Talk:Tea tree oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Original Stub 2 Acne and other claims 3 Wart treatment? 4 Added POV tag 4.1 working on NPOV 4.2 Removed POV tag 5 Safety 6 Other claims - reliability 7 Tea Tree Oil and Lavender Oil and gynecomastia in boys 8 False attribution in Safety section 9 Lobbyist quote in Safety section 10 Medicinal use section 11 Environmental Impact 12 Rename a good thing? 13 Capitalisation in title 14 Animal Safety 15 Requested move 15.1 Survey 15.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 15.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 15.2 Discussion 16 Concerning the Recent Rename 17 Aboriginal use

[edit] Original Stub

The original stub article was largely a copy of the verbiage on the Nambucca website. The health claims are not yet backed by sufficient clinical research to be considered mainstream. Myron 22:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Acne and other claims

Therapeutic use of tea tree oil is increasingly popular, but solid evidence from clinical trials is sparse. Efficacy for acne vulgaris is weakly supported by perhaps no more than one reported single-blind clinical trial. Thus it is misleading to bestow special emphasis on this application (such as including a description of specific antimicrobial action against the "main cause" of acne). At best, one can legitimately say that tea tree oil "shows promise", but the promises of scads of compounds and traditional treatments have evaporated when subjected to the "gold standard" of objective, properly run, adequately-sized, replicated, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, peer-reviewed clinical trials. Inasmuch as tea tree oil can have troublesome and even nasty adverse effects that may go unrecognized for quite some time, it is unwise for an encyclopedia to seem to endorse any particular use of it absent sufficient reliable medical evidence. This is why I have pruned the statements about acne. Myron 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't 'pruned the statements'. You've totally torn up NPOV. NPOV is the cornerstone of the wikipedia. If there are qualifications to the evidence supporting its use, add those qualifications. You have no right to remove information to that degree.WolfKeeper 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. An encyclopedia article is not a review of the literature and should be balanced, not comprehensive. The verbiage I removed overemphasizes one potential use of tea tree oil and derives its authority from a single weak study done several years ago that no one seems to have bothered to follow up with further, more definitive research. This does not justify such a detailed description of a single study here. "Alternative medicine" enthusiasts tend to seize on such poorly substantiated material and to recommend self-treatment rather blithely, but that is not what Wikipedia is all about. Wolfkeeper, is your objection based on a wish to promote use of tea tree oil? I don't really understand what you mean by "torn up NPOV" and your concept of "no right". Could you please explain your position more concretely and without polemic? I invite others to comment on all this. Myron 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The only concept of balance in the wiki is NPOV. By removing stuff not in agreement with your opinion you are NOT following NPOV. NPOV is more about cataloging opinions NOT achieving some magical, mystical balance. I repeat- have you read NPOV???? Most editors of the wiki get this quite wrong.WolfKeeper 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, 1) I don't know where you get the idea that "the only concept of balance in the wiki is NPOV".Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Read it: Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewWolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Balance in a presentation is a concept beyond wiki and beyond NPOV and is neither magical nor mystical and is even more than aesthetic. A good encyclopedia article balances detail against generalization, clarity against conciseness and precision against reaching the audience meaningfully, among other dimensions of choice. 2) I did not remove stuff "not in agreement with" my opinion; the matter is so poorly substantiated in scientific literature that I can have no opinion as to the advisability of trying tea tree oil for acne.Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's your opinion.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that my having no POV as to efficacy may come across to you as POV by dint of its possible contrast to your strong belief. 3) If a conviction that tea tree oil is pretty definitely pretty good for acne is connoted by the way you phrased your contribution, then your contribution violates NPOV and calls for redaction.Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It's not wrong to have an opinion under NPOV. It's just wrong to remove other peoples. (Slight exageration/oversimplification.)WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

4) You assert "I repeat": could you substantiate that by describing where you previously asked if I read NPOV? Or is your question merely polemical?

My bad. I was getting ahead of myself. I knew we were going to get here.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

5) There is no scientific evidence in the literature backing your implication (when you wrote "thus") that antibacterial action of tea tree oil against P. acnes accounts for the remedy's anti-acne effect. 6) Although P. acnes is commonly associated with acne vulgaris, it is not strictly correct to say that the organism is a "cause" and certainly not "the main cause" of the condition. Causality in illness is a complex matter. Finally, the study behind your contribution did not show that tea tree oil was "less effective" than benzoyl peroxide, but rather that its onset of action was slower. The study at issue was: Bassett IB, Pannowitz DL, Barnetson RS. A comparative study of tea-tree oil versus benzoylperoxide in the treatment of acne. Med J Aust. 1990 Oct 15;153(8):455-8. Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey I never said it was the root cause; but it clearly is a main cause; removal of P.Acnes very often stops acne.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WolfKeeper, you are not clear when you write about "cause", let along "main cause". When you claim P. acnes removal very often stops acne, it is unclear what you mean by "removal", "very often" and "stops". These may seem like simple common English terms, but if you think about them they don't really convey useful information here. Acne vulgaris results from complex processes and it is not known that infection of a comedo by P. acnes is sufficient or necessary. Suppression of bacterial growth may be beneficial in reducing the amount of inflammation in existing lesions or in reducing recurrence of lesions or the rate of appearance of new ones, but it is not always clear whether whatever inhibited the bacterial growth influenced the acne directly or whether its benefit was mediated by its effect on the bacteria. For example, use of tetracycline agents for acne may work not so much through its antibiotic properties as by its direct effect on skin physiology. To get back to your claim, what exactly do you mean by "very often" and just how often is that? What evidence can you cite that P. acnes is a "main cause" rather than a mere opportunistic infection that may or may not make acne more severe, or dramatic, or annoying but that does not in itself initiate evolution of a lesion and that is not necessary for its appearance or development? The current state of the art of acne therapy does not include tea tree oil and even benzoyl peroxide is usually not the treatment of choice. As of now, tea tree oil remains unsubstantiated as being worth using for acne in preference to proven approaches and it is only one of hundreds of thousands of potion notions that attract offbeat champions of disparate motivation. While there is some truth to be found amidst the welter of unscientific health claims circulating in cyberspace, Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for every medical claim that anyone, however passionate or convinced, is moved to post. I tried to act respectfully by reducing the prominence of the material you inserted into the current article, although it should actually be stricken. Can you back your position with science or do you hold that science should be cast aside here? This is less a matter of NPOV than of upholding reasonable standards in Wikipedia. Myron 11:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reasonable standard for the Wikipedia is NPOV. It is a reasonably widely held view that Tea tree oil helps acne; and there is some science to back this up. Many commercial acne products contain tea tree oil, and it does indeed kill many bacteria, including P.Acnes. Most treatments that kill P.Acnes improve acne, and the scientific evidence is that Tea tree oil does improve acne. Even so, ultimately it doesn't matter whether the view is right or not, the fact that it is a widely held view makes it ok to add to the wikipedia, since it is a noteable point of view.WolfKeeper 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of a private spat, but I found the article to be biased in favor of widespread use of tea tree oil, to the point of being off-topic and sounding ridiculous. Tea tree oil is presented as a magical cure-all, despite a lack of evidence that it does anything more than have an antiseptic effect and contribute slightly to healing acne. Benzoyl peroxide was found by the study to be much more effective. Tea tree oil can be used as a substitute for BP by those who prefer "natural" ingredients, but it is not a replacement. Spreading hearsay as fact, especially medical fact, harms credulous readers of Wikipedia. The article has a POV problem, and I side with Myron.

"For fungal nail infections, application is twice daily and relief or cure is typically seen in 3–4 months." Fungal nail infections CANNOT be treated by topical applications. Creams, lotions etc simply can't get in to the nail root; to treat any nail infection, a drug must be adminstered systemically. E.g. an oral antifungal would treat a fungal nail infection, a topical antifungal would have no effect.--KX36 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wart treatment?

I've read a lot of anecdotal reports about Tea Tree oil being effective for warts and Molluscum Contagiousum. Any comments?

As common warts and molluscum contagiosum are self-limiting conditions it is difficult to tell if a particular treatment applied in an individual case was efficacious or whether lesions would have resolved anyway. Only an experimental study can resolve this question. Anecdotes are valuable in suggesting topics for research and, with responsible expert consultation, for suggesting treatment where proven remedies have failed. However, they do not belong in an encyclopedia, which should not tout every fad and nostrum even when some people become enthused about it and even when popular articles depict it as a miracle cure or whatever. The encyclopedia should not be cluttered by swarms of claims that will for the most part be discredited after a few years, but should reflect the current state of knowledge which, in this case, does not include reliable answers about using tea tree oil for warts, molluscum contagiosum or, for that matter, acne vulgaris. Tea tree oil carries some risk. Wikipedia should not throw its weight behind promoting it for unproven uses. What, if any, peer reviewed published research supports using tea tree oil for warts or molluscum contagiosum? We need references (not from health fad literature, vendors or from other secondary sources that duplicate and feed off each other) to continue any serious discussion of this. Myron 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally skeptical about anti wart properties, it has no known antiviral properties AFAIK, and it doesn't burn skin like most other wart treatments.WolfKeeper 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the following is helpful at all, but my understanding is that it does seem to have some antiviral properties.

"Antiviral activity of Australian Melaleuca alternifolia and eucalyptol plant extracts against herpes simplex virus in cell culture. Schnitzler P, Schon K, Reichling J. Department of Virology, Hygiene Institute, University of Heidelberg, Germany.

The antiviral effect of Melaleuca alterfernolia (TTO) and eucalyptol (EUO) and other plant extracts against herpes simplex virus was examined. Cytotoxicity of TTO and EUO was evaluated in a standard neutral red dye uptake assay. Toxicity of TTO and EUO was moderate for RC-37 cells and approached 50% (TC50) at concentrations of 0.006% and 0.03%, respectively. Antiviral activity of TTO and EUO against herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) was tested in vitro on RC-37 cells using a plaque reduction assay. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of TTO for herpes simplex virus plaque formation was 0.0009% and 0.0008% and the IC50 of EUO was determined at 0.009% and 0.008% for HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Australian tea tree oil exhibited high levels of virucidal activity against HSV-1 and HSV-2 in viral suspension tests. At noncytotoxic concentrations of TTO plaque formation was reduced by 98.2% and 93.0% for HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Noncytotoxic concentrations of EUO reduced virus titers by 57.9% for HSV-1 and 75.4% for HSV-2. Virus titers were reduced significantly with TTO, whereas EUO exhibited distinct but less antiviral activity. In order to determine the mode of antiviral action of both essential oils, either cells were pretreated before viral infection or viruses were incubated with TTO or EUO before infection, during adsorption or after penetration into the host cells. Plaque formation was clearly reduced, when herpes simplex virus was pretreated with the essential oils prior to adsorption. These results indicate that TTO and EUO affect the virus before or during adsorption, but not after penetration into the host cell. Thus TTO and EUO are capable to exert a direct antiviral effect on HSV. Although the active antiherpes components of Australian tea tree and eucalyptus oil are not yet known, their possible application as antiviral agents in recurrent herpes infection is promising." Siraj88 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added POV tag

This article reads like a sales pitch. I'm all for tea tree oil, and use it for many things, but the it-cures-what-ails-you tone of this article is innappropriate for an encyclopedia article. "It also reduces hypertrophic scarring." Umm... Says who? Wikipedia? Leading scientists? Piercers? "Tea tree oil is extremely effective in healing blemishes caused by acne or herpes simplex virus." Whose opinion is this? This article needs some NPOV love. 24.23.141.156 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] working on NPOV

I'm working on adding more citations and getting this article in line with a more appropriate tone, balance, etc. I added some context which will hopefully help ameliorate problems with the health claims. I also added some more information on the history and scientific facts of the compound (there is a lot out there!), which aren't controversial nor up for debate. Oasisbob 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good, useful article. Please don't remove disputed claims from the main article -- that would not be neutral, that would be censorship. It seems that some people "believe" in tea tree oil, and some don't. At the very least, it seems a relatively innocuous "active placebo", like Vitamin C -- something to do/take while you wait for your body to heal itself, a way to avoid using stronger modern drugs. Seems like it worked for my "ring worm" and for my eczema. Not a miracle cure - not for people in a hurry! 69.87.200.179 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made it a point not to remove disputed claims, but to label them as such and focus on adding more information. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources makes it very clear that statements need sources, otherwise they can and should be removed. The burden of proof is with editors who want the unsourced information to stay. In any case, as long as this article stays factual it doesn't really matter what people believe. Oasisbob 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV tag

I think this article better represents a NPOV now, I removed the POV tag. The "other claims" section has information which still needs citations or removal, but I view this as more of a issue of verification rather than POV issue. Oasisbob 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

"Tea tree oil is very toxic if ingested internally, and may result in dizziness, nausea and disorientation." Well, that is daunting, and good to know! What quantities are how toxic, and what would be appropriate treatments? 69.87.200.179 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This statement about tea tree oil being "very toxic" isn't very well supported by the literature. There are reports of infants and children having toxic reactions, but all of them recovered quickly with treatment. The toxicity of TTO is believed to be similar to other essential oils with similar proportions of terpenes. I updated the article with more health info. Oasisbob 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"If ingested internally," is there an external way to ingest now? :-D --KX36 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good point. A quick check in my med dictionary confirms that ingestion can only be by mouth. Oasisbob 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other claims - reliability

Can we get a consensus on deleting the "other claims" section containing a number of unsourced claims if sources are not provided in, say, a week? Bluntly I have to say that none of it looks very reliable and none of it is sourced. The Crow 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, I've been trying to source as much of it as possible. I went ahead and removed this section. Oasisbob 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tea Tree Oil and Lavender Oil and gynecomastia in boys

Science News July 1, 2006 Vol. 170 page 6 indicates that products containing lavender oil or tea tree oil can cause enlarged breast in young boys.

Some qoutes:

"Lavender oil and tea tree oil contain compounds that act like female sex hormones and interfere with male hormones,"

"Bloch recommended that the boys stop using lavender-containing products. When they followed his advise, gynecomastia disappeared within a few months."

"These oils possess both estrogenic and anti-androgenic properties," Henley reported at the Endocrine Society meeting in Boston this week.

"Young boys should avoid the oils, Bloch advises. Many personal-care products contain them."

"-B. Harder"

Somitcw 02:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to that article? It would be good to put it in the Reference section. Catawba 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Full article is only available to subscribers: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8.asp

Non-subscribers can get to the table of contents: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/toc.asp

Non-subscribers can also see the references and sources: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8ref.asp

Somitcw 07:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this summary omits some key points. Here is a better source with a more accurate summary detailing the NIH report:

NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2007, February 1). Lavender And Tea Tree Oils May Cause Breast Growth In Boys. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070131204136.htm

If there aren't any objections, I'd like to make some minor modifications using the above source. --Alex Shkirenko (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Shkirenko appears to be vandalizing/trolling this article repeatedly. Looking at the history, the article has read for over 7 months basically as follows:

A case study reported in a recent publication showed a possible association between repeated topical application of products containing lavender oil with prepubertal gynecomastia (abnormal breast development in young boys). The study involved just three individuals.[23] All three cases included the use of lavender oil. In one of the three cases, a product was used that contained lavender oil as well as tea tree oil, and other ingredients.[24] The prepubertal gynecomastia reversed after discontinuing use of products containing lavender oil. [25]In the same paper, results from cell culture assays indicated that both essential oils exhibit weak estrogenic properties. Researchers indicated that other components in these products may also have contributed to the gynecomastia, but those components were not yet tested. Researchers also noted that estrogenic activities have also been reported for many other commonly used essential oils as well as foods such as almonds and peanuts.[26] Other articles have cast doubt as to the conclusions of the article and dismissed the study as having used "poor methodology".[27][28]

As with many antibiotics, if used in 4% concentrations or below it may activate stress reactions in bacteria which can cause them to become less sensitive to antibiotics in vitro.[29] Tea tree oil is not recommended for use in the ears.[30]

According to one Admin, Shkirenko was previously suspended on Wikipedia for vandalism and his/her account has just recently been unblocked.

Shkirenko has now repeatedly attempted to deleted/remove the following information

• The study included only 3 individuals
• All three individuals used products containing Lavender Oil
• Only one of the boys who used products with lavender oil also used products with tea tree oil.
• More than just the Tea Tree Oil Association has questioned the study.

All of the above information is factual and referenced in the original document. I think additional facts could be added and are invited, but should probably be done so without trying to remove the information previously established.

Shkirenko seems adamant in removing this information for unknown reasons. As others have encouraged, DISCUSSION is welcome.

HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the others which have encouraged discussion is in fact shkirenko I've been asking HawaiiHangin10 for quite some time to move his concerns to the discussion area. Now that you are here, what exactly is your concern over my edits. I've posted my intentions here for a while. (...and as long as we are discussing our histories, HawaiiHangin10 seems to have a very very short history which began fairly recently...but that of course has nothing to do with the edits in question :) )

You keep saying that I've removed established facts but that isn't the case. Let's look at a few kew parts: 1. What is your concern with adding that the study was reported in the The New England Journal of Medicine? shkirenko - A case study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine suggested HawaiiHangin10 - A case study reported in a recent publication showed a possible association Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No concern with the reference to the new england journal of medicine. But you made that edit along with deleting all of the established, and now re-established facts noted. You certainly could have made that edit without suppressing other information, and it's the suppression of the facts that made your actions suspect. I have added back the reference to the New England Journal of Medicine HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, and not necessarily a recommendation for a wording change, it is not actually correct to say it "showed a possible association," for it did in fact show an association, namely that one of the cases did involve tea tree oil. It is the significance of the association that is in question. As your article says, "Although we found an association between exposure to these essential oils and gynecomastia, further research is needed to determine the prevalence of prepubertal gynecomastia in boys using products containing lavender and tea tree oils." It's much like if you had a friend who robbed a bank, there is an association between you and the bank robbery, an indirect one. - Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your thought process is good, but consider this: Using your example, because someone was in the bank at the time it was robbed, does that mean just because you were at the bank making a withdrawal that there was an association in guilt to you? Based on the facts, association remains in uncertain. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact that you were at the bank would be sufficient to state as fact that there's an association (of some kind) between you and the guilty party. As such, it's certain that there's an association, but without additional information, it's UNcertain as to the extent of that association. So in regard to tea tree oil and gynecomastia in boy #2, the association is not simply "possible" but factual as it's certain that an association of *some kind* exists, but it's uncertain as to the full nature of that association, i.e. whether it was causative / "guilty" or merely incidental.

There is some general disagreement here. Had there ever been a case where tea tree oil was present and lavendar oil was absent, I would tend to agree. However, that has never happened. If lavendar is guilty (and a study of only 3 people makes it hard to conclude even that), then it would have had the same effect whether the tea tree oil was there or not.

You say "it would have had the same effect whether the tea tree oil was there or not," but this is not necessarily true. In fact, the effect of an ingredient can sometimes be amplified by the presence of another ingredient, and sometimes beyond the mere quantitive amount added. In a sense, the addition of another ingredient can sometimes act like a match to gasoline. Other times, additional ingredients can do the opposite, and mitigate the effects of an otherwise active ingredient. - 130.94.121.246 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, reading the study shows, one of the boys had a brother using the same products, but without effect. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The absence of apparent effects in the brother may be explainable by many factors, including that the brother did not use the same combination of products nor in the same amount or the same manner, or the fact that the brother is both genetically and physically not identical. It's quite possible that some people are hypersensitive for as yet unknown reasons. - 130.94.121.246 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, HawaiiHangin10, the NEJM study itself expressly states, and I quote from the study itself, "We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender AND tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys," not just lavender oil as your version of the Wikipedia insinuates. - Litmaerle (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have not had any interest in defending that portion, other than protect from the vandalism and suppression of facts which seemed to be included with sweeping changes and without justification. It's crazy people are editing this without even reading what they are referencing. I've found some people just don't like essential oils - especially some in the medical field. I'm new to wikipedia but am learning a lot, and I see there is a need to protect information from trollers and vandals as it can happen at any time. It's just a matter of finding the time to stay involved. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One final thought on a humorous note. If there truly is a cause and effect with tea tree oil and lavender oil with increasing breast tissue, then those lavender and tea tree oil manufacturing companies are sitting on a gold mine - especially with all of the money that goes into breast enhancement products. Just think, one that finally works?! HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may well be that the effects are greatest in prepubertal children rather than in adults who otherwise have an abundance of sex hormones flowing in their bodies to countereffect the seemingly minor effects of these essential oils. The prepubertal children do not as yet have a well developed hormonal system.

In regard to the article, your work toward a compromise is appreciated. There are some issues that remain however. Your statement as you've written it contrasts "the use of lavender oil" vs "used a product that contained lavender oil as well as tea tree oil, and other ingredients." However, in no case did anyone simply use lavender oil. Rather, all three cases involved the use of PRODUCTS containing lavender oil "and other ingredients." And in the one case, the boy used not "a" product but products (plural) containing both lavender oil and tea tree oil "and other ingredients." It would thus be a distortion to emphasize the lavender over tea tree oil, for the study did not establish that lavender had a greater effect than the tea tree. Likewise, it would be a distortion to emphasize "other ingredients" in the case of tea tree but not in the case of lavender. And it would be a distortion to suggest the one boy used only a single product containing tea tree when in fact he is reported to have used multiple such products.

It was these reasons why I had chosen to write it as, "All three cases involved the use of products containing lavender oil as an ingredient, with the addition of tea tree oil to the products in the case of one of the boys," with the presence of additional ingredients in all three cases further emphasized by the sentence, "Researchers indicated that other components in these products may also have contributed to the gynecomastia, but those components were not yet tested." I am restoring this version for the above reasons. If you have an alternate version, I'd be happy to review it as well. - 130.94.121.246 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2. HawaiiHangin10 claims "All three individuals used products containing Lavender Oil" This isn't an article about Lavender Oil, this study contains references to both, but clearly focuses on Tea Tree Oil. After reading the study it even says that Tea Tree Oil is the only component of the two that was tested. I'm sorry if you don't agree with this. I know that one of your articles claims otherwise, but The New England Journal of Medicine is more credible than a trade magazine. Does anyone disagree with thisAlex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A fact check reveals that each of the articles you yourself cited state that BOTH oils were tested, not just tea tree oil, and that both showed estrogenic activity. For example, "The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens," said Korach. And, "Furthermore, studies in human cell lines indicated that the two oils had estrogenic and antiandrogenic activities." - Further, because all three cases involved lavender oil, and only one of those three also involved tea tree oil, it is of significance to note this fact, because it was not established that the tea tree oil alone had any effect. Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

However, as I pointed out above, it would be misleading to imply the NEJM was pointing the finger at the lavender oil and not the tea tree oil, for it expressly points the finger at both, "We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender AND tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys." - Litmaerle (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

3. HawaiiHangin10 claims that "Only one of the boys who used products with lavender oil also used products with tea tree oil." This isn't true. Will a impartial editor or third party please review one of the credible sources referenced to verify this again? Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I find that only one boy of the three used products containing tea tree oil. The three cases were as follows: Case #1) In the first case, "The patient’s mother reported applying a 'healing balm' containing lavender oil to his skin starting shortly before the initial presentation." Case #2) A styling hair gel was applied to the hair and scalp every morning, along with regular use of a shampoo. Both tea tree and lavender oil were cited on the ingredient list of both products. Case #3) The third case involved "lavender-scented soap, and intermittent use of lavender-scented commercial skin lotions." - Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shkirenko, all you would have had to do was read the very article in the journal you are referencing, and you would have known this. How can you say "this isn't true" when you haven't read very references you are sourcing. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

4. "More than just the Tea Tree Oil Association has questioned the study" I'm only aware of one legitimate trade association which outright disputes the findings of the study, but I'm willing to compromise here. It's not really important I suppose, since there will always be some association somewhere disputing a finding from a government agency... Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can easily expand your awareness:

http://www.fmafragrance.org/sub_pages/020107henleyresponse.pdf

http://www.personalcarecouncil.org/Template.cfm?Section=CTFA_News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4843

http://www.naha.org/articles/Tisserand,%20R.%20Gynecomastia2_2007.pdf

- Litmaerle (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I initially began discussion on refining this area, I welcome any further input or advice on how to resolve this dispute. Thanks. Alex Shkirenko (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, as stated previously, there is no concern with referencing the article - I don't think anyone has had a problem with that. Your continuing attempt to remove facts is the problem. All of this information that you were unaware of was clearly available. HawaiiHangin10 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shkirenko, I am sure you have good intentions, but the fact is that you are undoing edits and wasting people's time (including those who must read this discussion) based on beliefs that are contrary to facts that no one else disputes. Here is an example of one of your statements above: "After reading the study it even says that Tea Tree Oil is the only component of the two that was tested." This is completely contrary to facts and no one who has read/understands the study would say such a thing. This is the most fundamental aspect to the study so there is no way you could have truly read the study and still believe what you said. So since you asked for advice for how to best resolve this dispute, for the sake of the quality of this article, I respectfully request that you bow out of this discussion, refrain from any more edits/reverts to this article, and refrain from creating additional accounts to edit this article. Based on your past behavior when editing other articles, I know you will not do this voluntarily but I believe you solicited advice in good faith and I give it to you in good faith. Imaginenow (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False attribution in Safety section

The Washington Post article cited in the Safety section does not contain the words "shrinking of the testes" as added by user 71.228.24.41 If you have a source for this, please cite it separately. Catawba 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobbyist quote in Safety section

For Steven Dentali to say "it's premature to worry, given the paucity of clinical evidence and many questions that the lab work left unanswered," is a boiler-plate special interest group response. His employer, the American Herbal Products Association, has nothing on its website clarifying what questions still need to be answered. Catawba 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medicinal use section

I eliminated subheadings in this section because once the language was tightened there was insufficient material to warrant special subsections for fungi and bacteria. Antifungal and antiseptic are mentioned in the first paragraph of the article and that is enough. A reference to an in vitro study was incorrectly indicated as in vivo so I moved it. Boils are not wounds. The article lacks citations to show that tea tree oil is useful for bug bites, cuts, scrapes and boils (I'm not disputing that it is effective) or that it has "cosmetic properties", whatever that means. Can anyone find scientific support for these claims? Myron 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated claim of less risk when treating acne compared with benzoyl peroxide. Adolescents may be most eager for effective acne treatment but their physical and perhaps psychological development may be most harmed by the recently described anti-estrogenic and anti-androgenic actions of topically applied tea tree oil. Myron 08:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The safety of TTO as compared to benzoyl peroxide has nothing to do with what you describe. I don't believe that it is wikipedia's job to form medicinal opinions to protect people from themselves. The article already mentions the Gynecomastia link, its clear from the context of the statement you removed that the comparision is between TTO and benzoyl peroxide, not a blanket statement saying that TTO is safe for everyone always. I think the statement shouldn't be removed. Oasisbob 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Impact

Does anyone have information on the environmental practices commonly used for commercial production of tea tree oil? The plant is native to the wilderness of Australia. Is it commercially grown, or is it harvested from the wild? What is the plant's growth rate, and what length of time does it take to attain a mature plant? Tsugaguy 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some informative links found so far: http://oilganic.com/teatreeoil/ttdefault.htm#crop Click Crop Rotations and Harvesting bookmark link. Sounds like the plants are not destroyed during harvesting, and a plant can live up to 10 years (during repeated 12 to 18 month harvesting?).

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture determined in the 1970's that M. alternifolia is amenable to cultivation for tea tree oil production: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EA9810439.htm

Zandella is at least one large commercial melaleuca farm, with certifications/acreditations from TGA, NOP, NASAA, and BFA, according to their website at http://zandella.com/organic%20tea%20tree%20oil%20Melaleuca%20alternifolia.cfm

There have also been some concerns about invasive plants in this genus introduced in Florida. See http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/FieldCourses/MarineEcologyArticles/MelaleucaMadness.html. Invasive plants destroy ecosystems by outcompeting other plants native to the environment and can destroy animal habitat as well. This may or may not be a factor in Melaleuca alternifolia, the species used commercially to produce tea tree oil.

Please expound on this if you have any further info, especially if from governmental agencies or environmental groups who would not be biased commercially. Tsugaguy 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename a good thing?

This page was recently retitled from "Tea Tree Oil" to "Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil." I don't think this is a bad thing per se, but MTTO is not the normal term used, most of the primary literature I've seen simply calls it TTO or "essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia". Is there really enough confusion to warrant using a more-specific yet not-common title? Oasisbob 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The move was surprising, unexplained and unwarranted. I have seen many publications referring to "tea tree oil" and none to "melaleuca tea tree oil". Someone's notion of "specificity" does not trump common usage or the expectations of people coming to Wikipedia seeking information. There is little danger of people confusing "tea tree oil" with "tea oil". A move like this demands discussion. I say revert to the previous title. Myron 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this was a good thing to question. Thanks so much for inviting me to chime in Oasisbob :-)

• 1. "Surprising" - I would agree it could be surprising. Improvements can be just as surprising as deteriorations.
• 2. "Unexplained" - it was indeed explained I promise! :-) - "This title is more descriptive for where the oil comes from". Is this in dispute?
• 3. "unwarranted" - is a bit strong since it means 'having no justification', not 'having a justification I don't agree with'. I did justify the move. Whether you agree with the justification is another matter. That warrants discussion - which is why we're in the 'discussion' tab. I agree that I should have explained the justification much more than I did though.

I regularly order much needed medical supplies for Unicef for a small village (but people from the surrounding area come there) and one of the supplies ordered is melaleuca oil because it reduces the number of separate supplies needed. Much confusion occurred when our supplier simply called it 'tea tree oil'. Since that literally means different things to different people depending on what region of the world they're from and the individual, 'tea tree oil' not only lacked specificity, it also lacked accuracy. Now it is called 'Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil' when we order it in bulk and no one is confused about what exactly we are getting. The best thing about this term is that it shows up easily in searches for both "Melaleuca Oil" and "Tea Tree Oil" in the medical supply database (and also on the web.) I am not 'married' to the term "Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil" though. However, I strongly believe in the importance of having the word "Melaleuca" in the title somewhere. The other accurate and helpful terms that are commonly used are "Melaleuca (Tea Tree Oil)", "Melaleuca Oil (Tea Tree Oil)", Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil), and "Tea Tree Oil (from Melaleuca Alternifolia)". Oasisbob's suggestion of "Essential Oil of Melalecua Alternifolia" would work too. As long as 'Melaleuca' is in there somewhere, it will satisfy both kinds of searches and it will at once be more informative. The way it stands now "Melaleuca Tea tree oil" solves this issue but I agree that it's not the only way to do it. :-) I also apologize if I was too 'abrupt' about this.

I also apologize for not providing more explanation than I did. It's just that I've been involved in a big off-line discussion about this with all those involved, and that was the consensus reached that seemed to resolve everyone's confusion as succinctly as possible. Cheers. Siraj88 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think changing the title for ease of searching is not a good idea. Personally, I like the name "Melaleuca tea tree oil", but it just isn't a common name, and wikipedia isn't in the business of creating neologisms. (WP:NEO) ISO 4730 and AS 2782 both call it "Melaleuca oil" or "tea tree oil". If there are concerns about confusion, perhaps clarification in the article about what TTO isn't could be helpful. Is there anything else that is really called "tea tree oil"? I found some mentions of commonly mistaken substances in section 2, but TTO seems unambiguous. Avoiding confusion is good, but I really think we should stick with convention, common usage, and international standards on this one. (I don't think the move was unreasonable, as long as we're here on the talk page now.)Oasisbob 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Though it's really not a new term (doing a Google search for 'Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil' in quotes yields over 680 results), your point is well taken since it's not as common as the other two. If the current move is not acceptable, would a move to "Melaleuca Oil (Tea Tree Oil)" or "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" be agreeable then? No hint of neologism created there, both commonly used terms are there, and it makes it easy for people familiar with either one to find. I personally knew what 'Melaleuca Oil' was a couple years before I ever heard of the term "Tea Tree Oil". For some it may be the opposite. One thing we can probably agree on is that despite both terms being commonly used, everyone heard, and prefers one term before the other. Both terms are conventional, are an international standard (as you pointed out ISO 4730 and AS 2782 both call it "Melaleuca oil" OR "tea tree oil"), and commonly used. Siraj88 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to titling the article "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)". It's more specific, and articles titled in the "Common Name (Scientific Name)" format are common. I propose waiting a few days for any other voices, then move. Oasisbob 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" as well. Anyone else to chime in? Siraj88 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week. I'll change it from the current "Melaleuca Tea tree oil" to "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" Siraj88 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just updated all the "What links here" pages accordingly Siraj88 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation in title

Incidentally, standard Wikipedia formatting for article titles is that they're all lowercase except for proper nouns and first words. This article would therefore more properly be called Tea tree oil (melaleuca oil) per WP:CAPS. I'm going to move it there.

I trust that this move won't be controversial, as my motivation for it is based on standard wiki guidelines. :) Switchercat ^talk_cont 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And done! I'll get started on fixing the redirecting links. Switchercat ^talk_cont 04:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Safety

A user added a statement that TTO is especially toxic for cats. Looking at the citation (a journal abstract from a 3rd party), the cats experienced toxicosis at ~20ccs of TTO applied topically to each. 20ccs is a lot, I wouldn't say that cats are more affected than other household animals. This article referred to topical toxicity: not oral toxicity, so its inclusion was misleading. I don't think topical TTO cat toxicity is out of the scope of the article, but it needs to be explained better. Oasisbob 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the information to match what the actual cited articles reported, namely that EXTERNAL application of UNDILUTED tea tree oil and/or at "inappropriate" high doses has been associated with toxicity, including death, in cats and other animals. The comments others have added about needing to check with a veterinarian first or cats having extremely sensitive skin may be well and good, and indeed anyone is welcome to add those comments if they have reliable citations to back them up, but those comments are not the conclusions of studies cited in the article and have therefore been removed. Further, it could well be that cats are more affected than other animals and could suffer serious effects at much lower levels than 20ccs, but for lack of data the cited studies do not and cannot make that claim. However, as the cited studies do specificly deal with death in cats, I feel it is prudent to maintain mention of this. - Litmaerle (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Concerning the Recent Rename

I reverted back to the previous title that was agreed upon after much more discussion. See the "Rename a good thing?" and the "Capitalisation in titles" discussions. The "disambiguating" is necessary because the term "Tea tree oil" alone is indeed ambiguous to many people and a long time common source of confusion. The article already mentions one example: "Tea tree oil should not be confused with 'tea oil'." Including "melaleuca oil" in the title is the simplest and most useful way to do this by using the standard Common Name/Scientific Name format. Siraj555

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The previous discussions did not reach any concensus to rename that I could see. As for disambiguating something for which there are no common competing meanings, it is against Wikipedia naming guidelines. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Specifically, there are no other articles to be confused with this name and "tea tree oil" by far refers to the subject of this article.

Also, when you made the moves, you left double redirects, which make users have to click an extra link. As it stands now, all previous names of this article can be used to link to it.

One more thing, are you also User:Siraj88? If so, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Mike Dillon 06:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, to 'disambiguate' means simply to "to remove the ambiguity from". Adding the proper scientific name for 'Tea tree oil' does indeed clear up the confusion and ambiguities surrounding this term.

• How could one disambiguate something if it wasn't ambiguous in the first place? Since it is ambiguous it needs disambiguated in this case.
• Your Wiki naming conventions reference is helpful. It states: If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)." 'Melaleuca oil' is not deserving of its own article simply because many people don't know it's the same as 'tea tree oil' and not the same as 'tea oil'.
• There was much more discussion on this previously. Please refer to "Name change a good thing?" There was no reference made to this at all when the recent deletion of 'melaleuca oil' was made. Why?
• The article itself names one of the common confusions of "tea oil". Furthermore, the very first sentence reads "Tea tree oil or melaleuca oil..." precisely because of this ambiguity and the fact that not everyone is aware that they are the same thing. Having the proper unambiguous name in the title from the beginning is therefore useful.
• Yes Siraj88 was me - if I was interested in hiding this, I wouldn't have used the same name. It is a name I've lost access to so so your reference does not apply. I appreciate your personal interest in me on one level, but in Wiki, please keep the discussion focused on the substance of the issue and not the person. See the Wiki page on Ad hominem fallacy attacks for reference: Ad_hominem

I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this question: Which is a more useful, less ambiguous, and more informative title? 1. "Tea tree oil" or 2. "Tea Tree Oil (melaleuca oil)" Siraj555 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the other meaning of "Tea tree oil"? This article is not called "tea oil" and there are no other uses of the term "tea tree oil" except in error. That's why the article addresses these misconceptions. In terms of disambiguation, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation. In particular:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. In many cases, this same word or phrase is the natural title of more than one article.

There is not more than one article that has "tea tree oil" as the natural title, so it is appropriate to use the common name of this substance as the name for this article, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which states:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

There is more information at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, the title is very close to the title 'tea oil' though. Also, this is the internet and we must think more from a global perspective outside of our own region. What is the most common name in your region is not the most common name in other regions. Would you be surprised to find out that 'tea oil' and 'tea tree oil' are commonly confused? They are. So if not, how can it be anything but a good thing to clear up the ambiguity by including the proper scientific name in the title? Siraj555 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's an interesting discusion on the advantages of the proposal to have scientific names in the titles. Consider the following quote which is rings of familiarity with the very disucussion we're having now: "NPOV - Common names are regional, while scientific names are recognized worldwide. Using scientific names eliminates arguments over which name is "most common", "unique", "most widely used", etc." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive12#Plant_Naming_Convention_Proposal_draft Siraj555 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific names are used on Wikipedia for plants and animals, not their products. As for renaming the article for the reason of confusion or dispute over common name, can you point to any other use of the term "tea tree oil" or any other common names for this product? I've seen no evidence that it is called "melaleuca oil" as a common name anywhere in the world. Mike Dillon 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you notice that there is much evidence that common names vary more from region to region and are much more mercurial over time while scientific names are global and much more venerable over time? As for your question, as I said:

1. The term "tea oil" is very common and commonly confused with tea tree oil (I realize you don't dispute this). Therefore, what harm does it cause to solve this problem by including the proper scientific name?
2. I can assure you that just from my own travels alone 'melaleuca oil' is the more common name in many areas and not as common as 'tea tree oil' in other areas--at a very minimum it is certainly *as* common in many natural medicine shops or both common in many regions around the world.
3. Since you obviously have demonstrated the ability to, you can choose to think globally here and in other languages/cultures as well ('tea tree oil' is not as common as the scientific name 'Melaleuca' in at least 2 provinces in mainland China for example). Just because this Wiki page is written in English does not mean the only people reading it have English as their only language. Including the scientific name significantly increases the chances that the Wiki page will communicate more effectively across cultures.
4. Again, 'common names' are generally much more regional and less stable, especially over time. Science is a global language that tends to transcend non-scientific common names across regions and cultures time and time again.
5. We both agree that Wiki guidlines are excellent and they are continually evolving (even more so because they are much newer than *both* of these names). Because they are a very useful guide does not mean we don't have to think for ourselves and do what is best on a case by case basis.
6. Believe it or not, I'm not the only person in the world who uses the term "Melaleuca Oil" more than 'tea tree oil'. In a world with a population of billions, it's very safe to say that out of those who have even heard of tea tree oil/melaleuca oil, there are at least many thousands of people who use 'Melaleuca Oil' more often. In the world of the internet where physical regions are less relevant anyway, many thousands constitutes regions.

You do have a point Mike and you make it very intelligently and impressively and I have learned a lot from reading your thoughts on this (really). I am not asserting that you are wrong that 'tea tree oil' is more common - I agree with you and you've made that point very well. With that said and acknowledged, if you're willing to shift into thinking global and longer term, you will realize I actually have a point too. :-) Realize now that while I do not at all dispute that 'tea tree oil' is more common, even a simple Google search will show that *both* names are common (rather than one having to be 'uncommon' just because one is more common). If you are able to come to terms with that, then you must ask yourself this question: "What significant harm does it do to satisfy both needs by simply having both the common name and the common scientific name? e.g. How does it not add any value?" So how about a win-win? Siraj555

I'd like to see this discussion move toward closure instead of spiralling out of control, but I'll respond to your most of your points.

1. The way that things like the potential confusion between "tea oil" and "tea tree oil" are normally dealt with here is by adding the {{dablink}} template at the beginning of the article. Something like:

   {{dablink|This article is about the essential oil derived from plants of the genus Melaleuca. For the oil derived from the tea plant, see [[tea oil]].}}.

2. It's interesting to note that all of the links to versions of this article in other European languages use names that are related to "tea tree oil", not melaleuca: Teebaumöl (German), Theeboomolie (Dutch), Teepuuöljy (Finnish). A quick glance at the Spanish article on Melaleuca shows that the term in that language is also "aceite del árbol del té", not "aceite de melaleuca". As for whether one is more common than the other, a Google search for the two phrases show nearly 1.3 million results for "tea tree oil" and about 30,000 results for "melaleuca oil". I know that a Google search isn't definitive for worldwide colloquial usage, but according to this metric "tea tree oil" is 40 times more common.
3. English Wikipedia is targeted at English speakers. The article already accomodates non-English speakers and those who only know the name "melaleuca" by providing a redirect from melaleuca oil and by calling out the alternate name in the first sentence.
4. Tea tree oil doesn't have a scientific name. The plant it's derived from does, but Wikipedia convention generally doesn't name anything with scientific names except species of plants and animals.

I realize that you think changing the name adds value for a global perspective, but readers using names other than "tea tree oil" are already accomodated by the existing redirects. Someone searching for "melaleuca oil" or linking to it will find this article, not to mention the redirect from tea tree oil (melaleuca oil). There isn't really anything gained by having "melaleuca oil" in the title that isn't provided by having the alternate name in bold text in the first sentence. Mike Dillon 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes 'tea tree oil' is 40 times more common (which means 'melaleuca oil' is common too). 30,000 results is quite a lot don't you agree? 'Tea tree oil' is also many more times commonly confused than 'melaleuca oil' As for redirects, they confuse many users. When both the common name and the common scientific name are in the title, people recognize that they are the same thing in the search engine results without even having to click to go to the page. So again: "What significant harm does it do to satisfy both needs by simply having both the common name and the common scientific name? e.g. How does it not add any value?" Siraj555 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that redirects confuse anyone since I've never seen that happen in my time here (except for blatantly incorrect redirects). As for the harm done by having what I consider to be a redundant name, it's simply that it's unnecessary to add the parenthetical and that the common name is clearer.

I've posted a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) to solicit broader input. Hopefully getting more people's perspectives can bring this issue to a resolution. Mike Dillon 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aboriginal use

The article says: "Indigenous Australians have used oil extracted from the tree's needles for hundreds, and possibly thousands of years."

I find this comment very misleading, and probably incorrect. The words "have used oil extracted" certainly seems to imply (or very ambiguous to say the least) that Aboriginal people seperated and collected the essential oil from the body of the plant. My observation of traditional Bundjalung plant use is that heated leaf-pultices were applied to wounds and infections, and inhalation of crushed leaves for sinuses.

Of course Aboriginal's used aromatic plants, but I'm unaware of any record or reference to Aboriginal Australian's extracting volitile plant oils so as to have essential oil in a isolated form prior to European colonisation. Infusions of aromatic leaves in water maybe a possibility. However, as far everyone knows, it was colonial Europeans in Northern NSW who first extracted tea tree oil using steam distillation. The inspiration for tea tee oil was traditional Bundjalung knowledge, but I'm fairly sure that tradition was primarily pultice based.

Further, if this article was orginally from industry sources, I'd be concerned that the association between modern tea tree oil usage and traditional Aboriginal use has been exagerated for industry PR/safety image purposes. John Moss 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the History section, including the Aboriginality aspect of tea tree oil use.

I have also made an addition to the referenced wording: changing the tense on "was" to "is" regarding the Bundjalung traditional usage of tea tree. I have been with Bundjalung friends when they have shown me tea tree and how to use it, so I don't think Wiki should perpetuate anything that incorrectly assumes extinction of traditional knowledge. John Moss 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)