggrin:
 
Leisureguy said:
No problem at all. I should have included the references from the start. I would also imagine that this is one of those things (like a shaving cream that irritates the faces of some and not of others) that would affect some young boys and not others, due to the vagaries of individual differences.

Regarding El Alamein's comment that harmful products would be immediately pulled from the shelves, I would point out that cigarettes are still sold, though quite clearly harmful, and secondhand smoke, even though the Surgeon General has specifically spelled out its dangers, is something that most localities still allow in offices, bars, restaurants, and the like. (I recall when New York City moved to ban smoking in public places the bars and restaurants claimed that they would be ruined by such a ban. The ban went through, no one was ruined and the people who work in bars and restaurants and had the most exposure to the smoke are now quite grateful.)


Yep cigs are still sold and yes they are harmful but the difference is that they are branded as such and the dangers are well known in society. The products you mention are not branded as such and there is not a common knowledge of their potential dangers, hence your warning. If the manufacturers in this case were to seriously believe or believe that there is a widespread (though possibly unsubstantiated) public view that their products caused any type of significant harm their corporate lawyers would have them pull the products immediately as they would be in grave legal danger. There would be cries of disregard for the public safety, cover up of the facts etc all in the name winning a lawsuit. The manufacturers don’t want to get sued.

My note was but a caution as there are good science studies and there are junk science studies. You have cited one such junk science example: second hand smoke. The science supporting the claim is so bad and so completely politically motivated that it should be brought to the attention of the public but alas that won't be done. I also completely disagree that the NY ban hasn’t hurt businesses, it happens every time a ban is put in place. So I'm just saying to take a grain of salt with everything. The old adage of believe none of what you hear and half of what you see can serve a person well.

Chris
 
By PM, I sent Chris the supporting evidence for the dangers of secondhand smoke (an AP story on the Surgeon General's warning) and the benefits of the smoking ban in NYC (a NY Times story on 6 Feb 2005 by Jim Rutenberg and Lily Koppel, "In Barrooms, Smoking Ban is Less Reviled"). Both seemed convincing to me, but perhaps not relevant to the general topic discussion. But if anyone else would like to see the evidence and sources on which I based my statements, I'm happy to send them.
 
BTW, for those who trust companies to do the right thing: the warnings on cigarettes have been mentioned a couple of times, but I'm old enough to remember how bitterly they were fought, and how the tobacco industry kept saying the studies were flawed, junk science, and the like. (I even remember how kind Camels were to your "T-zone" --- a brief attempt to sell the idea that smoking is good for you.) The warnings are there not voluntarily, I assure you. And, sad to say, companies will often not only not do the right thing but actually fight attempts to do the right thing. One needs only to look at environmental struggles for that, as power companies try to water down the Clean Air act. I'm just saying...
 
Kyle, might I suggest a nice straight razor?

You could say "I am sorry your honor, I slipped while I was showing him how to shave". A jury of your peers would never convict!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darren

BTW: Don't waste any good cream on him either!
 
stropmegently said:
Kyle, might I suggest a nice straight razor?

You could say "I am sorry your honor, I slipped while I was showing him how to shave". A jury of your peers would never convict!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darren

BTW: Don't waste any good cream on him either!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Leisureguy said:
By PM, I sent Chris the supporting evidence for the dangers of secondhand smoke (an AP story on the Surgeon General's warning) and the benefits of the smoking ban in NYC (a NY Times story on 6 Feb 2005 by Jim Rutenberg and Lily Koppel, "In Barrooms, Smoking Ban is Less Reviled"). Both seemed convincing to me, but perhaps not relevant to the general topic discussion. But if anyone else would like to see the evidence and sources on which I based my statements, I'm happy to send them.

PM reply sent, thanks.
 
BTW, the post in my blog on Lavender and Tea-Tree oils and its effects on young boys has garnered some comments. I thought you guys might be interested. Here's the post. Check the comments.

Still haven't heard of any companies that have commented on this issue.
 
Having had the opportunity to read the article in the Science News, which is a magazine published for the lay public and not the scientific community and written by journalists who may choose to 'specialize' in a particular area are by no means "experts" in their choosen field. The research was done by utilizing the essential oils and placing those oils directly onto the breast cells of humans in a growth media. The study was done one time, so no replication thus far. As far as drawing an inference from this study to actual human causes, I don't think it is possible. The 2 boys that led to this study being done both lived in the same area, thus they could have been subjected to some of the same other environmental toxins. As anyone who routinely reads or has an understanding of research and how it is done, the validity of this one study can be questioned. That being said I think that if I had kids, I would take the path of safety, but when one considers the other dangers out there that our society is ignoring (some restaurants are making people sign wavers due to their meals being so large and bad for the health, a warning on a hot cup of coffee at coffee venders etc) perhaps the tea tree/lavender issue is the least of our worries?

Regarding the "rapid" treatment success, as was quoted in the article, that rapid of a success in the treatment is a rarity, leading me to postulate that perhaps there was more to the picture than just the simple usage of the named essential oils.

I think that the article produced the reaction that was intended, which is open discussion and alerted the readers of a potential problem. Perhaps if we were this vigilant in our concern for things such as the environment, energy concerns and clean water, our world would be a better place.

Of more concern to me and I think to a majority of people of child bearing years is a report in the same issue of the SN claiming that women who are pregnant and taking ACE inhibitors (a popular blood pressure medication) in their first trimester are more at risk for birth defects. The likelyhood of pregnant women taking these medications is far higher than 2 boys from the same geographical area who were using tea tree oil and develped gynecomastia.

Reporting of this nature is alarmist and although minimally informative, it is more problematic for me as I am left asking so, what next? As with shopping that is buyer beware, the lesson here is reader beware. Do not take everything that you read as gospel or else perhaps when you read the classifieds you will see the bridge I have for sale ............

Peace and good conversations to all,

Darren
 
Top Bottom