Talk:Grapefruit seed extract/Archive 1

Quackery?
So this was part of the category Quackery and i noticed an interesting debate regarding deletion of the category 2006 May 24 here. GSE contains several compounds that are not proven to have anti-microbial properties. as such gse does fit into the quackery category. curious about other peoples views on this, feel free to message or email me if you have thoughts. TitaniumDreads 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"[]... However, there is strong evidence that the anti-microbial activity associated with grapefruit seed extract is attributable to the contamination or adulteration of commercial GSE preparations with synthetic antimicrobials or preservatives." I agree.

Can anyone tell me if GSE is safe to eat or is it toxic to eat?

Anyone ever hear about using GSE to purify water? My camping instructor said you can do it, but I dont want to take any chances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.216.110 (talk • contribs).


 * Your camping instructor is a dangerous person. ;) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

cite
This needs a cite (read WP:RS and WP:V first!

It should be noted that resources suggest grapefruit seed extract is beneficial for intestinal problems, ie antibacterial, antiviral and anti-fungal because it also does very little damage to the normal intestinal flora in the digetive system. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 14:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that a lot of needed citiations come from information I entered that I read in a book that has been printed, and has no electronic counterpart, how should citations be made for those particular parts of the article.Devios 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting Reverted?
I don't know why [since no one posted anything on the talk page about it] this version is the current version, when the last one written contained much more information about GSE, it's uses, how it is made and prepared. I'm re-editing it again, because someone messed it up, destroyed the references and didn't make the citations links.Devios 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

GSE is fun and games!

 * It's amazing how much play this article is getting now! Devios 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

technical
Someone slapped technical on the research section of the article. I've removed it because it shouldn't be in the article proper. I'd revise the section but I don't see whats too technical about it. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed history section
The history section was a copyvio and wasn't about GSE anyway. So I've removed it. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles on Grapefruit Seed Extract
I have done a little research into the claim that Grapefruit seed extract is quackery. It seems that there has been plenty of work done on this product, and I vote that the quackery tag is removed. It needs to be administered at the correct dilution to be used as an antimicrobiological agent with no toxicity. See these articles and especially this one. --Travisthurston 01:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those articles are the definitions of quackery. That Nigerian four patient study is not good science.  Other studies on Pubmed (those quoted in the article) point out that synthetic antimicrobials were the source of any limited antimicrobial results.  ju66l3r 04:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

external benefits
I don't know about internal uses but it does seem to solve most skin fungus/yeast problem when applied in diluted form to the skin. It does actually cause the infected to dry and fall off after merely a week or 10 days...

POV and inaccurate
This article focuses almost entirely on slamming GSE as quackery. (The see also section is especially vicious). In favor of this agenda, a study from the Croatian Pharmaceutical Society's scientific journal is quoted. This 2005 study demonstrates that, despite the fact that significant amounts of anti-microbial agents are found in commercial GSE preparations, pure GSE does indeed posses significant anti-microbial properties (such as effectiveness against gram-positive bacteria). This was by no means an anecdotal study. Additionally, the study involved the testing of pure GSE, rather than commercial preparations. This is contrary to the implication stated in this article that the studies cited all involved testing on Citricidal and NutriBiotic preparations. HKTTalk 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added more detailed info explaining about the Croation study tested adulterated GSE. The test was done with ethanol, a known preservative, which is effective against bacteria. --AubreyinFlorida 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

-->Despite minimal amount of research on this compound, this article still needs to be written in a neutral point of view. I would recommend we bring in some other editors to dress it up. Also this should be about the compound and GSE constituents, not solely on the marketed product. This is what happens when one editor completely takes over an article and forces their narrow point of view. see WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV --Travisthurston 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your ideas. I added two new sections about the "properties" as well as the "preparations". --AubreyinFlorida 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added some more info - i was really surprised to see such a one-sided viewpoint on wikipedia :( Janice.

This editor Janice just added false information to the article I was reading. And worse it was also copyright information. I am suprised you think you could even attempt to get away with vandalism by coming to the talk page with your logical fallicy arguement. 69.85.160.250 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference 6
I would like to return to a discussion of Reference 6, where the authors used an ethanol extract. It should be noted in the body of the wikipedia article that the authors of Ref. 6 used a control of 70% ethanol in their agar test. At the top of page 246 of that article, the authors stated that the 70% ethanol control showed no antimicrobial inhibition, whereas the self-made GSE/ethanol samples showed significant antimicrobial activity. However, the authors also point out that their self-made GSE had inferior antimicrobial capacity. The conclusions of the peer-reviewed article (Ref. 6) contradict the principal POV of the article. The author(s) of the wikipedia article has (have) been honest enough to include a live-link to the full article so that readers can assess for themselves its relevance. I recommend emphatically that the wikipedia article be revised so that it reflects more accurately the literature. --Nardis miles 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The GSE/ethanol extract used ethanol in the extraction process for the study. Keep in mind that the extraction was done with ethanol which is a preservative. Reference 6 is a controversial study because of the ethanol used for the extraction. --AubreyinFlorida 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A practical issue of GSE (commercial or otherwise)
The wikipedia article and the associated discussions focus on whether grapefruit seed extract (GSE), commercial or self-made, exhibits any antimicrobial activity. However, the concentrations of GSE in all tests were substantial(8%-16%), while the claims on the bottles, Proseed, for example, claim that 5-10 drops in 6 ounces of water, is effective. Reference 6 of the wikipedia article showed that, at least in the broth test, at least 4% is required to see any antimicrobial activity, and between 8% and 16% per cent is required to see any consistent antimicrobial activity. To me, this implies that using the recommended dosage will probably do little harm, but will also clearly to absolutely nothing to aid in antimicrobial activity; whatever micro organisms are present will be unaffected by normal dosage of GSE. This, I think should be prominent in the body of the wikipedia article.

--Nardis miles 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The tests involving the reference 6 study effective level of activity is different than commercial Proseed activity with respect to 'lab versus commercial extracts' in question. Commercial GSE has been shown to contain high levels of preservatives. The ref 6 study tested using self-made and ethanol. Study 6 extract a not comparable to commercial seed extracts. It is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit but different. This is the reason for the confusion. Readers associated a study and then apply it the commercial products. Or they read what the marketers claimed and believe it is true. Commercial GSE is entirely different from laboratory GSE. Please explain any part of the article that would benefit from further clarification because of confusion. I think what you are proposing may be a little confusing. 5 - 10 drops of commercial GSE may very well be very effective. However, self-made laboratory GSE would not aid in antimicrobial activity at the doses recommended at 5 - 10 drops for consumer use. Remember, commercial GSE has been shown to be very effective but contaminated. A lab extract at 10 drops will not be effective but 10 drops of commercial GSE is effective. There is a big difference. What is important is to add sentences that would avoid confusion for this controversial topic. That was the reasoning for adding extra detail to the article. --AubreyinFlorida 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction or Confusion?
I've looked at many of the studies on GSE. I've found many reputable reports of the anti-microbial effects of GSE.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12165191&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Is a good summary. The same site carries many others.

Also, if the author of the entry accepts and reports the ability of GSE to inhibit the formation of certain enzymes within the gut (Candida, which most people purchase GSE as a natural therapy for) and therefore have an effect on certain drug therapies,; how can they refute claims that GSE can have an effect on Candida Albicans, and therefore the immune system and overall health?

This whole thing smacks of Pharmeceutical Company dislike of the growing market dominance of this therapy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.217.104 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The studies such as the one you are mentioning did not test pure self-made laboratory extract. They used brand name extracts which showed contamination from preservatives. Please take a look at the article and compare self-made extract studies with brand names tested. That specific study you cited did not test pure GSE. Controversial articles can sometimes be confusing. There is much confusion between brand name extracts versus lab extracts. I hope this clears this up for you. Read the beginning of the abstract you cited. Recent testimonials report grapefruit-seed extract, or GSE (Citricidal)... The study is refering to a brand name extract which was identified to being contaminated with preservatives. The reference is already in the article and properly explained about the brand name extracts. Click on reference #11. Cheers. --AubreyinFlorida 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, heres a study based on non-comercial, not Citricidal GSE finding it to be effective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15610620&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

I'd be interested to hear what you make of this one.

Regards, H.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.217.58 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay, heres a study based on non-comercial, not Citricidal GSE finding it to be effective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15610620&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

I'd be interested to hear what you make of this one.

Regards, H.C.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grapefruit_seed_extract" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.217.58 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your comments. The study you are mentioning (reference #12 in the article) is an ethanolic extract. The extraction was done with a preservative. Ethanol is a strong preservative. This is explained in the article. Thanks. --AubreyinFlorida 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ethanol is used in extraction, which I stated as the summary for this post...........? Do you believe that in this study Ethanol and not GSE were responsible for the anti-microbial action effected here?

H.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.217.58 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The study used ethanol. I do not know the purpose for further discussion. Thanks. --AubreyinFlorida 02:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose for further discussion is that if you are disputing the effects in this or any other study finding that GSE does have an anit-microbial effect, in what sense are you doing this? Many people use this product everyday, thats the purpose, they find it helpful and effective. If you believe that in fact in this study, the Ethanol and not the GSE were responsible for the anti-microbial effect, could you explain this view?

H.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.216.186 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The study you are refering to did not test commercial GSE. It actually has nothing to do with people who have used GSE. Commercial GSE has been proven to be contaminated with preservatives. Do you disagree? Studies have shown pure GSE does not have an anti-microbial effect. Do you also disagree with those studies too? The study you continue to talk about used ethanol for the extraction process. It is a flawed study. Ethanol has widley been known to inhibit bacteria. An addition of a preservative to an extract will contaminate the sample and render it obsolete. Other studies did not use ethanol and have concluded GSE to have no effect. AubreyinFlorida 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do disagree with you based upon the fact that I know people who have been making their own product for years, find it very useful and who provide it to friends family, theirs is not a commercial GSE/ Citricidal. I myself watched a skin problem dissolve within a matter of days having used it. Could you cite all the studies you know of using pure GSE and finding it to be ineffective, as this would be more helpful I think than our playing ping-pong like this. My objection is purely based upon the fact that it seems a little unfair to have the primary entry on this subject instantly give the impression that this is a worthless therapy when so many have found it helpful. I and many people I know would never use a product processed with the use of harmful chemicals, you must be aware of a movement in society now toward a lifestyle as free of chemical products and their bi-products as possible, this is leading many people to become much more self-sufficient, and create their own therapies, is our experience not valid?

H.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.217.123 (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2007  (UTC).


 * This is a summary of Reference #7 below which is currently in the article:
 * von Woedtke T, Schluter B, Pflegel P, Lindequist U, Julich WD. Aspects of the antimicrobial efficacy of grapefruit seed extract and its relation to preservative substances contained. Pharmazie 1999 54:452–456.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10399191&query_hl=1 In only one of the grapefruit seed extracts tested no preservative agent was found. However, with this extract as well as with several self-made extracts from seed and juiceless pulp of grapefruits (Citrus paradisi) no antimicrobial activity could be detected (standard serial broth dilution assay, agar diffusion test). Thus, it is concluded that the potent as well as nearly universal antimicrobial activity being attributed to grapefruit seed extract is merely due to the synthetic preservative agents contained within. Natural products with antimicrobial activity do not appear to be present.]

The above is a summary of pure GSE which mentioned laboratory > (same as making your own product) GSE which "no antimicrobial activity could be detected." Further, commercial GSE used by consumers were found to be contaminated with preservatives. In conclusion, pure GSE has no antimicrobial effect, commerical GSE has been shown to be contaminated with preservatives, and studies have been thoroughly explained in the article. It is more than fair to provide the scientific facts for folks to read and learn. Thanks for your questions and ideas for the article. If you want an effective natural antimicrobial, I recommend tea tree oil. I have used it myself. --AubreyinFlorida 04:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tea Tree is fantastic, I am a Naturopathic Nutritionist, have used and recommended it myself. Thankyou for the article. Yes. of course it's a good, fair and positive thing to provide all the relevant info, but its also unfair to have the only article (really) on here be bias toward the inneffectivity of GSE, when so many have found it helpful (pure GSE)...............I'm afraid one study does not a general truth make. Why don't you try it yourself. Also, since we're recommending things to each other, you could also try eating a little grapefruit pith (perhaps with a little olive oil and seasoning over pasta) and see what happens, it has a very beneficial effect on the digestive system, I'm sure you'll notice if you give a go yourself rather than relying on only reading the studies. Regards, H.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.215.112 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


 * (Talk:Grapefruit seed extract‎; 17:32 . . (+215) . . AubreyinFlorida (Talk | contribs) (→Contradiction or Confusion? - unsigned comments / My recent points (+215) to the above comment was to sign the unsigned comments for clarity and as to make it clear who posted the comments.)
 * Thanks for your recommendations. BTY, the article is based on reliable sources and not a personal opinion.
 * However, in the future when there are new studies or anyone can present other studies that belong in the article and are relevant they will be considered for inclusion.
 * You generally said, one study does not make it truth. Please feel free to read the various multiple studies below (if you so desire) and digest the information.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9037863&query_hl=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10399191&query_hl=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11453769

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16159196&query_hl=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16719494


 * I hope you have a nice read. Thanks. --AubreyinFlorida 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there are many studies showing your prescribed opinion as truthful, I have never disputed that, and thankyou Aubrey for citing all those links, though it wasnt for myself I asked, as I explained, it was for anyone considering trying a therapy which I and others find very effective. I completely respect your opinion,but I do feel if you tried a few of the therapies you have so far only read about, you may find the results surprising. I only want others to have a chance at seeing the benefits from someting before they dismiss it. As for studies, it would be nice to see a few more wide-ranging studies done on pure GSE. I'm sure we'd both agree on that.

H.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.215.132 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I understand your sentiments exactly. Despite this article, many people have obtained excellent results from numerous natural remedies. GSE may not be what it is claimed to be but other natural remedies and herbs are beneficial such as tea tree oil. It has been great having conversations with you. Hopefully, there will be a lot more studies on pure GSE in the future. Peace. --AubreyinFlorida 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GSE for IBS
Michael Murray gives it next to highest rating for effectiveness for IBS. (THE PILL BOOK GUIDE TO NATURAL MEDICINES, p688.) This effectiveness, if it exists, may be independent of antibiotic effect.

I think that putting the "Confidence tricks" box at the end of the article is unjustified because the issue of effectiveness is still open. It makes Wikipedia look bad. Healtheditor 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)healtheditor

My 'scientific' reserach on IBS, shows astounding results from GSE...

I suggest someone else look at this to see who and why this is being so vigorosly displuted by whom ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Confidence tricks" box should be removed
There are many possible reasons for using GSE. Taking a tablet of GSE for the citrus bioflavonoid content is comparable to drinking orange juice. IF wikipedians are convinced that GSE is completely useless for use as an antibiotic, and that its promotion is fradulent, then the box and the internet scam listing can be applied to a seperate article on use of GSE as an antibiotic.

Then we can move on to the important issue of the safety of using GSE as a supplement.

Healtheditor 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MSDS for GSE
This is my first post as a Wikipedia newbie, and I don't know how to address the author of the original article. Maybe the info below will reach him/her via this forum.

If so, please add this link to the wiki article:

http://www.nutriteam.com/msds.html

Thanks, Type Historian (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)== Scientific proof that grapefruit seed extract does work. ==

Here is one link that shows quite clearly the benefit, as well as the non-toxic effects of this extract.

[The effectiveness of processed grapefruit-seed extract as an antibacterial agent Pubmed-Grapefruit seed extract]

There appears a untied front to dispute the obvious benefits of this rather inexpensive extract.

Why ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That study was done on a brand called Citricidal which contains synthetic preservatives. --AubreyinFlorida (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link in question.

Pubmed:The effectiveness of processed grapefruit-seed extract as an antibacterial agent

Are the synthetic components "red herrings" ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

CONCLUSIONS: The initial data shows GSE to have antimicrobial properties against a wide range of gram-negative and gram-positive organisms at dilutions found to be safe. With the aid of scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), the mechanism of GSE's antibacterial activity was revealed. It was evident that GSE disrupts the bacterial membrane and liberates the cytoplasmic contents within 15 minutes after contact even at more dilute concentrations.

The conclusion makes no mention of the concern previously noted....?

Will someone check this please.

Thanks

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Research in support of GSE

Seems this article is written with a blatant anti-use bias...why ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think this is a good time to bring up the wikipedia policy "Ownership of articles" WP:OWN, and invite the editors here to please review it. --travisthurston +  22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:I looked up a source of the articles that found 'synthetic' items within the source and it appears to be from a pharmaceutical University, ie pharmacy...which may be a conflict of interest to this natural product.

Pharmacy UIBK

Seems there is 'some' evidence suggesting that this product does have some merit.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I did some serious trimming and I think the article is much better for it. It appears more balanced with usage facts in the science section and claims of adulteration in the controversy section. Please discuss here! --ThujaSol ∆  06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ThujaSol/Travisthurston, I added newer studies and did a lot of npov repair. I included a quote too.--AubreyinFlorida (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Antimicrobial activity of grapefruit seed and pulp ethanolic extract
I want to bring attention to the quoted phrase:

"However, independent studies have shown the efficacy of grapefruit seed extract as an antimicrobial is not demonstrated. Although citrus seed extract is claimed to be a highly effective plant-based preservative by some natural personal care manufacturers, studies asserted that the universal antimicrobial benefits associated with GSE are merely from the presence of synthetic preservatives."

This is infact not true. The wikipedia article has gone to great lengths to try and disprove GSE as an effective anti-bacterial\fungal whereas serious research has proven it is in fact and effective product even without the synthetic preservatives used. Please research the following which

Antimicrobial activity of grapefruit seed and pulp ethanolic extract ZDENKA CVETNI]1* SANDA VLADIMIR-KNEZEVIC Acta Pharm. 54 (2004) 243–250

http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak_download&id_clanak_jezik=26006

Conclusion of this paper reads:

Results reported here contribute to the knowledge of the antimicrobial efficacy of GSE. It has been established that the fully natural ethanolic extract of grapefruit seeds and pulp affects the tested bacteria and yeasts remarkably, but exerts less antimicrobial efficacy compared to some commercial preparations reported in the literature. These differences may be partly caused by the differences in the contents of polyphenols, especially flavonoids. This allows the conclusion that antibacterial and antifungal properties of commercially available products should not necessarily be the consequence only of the presence of synthetic preservative agents, as some authors claim.

Please update this page with the new information contained within this research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.68.113 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also noted, as above, that the "article has gone to great lengths to try and disprove GSE as an effective anti-bacterial\fungal". It was the continual repetition of this premise in the original article that caught my attention and lead me to investigate the antifungal/anti-bacterial properties of lemons, limes & oranges. They all, apparently, have anti-fungal/anti-bacterial properties.

Lemon has been shown to inhibit the growth of Aspergillus mold, inactivate rabies & disinfect drinking water (ref. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816438/).

Test results for limes showed they "have potent inhibitory effects on the groups of bacteria and fungi tested" (ref. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816438/).

A study at the Center for Food Safety-IFSE at the University of Arkansas in the US, assessed seven orange essential oils for their antibacterial activity and concluded "Orange essential oils show promise as natural antimicrobials" (ref. http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Orange-essential-oils-show-promise-as-natural-antimicrobials).

Grapefruit seed extracts tend to be comprised of the pulp & seed of the grapefruit. Possibly the seed in grapefruit extract adds no additional benefit to the extract, but it seems unlikely that grapefruit would be the only citrus without naturally occurring anti-microbial properties.

I don't sell or, currently, use grapefruit seed extract and am neither for or against its' use.


 * I have to agree with the comments above. I came to this article to find information on grapefruit seed extract as an alternative to a prescription drug and was surprised by the focus on debunking its anti-microbial properties (only one of its possible uses). This same material is repeated several times throughout the article and the article comes off as terribly POV as a result. I am going to place a tag on it until this gross imbalance can be addressed, beginning with the incorporation of some of the material linked to by the anon editor above. I wish I had time to do it myself, but I dont't and this topic area is little putside of my scope.  T i a m u t talk

Cleaning of article
I extensively cleaned the article, to make it short, removed biased content (both promoting and unpromoting the Grapefruit Seed Extract in a excessive way). The article looks now much better now, it is short and unbiased and it still states the main arguments of both sides of the discussion (but without promoting those arguments as it was before). Please comment so that this article neutrality can be settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpsit (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)