How to Know if Information About Herbs or Essential Oils is Accurate
Have you ever found yourself feeling a bit frustrated by the abundance of false information in the natural health world, especially online? It can be hard to know who or what to listen to, which sources to trust. You may read about the same topic via two different authors and the two sources will completely contradict one another or you might learn something from one person only to later find out that the information you were taught was inaccurate.
The more we learn, the better we become at being critical thinkers and fact checkers of the information we hear. The better we become at those things, the more we know what to look for as markers of reliable, trustworthy, evidence-based information vs. false information, pseudoscience, or hype. Let's take a look at some of the things you can look for to help you determine if what you've read or been told about an herb, essential oil, or natural health product is really true.
Reliability of the Information
When it comes to determining the reliability of the information, regardless of the source, look for two of the three following categories of proof. If the information can be backed up by at least two out of these three, it's probably reliable. If it can only be backed up by one of the three, I would remain skeptical until I was able to find more information. If none of these three categories are there, I'd dismiss the information as unreliable until proven otherwise.
Scientific Evidence
Scientific evidence that the herb, essential oil, or product does what your source is claiming it does is the gold standard when it comes to knowing if what you're reading or hearing is true. If your source is providing a cited reference to a scientific paper that has been published and that specifically backs up their claim, you're on the right track. Check the citation to see if the paper actually says what your source is saying it does.
While scientific research is usually a marker of reliable information, there are a few things to keep in mind:
That something hasn't yet been scientifically proven is not an automatic indicator that it isn't true. Scientific research in the herbal and aromatherapy fields is still relatively young; studies are not often done with people who know the herbs well enough to do the studies well on the panel / research team; and studies on plants are not as widespread as studies on drugs or regulated substances are, so sometimes the science may just not be there yet.
Not all published studies, papers, and reviews are created equal. I've seen very poorly done studies, abstracts that contradict what the studies actually say (people will often cite the abstract because they don't have access to the full paper), and published papers that really aren't all that great. I've also seen unscrupulously published papers put out into the ether by people with an agenda and bad information, so it's important to learn how to read scientific papers with a critical eye. I've also seen companies fund studies for products they have a financial interest in - a practice that brings its own ethical issues into the mix and may skew results / findings.
Sometimes people will reference a study that is completely unrelated to what they're claiming (or will over-generalize their claims), so citations alone are not always a good indicator of accurate information. That said, citation-rich books, papers, and other materials that lead back to scientific studies are generally better than sources that are not cited.
Look for:
Citations that actually say what the source says they say.
Red flags:
Materials with claims that aren't cited or with citations that don't actually back up the claim.
Books by "health professionals" or "experts" that don't have any/many references or citations.
Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence is not the same as scientifically proven fact, but it is observable. It is based on experience through the senses and is repeatable.
That lavender essential oil has a relaxing effect on the central nervous system has now been scientifically proven, but before it had been, we had empirical evidence that it did this. Anyone could breathe deeply the smell of fresh lavender (L. angustifolia species) or its essential oil and notice the calming effect it has on the body and mind. We knew it was true because we could experience it. The scientific evidence just confirmed it. Likewise, we could previously tell that peppermint tea helps settle the stomach because we could try it for ourselves and experience its effects. Scientific evidence eventually confirmed it, but the empirical evidence was observable and repeatable.
If we have empirical evidence but do not yet have scientific evidence to confirm it, then we want to also look for traditional use that dates back at least 100-150 years or so. If we don't have the combination of the two, I would question the validity of the empirical evidence and take a closer look at the source of the information.
For example, if someone is claiming that their herbal product helps with a certain health complaint, but we don't yet have any scientific evidence to back up that claim, we would want to see if the empirical evidence is first observable and repeatable by others. We would then also want to see if it matches up with the traditional use of the ingredients in that product. If long-term ethnobotanical use doesn't match up with the claim or the supposed empirical evidence, I would be very skeptical of the reliability of the information.
Look for:
Long-term traditional use to back up the claim.
Repeated observations that line up with the presented empirical evidence.
Red flags:
Claims of empirical evidence that do not have repeated, consistent, or measurable results.
Claims of empirical evidence that don't come anywhere near to establishing any semblance of causality.
Claims of empirical evidence without either long-term traditional use or scientific evidence to back them up.
Long-Term Traditional Use
Long-term ethnobotanical or traditional use (100-150+ years or so at least) usually pairs with empirical evidence and helps bolster its reliability. Often you'll even see traditional use combined with both empirical and scientific evidence. You'll rarely find traditional uses that aren't also paired with empirical evidence at the very least. If you do, it'll most likely be for a plant that isn't often used any more because of its contraindications or safety concerns. Long-term traditional use can help confirm claims based on empirical evidence for which there is not yet scientific evidence.
Look for:
Long-term traditional use that aligns with the claim being made.
Red flags:
No history of long-term use consistent with the claim being made.
Long-term use that contradicts the claim being made.
The One Exception
Many cultural traditions believe that we can also learn about medicinal herbs directly from the plants. If your cultural tradition involves training in this practice and a plant teaches you something about itself that hasn't been confirmed yet in research or tradition, you have a unique opportunity to experiment with that information to confirm it. If you find that it does what you think it will (following safe practice guidelines and checking for any potential contraindications first, of course), you can continue to experiment with it with others and share your information with other practitioners so they can test the theory as well. You want to see numerous case studies with similar experiences. Most people have not learned how to communicate with plants this way, however, so this exception will rarely apply.
Reliability of the Source
Your Source's Qualifications, Reputation, and Training
Who is your source? What are their qualifications? What is their reputation like in the industry that aligns with the information they are presenting? Are they fully trained in the modality they are presenting? If so, where did they receive their training?
If your source is a blogger who most often writes about finances or fashion, they probably aren't going to be the best source of herbal information. That example seems pretty obvious, but this can be trickier when you start to really delve into who your source is.
For example, there are several famous, respectable medical doctors and chiropractors who have taken to writing about essential oils in recent years. The doctors know what they're talking about when it comes to medical information and are absolutely reliable sources of information in that field so we think of them as trustworthy. This can lead us to assume they know what they're talking about when it comes to herbs and essential oils too. However, herbal and essential oil training are not covered in depth in medical school or chiropractic school and most of these doctors are not actually trained in professional use of herbs or essential oils. I've seen false information, unsafe use recommendations, and outright hype about essential oils published by such doctors, indicating that they aren't a always great source of essential oil-related information, even though they might be a fantastic source for other allopathic medicine-related information.
I realize this is a generalization and there are surely doctors who are trained in these modalities. Please understand that I have the utmost respect for doctors and the medical profession as a whole, but it's important not to assume that a doctor is an authority on a subject in which doctors aren't usually trained unless we can verify that they have received that training.
Another example would be someone who is experienced and reputable in one field, such as food preservation, animal husbandry, homesteading, or gardening. Many people who write from their experience in these fields often, at some point, begin writing about essential oils or herbs. Some of them are trained and others aren't. Some only really receive training as a sales rep for an MLM-based company (more about that in this post) and don't actually have professional training. Consider who your source is and what their training is to help you determine if the information they are sharing is accurate, then fact check the information itself.
That someone is trustworthy, well-meaning, and/or professional does not necessarily mean that their information is accurate.
Knowing if your source is a fully trained, practicing clinician in the field they're writing or teaching about vs. a researcher, writer, or enthusiast who does not have professional training or experience is also valuable.
My favorite herbal books, for instance, are the ones written by people who have been practicing clinicians for decades and have hundreds (if not thousands) of detailed case studies under their belt. I'd trust those sources and teachers over a researcher or writer who just gathered previously published information for an on-trend book or blog post any day.
Look for:
Teachers and authors who have been practicing in their related field for several years at least.
Professionals who are fully trained in the modality they are presenting; qualifications in that modality that are legitimate and reputable.
Red flags:
Books that don't have an author's name on them (these are usually just compiled by someone / a team who gathers information from a bunch of other sources, not someone who is speaking from clinical experience).
Professionals who may be qualified in their profession, but who are not fully trained in the topic about which they are speaking/writing/teaching.
Authors who make claims that they don't back up with solid scientific evidence.
Authors who have no clinical experience.
People who make claims about essential oils being used in the Bible (more about that here).
Pseudo-qualifications and job titles that don't align with the professional organizations and regulatory bodies for that industry.
Source's Affiliations and Practices
Are they trying to sell you a product?
Consider your source's affiliations. Are they trying to sell you the product they're speaking about? If so, do they have scientific studies available to show you that back up their claims about their product? Look for studies that looked at their specific product, not a general version of it or one of its ingredients.
If they're selling products, who is eligible to sign up to sell those products? Are they available to licensed clinicians only or can anyone sign up to sell them? If only a licensed clinician can act as a sales rep or distributor of the product, that is better than a product anyone can sign up to sell, but is not necessarily an indicator of product quality or efficacy.
If the person is selling you a product, is an affiliate for it, or is a sales representative or distributor for it, their goal is to sell you the product. They are, logistically, a biased source of information. Try to find outside evidence for the claims being made before purchasing any products or treating their information as fact.
One Trick Ponies
Practitioners who believe that everyone's health issues all boil down to one shared factor that is widely distributed throughout the population are usually inaccurate in their claims and ineffective in their practices. Likewise, practitioners who claim to specialize in one arena and therefore give everyone a protocol or product related to that one arena (especially if they're the one selling you the product) should be viewed with some degree of skepticism until you can fact-check their information.
Often these practitioners may have clients or patients who believe that the practitioner has helped them with their health issues, but there is usually no way to accurately measure whether or not the person has actually seen any true healing or progress (or if they even had the disease they thought they had in the first place). Patients or clients often come to these practitioners un-diagnosed or self-diagnosed, with no tests or markers to prove that they have the disease they believe they are being treated for, or that the ailment was taken care of by the product or regimen recommended by the practitioner.
Some of the common conditions these kinds of practitioners usually claim to be able to treat include: systemic Candidiasis, heavy metal toxicity, parasites, Lyme disease, chronic fatigue, allergies, and chronic viral infections.
If the practitioner you're seeing tends to make these things talking points, be sure to do extra research to fact check the things they tell you before investing in their protocols, which are often expensive.
Quacks
I want to differentiate between an integrative health practitioner and a quack here. When I refer to a "quack," I'm not referring to a skilled, licensed medical professional who is trained in integrative medicine, knows what they're doing, and has solid experience working with a wide variety of clients using many different traditional and holistic modalities. Some of the best doctors I've ever been to have been integrative practitioners who were skilled in both allopathic and holistic modalities of healing and medicine. I am all for holistic, integrative systems of medicine. I'm also not referring to people who are trained in different holistic healing modalities (medical herbalism, etc.) and operate only within their scope of practice.
I say this because I have seen people within allopathic medicine or laypeople who aren't educated in other systems of medicine call an integrative practitioner a "quack" because they don't understand evidence-based holistic and integrative modalities (their training doesn't include those modalities). That is an inaccurate use of the term, in my opinion.
At best, a quack is someone who pretends to know what they're talking about regarding some aspect of health but doesn't even know what they don't know, doesn't have sufficient training to be practicing the way they claim to, and/or bases their practice on outdated, false, or pseudoscientific information or methods. They may sincerely want to help people and think that their "training" can help them do that. They may have earned “certificates” or “qualifications” from a diploma mill. At worst, a quack is a complete fraud preying on gullible, poor, or vulnerable people.
A quack is dangerous. A properly trained integrative health professional is not. One usually has a license to practice the way they do and the other pretends to or pretends they don't need one.
I've been to highly skilled integrative and holistic practitioners and I've also, unfortunately, been to a quack or two (many years ago, on recommendation of a friend). Quacks are incredibly effective at talking gullible people into believing their false information and that their non-evidence-based modalities are effective, and they usually tend to be supplement pushers.
Quacks can be especially dangerous because while they've got you on their supplement-heavy regimen (that drains your budget and pays their bills) that is having little to no effect on the ailment that prompted you to seek them out, the true problem isn't being taken care of and could even be getting worse.
Warning signs of a quack (based on my own experience through years of working with both conventional medicine practitioners and holistic / integrative practitioners):
- a practitioner who uses "muscle testing" that involves just the fingers
True muscle testing comes from a branch of applied kinesiology that certain kinds of doctors are sometimes trained in and involves limbs and lots of pressure points all over the body. True muscle testing, when done well by a skilled practitioner, can be highly effective and was accurate in my experience at least. The quack's finger-based version is completely fake, can be easily manipulated, and usually ends up indicating results that mean you "need" a bunch of supplements...that they can conveniently sell to you...and that they may have even "confirmed" your "need" for with a little machine that “reads your body” through your hand.
- a practitioner who claims to be able to heal or cure specific diseases (that they don't have a medical license to heal or cure or that fall outside their existing license)
- a practitioner who claims to have a product that heals or cures specific diseases (that they can sell you)
- a practitioner who tries to sell you hundreds of dollars of supplement products during/after your appointment
Always fact-check practitioners and do your own research before investing large sums in alternative care. Some integrative professionals are outstanding clinicians and others are not.
False Science, Bad Science, and Pseudoscience
That a practitioner has references or citations or studies to back up their claims is not always an indicator that their information is trustworthy. I've seen practitioners publish papers solely to "back up" their claims, but when you look into these papers and "studies," they are often not legitimate, not based on science, or are quite flawed. Check your source's sources to make sure they're credible.
Practicing Medicine Without a License
Every practitioner who sees clients or patients about health-related issues has a scope of practice that they can legally and ethically operate within.
A licensed medical doctor's scope of practices gives them the authority to treat, diagnose, and prescribe medicines for diseases.
An herbalist's scope of practice does not give them this authority. If an herbalist or any other unlicensed practitioner treats diseases, diagnoses diseases, or prescribes things for diseases, that person is practicing medicine without a license which is not only unethical and can have severe legal ramifications, it endangers that person's clients, as well as clinicians who do practice ethically.
Note: Generally, good herbalists and practitioners do operate within their own scope of practice because they understand this and they understand herbalism well enough to realize that these systems of healing don't involve treating diseases anyway. The ones who don't operate within their scope of practice are the ones you should probably be wary of.
Similarly, if a practitioner is licensed, but is operating outside their scope of practice / license by treating diseases which their license does not authorize them to treat, the practitioner is practicing unethically and their credibility should be questioned.
Final Tips
When it comes to discerning whether or not the information you're reading or hearing is true, think like a fact checker. Have an open, but "prove it to me" mindset. Ask yourself, "How do I know this is true?" instead of taking everything at face value and assuming it's true. Set out as an unbiased researcher to figure out if the information is accurate or false by searching for reliable evidence to back up the claims being made.
About the Author
Hi there, I’m Erin! I am the main instructor here at Floranella. I am a clinical herbalist, aromatherapist, artisan distiller and organic gardener based in the Pacific Northwest. Here at Floranella, I teach people how to work with plants safely and effectively from the garden to the apothecary. Thanks for being here! I’m glad you stopped by.