Methyl Eugenol

Methyl Eugenol at a Glance

Methyl eugenol is a naturally occurring allylbenzene phenylpropanoid (4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene) — the fully O-methylated relative of eugenol. It contributes a warm, clove-like, spicy note to the essential oils of many culinary herbs and spices, and it is the same chemotype-defining volatile that makes Mexican tarragon, tarragon and some hyssop oils distinctive.

The headline fact about this molecule is not an aroma or a benefit — it is a hazard. Methyl eugenol is a genotoxic carcinogen: it produced liver and stomach tumours in a two-year rodent bioassay ^{4Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →}, forms DNA adducts in human liver and lung tissue ^{8Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}, and in June 2023 was reclassified by IARC from Group 2B to Group 2A — “probably carcinogenic to humans” ^{13Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}. Because it is genotoxic, regulators treat it as having no safe threshold and work to minimise, not permit, exposure.

Everything else it does is a distant secondary. As a concentrated constituent of certain plant oils it shows modest antibacterial and antibiotic-resistance-modifying activity in vitro ^{1Reference 1Torres-Martínez R et al. · 2022Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteriaView study →}, and it has long been used in agriculture as a male-fruit-fly attractant in pest-monitoring lures. Neither is a human therapeutic use, and neither offsets the carcinogen framing that governs everything else.

The Genotoxic Bioactivation Pathway

Methyl eugenol is not itself the ultimate carcinogen — it has to be metabolically activated, and understanding that activation is the key to the whole molecule. The pathway is a two-enzyme relay ^{6,7Reference 6Herrmann K et al. · 2012AnimalIdentification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methodsView study →Reference 7Al-Subeihi AAA et al. · 2012AnimalPhysiologically based kinetic modeling of bioactivation and detoxification of the alkenylbenzene methyleugenol in human as compared with ratView study →}:

1. Cytochrome P450 enzymes hydroxylate the allylic side chain to form 1′-hydroxymethyleugenol.
2. A sulfotransferase — chiefly SULT1A1 — sulfates that hydroxyl to 1′-sulfooxymethyleugenol.
3. The sulfate ester is unstable: it spontaneously loses sulfate to generate a highly reactive carbocation that attacks DNA, forming adducts — principally N²-(methylisoeugenol-3′-yl)-2′-deoxyguanosine and a deoxyadenosine adduct ^{6Reference 6Herrmann K et al. · 2012AnimalIdentification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methodsView study →}.

Those adducts are the molecular lesion behind the carcinogenicity, and the pathway is demonstrably active in humans, not just rodents. Human SULT1A1 (and the foetal enzyme SULT1C2) activate the hydroxy-metabolite even at very low substrate concentrations ^{6Reference 6Herrmann K et al. · 2012AnimalIdentification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methodsView study →}, and methyl-eugenol DNA adducts have been detected in all 121 human liver samples in one study, with levels varying 122-fold between individuals in step with each person’s SULT1A1 copy number and expression ^{8Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}. Human translesion polymerases can replicate across the adducts, and the resulting mutations — plus a p53-driven DNA-damage response — are what tie the lesion to tumour formation ^{9,10Reference 9Deshmukh PU et al. · 2023Human translesion synthesis polymerases polκ and polη perform error-free replication across N²-dG methyleugenol and estragole DNA adductsView study →Reference 10Carlsson MJ et al. · 2022p53 triggers mitochondrial apoptosis following DNA damage-dependent replication stress by the hepatotoxin methyleugenolView study →}.

This is why the sulfotransferase step, not the P450 step, is the load-bearing one: block SULT1A1 in mice and adduct formation collapses; humanise it and adducts rise ^{6Reference 6Herrmann K et al. · 2012AnimalIdentification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methodsView study →}.

Regulatory Status

Methyl eugenol occupies an awkward regulatory space — a naturally occurring flavour in everyday foods that is also a genotoxic carcinogen. The result is a framework built around exposure limitation rather than a permitted dose.

• IARC: classified Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans,” in June 2023 (IARC Monographs Volume 134), on the basis of sufficient evidence of cancer in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence, including studies in humanised mice and in exposed humans ^{13Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}. This is an upgrade from the Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic”) evaluation of 2013.
• US National Toxicology Program: methyl eugenol is listed in the Report on Carcinogens as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, following the NTP two-year bioassay that found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in both rats and mice ^{4Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →}.
• European Union: methyl eugenol may not be added to food as a pure flavouring substance, and maximum residual levels are set for its incidental presence in finished foods and beverages ^{5Reference 5Smith RL et al. · 2002Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragoleView study →}. The EMA has advised against the internal use of essential oils rich in it — a caution that falls directly on oils such as hyssop and tarragon ^{2Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →}.

The practical upshot: because the compound is genotoxic, agencies apply a margin-of-exposure approach and treat any deliberate addition as unjustified, while accepting that trace, unavoidable dietary exposure from herbs and spices cannot be eliminated ^{5,12Reference 5Smith RL et al. · 2002Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragoleView study →Reference 12Robison SH · 2006Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposureView study →}.

Methyleugenol vs. Eugenol & the Allylbenzenes

The single most useful thing to understand about methyl eugenol is which chemical family it belongs to — because a one-atom difference decides whether a molecule is a genotoxic carcinogen or not.

Methyl eugenol sits in the 1′-hydroxylation carcinogen group of alkenylbenzenes, alongside estragole and safrole. All three share the same fatal geometry: an etherified (methylated or methylenedioxy) ring oxygen and an allyl side chain that can be hydroxylated at the 1′ position and sulfated into a DNA-reactive ester ^{5,14Reference 5Smith RL et al. · 2002Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragoleView study →Reference 14Eisenreich A et al. · 2021ReviewAlkenylbenzenes in foods: aspects impeding the evaluation of adverse health effects (review)View study →}. This is why the NTP tested methyl eugenol precisely because of its structural resemblance to the known carcinogen safrole ^{4Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →}, and why estragole and methyl eugenol form analogous DNA adducts ^{9Reference 9Deshmukh PU et al. · 2023Human translesion synthesis polymerases polκ and polη perform error-free replication across N²-dG methyleugenol and estragole DNA adductsView study →}.

Eugenol is the crucial contrast. Eugenol carries a free phenolic –OH rather than a methyl ether. That free phenol is readily conjugated and detoxified and does not feed efficiently into the 1′-hydroxy/sulfate bioactivation route, so eugenol is not in the genotoxic-carcinogen class — a distinction that matters enormously for clove and holy-basil oils, where eugenol and methyl eugenol can co-occur but carry very different risk. Anethole (the anise/fennel volatile) is a propenyl rather than allyl isomer and is likewise not a member of this genotoxic group at normal exposures. The lesson: “phenylpropanoid” is not a safety category — the specific substitution pattern is what determines whether a molecule bioactivates.

What It's Used For

With no therapeutic use, the bioactivity evidence for methyl eugenol is thin and almost entirely about a single non-medical property: its behaviour as a concentrated essential-oil constituent.

Evidence by IndicationStrength of support · Beta

Support is an experimental score — weighted by study type (human > animal > in vitro) and volume. A beta, not a validated metric. Methyl eugenol has no therapeutic application; the one row below is an in-vitro whole-oil property, scored low by design.

01Antibacterial / antibiotic-resistance modulationShaky22%In-vitro whole T. lucida oil + reconstituted main-compound blend vs multidrug-resistant bacteria ^{1Reference 1Torres-Martínez R et al. · 2022Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteriaView study →}

Mechanisms

The load-bearing row is the first: the same 1′-hydroxy/sulfate relay that safrole and estragole use. Everything protective about ordinary exposure hinges on the second row winning the competition at low dose.

Pharmacokinetics

Methyl eugenol is a small, lipophilic molecule, rapidly absorbed and extensively metabolised in the liver. Its metabolism is a branching competition: the bulk flows through detoxifying routes — O-demethylation, side-chain oxidation, epoxidation followed by epoxide hydrolysis, and glucuronidation — while a minor fraction is 1′-hydroxylated and sulfated into the DNA-reactive ester (see Bioactivation Pathway) ^{7Reference 7Al-Subeihi AAA et al. · 2012AnimalPhysiologically based kinetic modeling of bioactivation and detoxification of the alkenylbenzene methyleugenol in human as compared with ratView study →}. Physiologically based kinetic modelling comparing human and rat liver found that glucuronidation of 1′-hydroxymethyleugenol is a major detox route in rat but a minor one in human, whereas formation of the reactive 1′-sulfooxy metabolite is predicted to be similar in both species across a wide dose range — a species difference that undercuts any assumption that humans are protected relative to the tumour-bearing rodents ^{7Reference 7Al-Subeihi AAA et al. · 2012AnimalPhysiologically based kinetic modeling of bioactivation and detoxification of the alkenylbenzene methyleugenol in human as compared with ratView study →}.

Two human-facing numbers anchor the risk framing: after a dietary bolus, serum methyl eugenol peaks within ~15 minutes and clears with a half-life of roughly 90 minutes, and fasting serum levels are very low (picogram-per-gram range) ^{11Reference 11Schecter A et al. · 2004Human consumption of methyleugenol and its elimination from serumView study →}; biomonitoring confirms that despite widespread dietary exposure, human blood levels are low and short-lived ^{12Reference 12Robison SH · 2006Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposureView study →}. But short residence does not equal safety for a genotoxic carcinogen — the 122-fold interindividual variation in liver DNA adducts, tracking SULT1A1 copy number, means the same intake can leave very different genotoxic footprints person to person ^{8Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}.

Clinical Trials

There are no human therapeutic trials of methyl eugenol — it has no medical use, and as a genotoxic carcinogen it will not be trialled as one. The human evidence base is toxicological and mechanistic: DNA-adduct measurements in human liver and lung tissue ^{8Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}, and biomonitoring of dietary exposure ^{11,12Reference 11Schecter A et al. · 2004Human consumption of methyleugenol and its elimination from serumView study →Reference 12Robison SH · 2006Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposureView study →}. The efficacy-adjacent work (antimicrobial) is preclinical and in vitro ^{1Reference 1Torres-Martínez R et al. · 2022Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteriaView study →}.

Last checked: July 2026.

Isolate vs. Plant Studies

The two evidence streams for methyl eugenol point in opposite directions, and separating them is essential.

The carcinogenicity data are overwhelmingly the isolated molecule. The NTP two-year bioassay dosed pure methyl eugenol by gavage ^{4Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →}; the bioactivation, adduct and sulfotransferase work all use the isolate or its defined metabolites ^{6,7,8Reference 6Herrmann K et al. · 2012AnimalIdentification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methodsView study →Reference 7Al-Subeihi AAA et al. · 2012AnimalPhysiologically based kinetic modeling of bioactivation and detoxification of the alkenylbenzene methyleugenol in human as compared with ratView study →Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}. As a molecular hazard characterisation, this is a genuine strength — the toxicology is about this compound, not a complex extract.

The antibacterial signal, by contrast, is whole-plant / whole-oil. It comes from Tagetes lucida essential oil and a reconstituted blend of its constituents, where methyl eugenol is co-dominant but never tested alone at a defined dose ^{1Reference 1Torres-Martínez R et al. · 2022Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteriaView study →}. And the preparation distinction is safety-critical: methyl eugenol concentrates in the essential oil, so an oil-based hyssop or tarragon result must never be transferred to the water infusion, which carries far less ^{2Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →}. “Natural” does not soften the hazard — the concentrated oil is a different, and more dangerous, exposure than the herb or its tea.

Prevalence in Nature

Methyl eugenol is widespread but usually minor across aromatic plants, occurring in the essential oils of many Lamiaceae, Asteraceae, Myristicaceae and Lauraceae species. Its share is dictated by chemotype and provenance, ranging from a trace to the dominant volatile:

• Mexican tarragon (Tagetes lucida) — up to ~46% of one essential oil (co-dominant with estragole) ^{1Reference 1Torres-Martínez R et al. · 2022Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteriaView study →}.
• Tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus) — up to ~39% of the oil in Russian-type chemotypes; French culinary tarragon is estragole-dominated instead ^{3Reference 3Obolskiy D et al. · 2011ReviewArtemisia dracunculus L. (tarragon): a critical review of its traditional use, chemical composition, pharmacology, and safetyView study →}.
• Hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) — 0 to ~28% of the oil depending on chemotype ^{2Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →}.
• Holy basil, basil, bay, nutmeg and allspice — trace-to-minor spice-oil constituent; a methyl-eugenol chemotype exists in some Ocimum accessions.
• Calamus (Acorus calamus) — a minor oil constituent (calamus oil is dominated by the separate asarone phenylpropanoids).
• Diet — trace amounts also occur in foods such as bananas and citrus, which is why biomonitoring detects it broadly in human serum ^{12Reference 12Robison SH · 2006Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposureView study →}.

Chemotype discipline is the recurring theme: “tarragon oil” or “hyssop oil” is not a single substance, and any methyl-eugenol figure is only meaningful with the chemotype and plant part attached ^{2,3Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →Reference 3Obolskiy D et al. · 2011ReviewArtemisia dracunculus L. (tarragon): a critical review of its traditional use, chemical composition, pharmacology, and safetyView study →}.

Major Natural Sources

Source	Plant part	Reported methyl eugenol content
Mexican tarragon (Tagetes lucida)	essential oil	up to ~46% of oil
Tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus)	essential oil	up to ~39% of oil (chemotype-dependent)
Hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis)	essential oil	0–~28% of oil
Basil / holy basil / bay / nutmeg / allspice	essential oil	trace to minor

These are percentages of the essential oil, not of the whole plant, and shift with chemotype, provenance and plant part ^{1,2,3Reference 1Torres-Martínez R et al. · 2022Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteriaView study →Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →Reference 3Obolskiy D et al. · 2011ReviewArtemisia dracunculus L. (tarragon): a critical review of its traditional use, chemical composition, pharmacology, and safetyView study →}.

Discovery & Synthesis

Methyl eugenol was characterised as an essential-oil constituent during the classical era of nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century volatile-oil chemistry, as the fully methylated relative of eugenol was recognised across spice and herb oils. Synthetically it is trivial to obtain: O-methylation of the free phenol of eugenol yields methyl eugenol directly — the same one-step relationship that also makes it a useful reference standard.

Its most familiar non-food application is agricultural: methyl eugenol is a powerful male attractant for fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera and is deployed worldwide in pest-monitoring and eradication lures. This is a functional use of the pure compound, but an outdoor agricultural one — not a route of human ingestion and not a therapeutic role.

Patents: not yet researched.

Toxicity & Safety

This is the section that governs the molecule. Methyl eugenol carries a carcinogen flag because it is a genotoxic carcinogen — one that damages DNA directly through a reactive metabolite — for which no safe threshold is assumed. Its acute toxicity is comparatively low; the concern is long-term, cumulative genotoxic risk, not immediate poisoning.

Carcinogenicity

The pivotal evidence is the US National Toxicology Program two-year gavage bioassay. Methyl eugenol (37, 75 or 150 mg/kg/day) produced clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in both F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice, with increased incidences of liver neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumours of the glandular stomach ^{4Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →}. The compound was tested precisely because of its structural resemblance to the known carcinogen safrole ^{4Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →}. On that animal record plus strong mechanistic data, IARC classifies it Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans” (2023) ^{13Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}, and the NTP lists it as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

Genotoxicity & DNA Adducts in Humans

Unusually for a plant volatile, the human genotoxic mechanism is directly documented. Human SULT1A1 activates the 1′-hydroxy metabolite to a mutagen ^{6Reference 6Herrmann K et al. · 2012AnimalIdentification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methodsView study →}; methyl-eugenol DNA adducts are present in human liver (all 121 samples in one series) and in human lung, with adduct burden varying 122-fold between people according to SULT1A1 copy number and expression ^{8Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}. The adducts are replicated by human polymerases and provoke a p53-dependent DNA-damage / apoptosis response in hepatocytes ^{9,10Reference 9Deshmukh PU et al. · 2023Human translesion synthesis polymerases polκ and polη perform error-free replication across N²-dG methyleugenol and estragole DNA adductsView study →Reference 10Carlsson MJ et al. · 2022p53 triggers mitochondrial apoptosis following DNA damage-dependent replication stress by the hepatotoxin methyleugenolView study →}. Because the damage is genotoxic and cumulative, risk assessment assumes no threshold below which exposure is guaranteed safe ^{5,13Reference 5Smith RL et al. · 2002Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragoleView study →Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}.

The Dose-Dependence Question

There is a real tension worth stating plainly. At ordinary dietary exposures, the detoxifying metabolic routes dominate, blood levels are low, and clearance is fast (half-life ~90 min) ^{7,11Reference 7Al-Subeihi AAA et al. · 2012AnimalPhysiologically based kinetic modeling of bioactivation and detoxification of the alkenylbenzene methyleugenol in human as compared with ratView study →Reference 11Schecter A et al. · 2004Human consumption of methyleugenol and its elimination from serumView study →}, and biomonitoring finds no documented health effect from normal dietary intake and a wide margin below animal tumour doses ^{12Reference 12Robison SH · 2006Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposureView study →}. But methyl eugenol is a genotoxic carcinogen, so regulators do not convert that margin into a “safe” intake — they use a margin-of-exposure framework and act to minimise avoidable exposure (banning it as an added flavouring, discouraging internal use of rich oils) ^{5,13Reference 5Smith RL et al. · 2002Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragoleView study →Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}. The honest reading is: everyday trace exposure is low-risk but not risk-free, and concentrated-oil exposure is the avoidable part.

Developmental & Other Notes

No adequate human reproductive or developmental dataset exists for isolated methyl eugenol; the genotoxic/carcinogenic findings above are the defining toxicology, and any developmental caution follows from the general principle that a genotoxic carcinogen should not be deliberately consumed in concentrated form. As throughout, the essential oil is the meaningful exposure — the water infusion of a methyl-eugenol-bearing herb carries far less than its oil ^{2Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →}. Pregnancy and lactation decisions belong to the herb or product page where intake is decided, not to this molecule page.

Safety at a Glance

☣️ Carcinogen

• Ordinary dietary traces are low-risk. Methyl eugenol from herbs, spices and fruit is present at low levels, is short-lived in the body (half-life ~90 min) and has no documented health effect at normal food exposure ^{11,12Reference 11Schecter A et al. · 2004Human consumption of methyleugenol and its elimination from serumView study →Reference 12Robison SH · 2006Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposureView study →}.
• It is a genotoxic carcinogen (IARC Group 2A). Clear evidence of liver and stomach tumours in rodents, DNA adducts in human liver and lung, and no assumed safe threshold — deliberate or concentrated exposure is to be avoided ^{4,8,13Reference 4National Toxicology Program · 2000AnimalTwo-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/View study →Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}.
• Essential oils are the real hazard, not the tea. Methyl eugenol concentrates in the oil; the EMA advises against internal use of oils (e.g. some hyssop and tarragon chemotypes) rich in it, and an oil result never transfers to the infusion ^{2Reference 2Mićović T et al. · 2021Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae)View study →}.
• Individual risk varies genetically. Liver adduct levels vary over 100-fold between people according to SULT1A1 copy number, so the same intake is not equally genotoxic for everyone ^{8Reference 8Tremmel R et al. · 2017Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levelsView study →}.

Dosage

There is no therapeutic or recommended dose for methyl eugenol — it is a genotoxic carcinogen, not a remedy, and the governing principle is exposure minimisation, not dosing ^{5,13Reference 5Smith RL et al. · 2002Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragoleView study →Reference 13Riboli E et al. · 2023ReviewCarcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group)View study →}.

The only defensible “dose” is as little as reasonably achievable. These are exposure descriptions and regulatory limits, not a personal recommendation.

References

1. Torres-Martínez R, et al. (2022). Tagetes lucida Cav. essential oil and the mixture of its main compounds are antibacterial and modulate antibiotic resistance in multi-resistant pathogenic bacteria. Letters in Applied Microbiology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35419861/
2. Mićović T, et al. (2021). Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae). Plants (Basel). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33916934/
3. Obolskiy D, et al. (2011). Artemisia dracunculus L. (tarragon): a critical review of its traditional use, chemical composition, pharmacology, and safety. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21942448/
4. National Toxicology Program (2000). Two-year toxicity and carcinogenicity study of methyleugenol in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10956160/
5. Smith RL, et al. (2002). Safety assessment of allylalkoxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances — methyl eugenol and estragole. Food and Chemical Toxicology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12065208/
6. Herrmann K, et al. (2012). Identification of human and murine sulfotransferases able to activate hydroxylated metabolites of methyleugenol to mutagens in Salmonella typhimurium and detection of associated DNA adducts using UPLC-MS/MS methods. Mutagenesis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22337896/
7. Al-Subeihi AAA, et al. (2012). Physiologically based kinetic modeling of bioactivation and detoxification of the alkenylbenzene methyleugenol in human as compared with rat. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22445790/
8. Tremmel R, et al. (2017). Methyleugenol DNA adducts in human liver are associated with SULT1A1 copy number variations and expression levels. Archives of Toxicology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28326452/
9. Deshmukh PU, et al. (2023). Human translesion synthesis polymerases polκ and polη perform error-free replication across N²-dG methyleugenol and estragole DNA adducts. Biochemistry. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37486230/
10. Carlsson MJ, et al. (2022). p53 triggers mitochondrial apoptosis following DNA damage-dependent replication stress by the hepatotoxin methyleugenol. Cell Death & Disease. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36446765/
11. Schecter A, et al. (2004). Human consumption of methyleugenol and its elimination from serum. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15121510/
12. Robison SH, Barr DB (2006). Use of biomonitoring data to evaluate methyl eugenol exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17107870/
13. Riboli E, et al. (2023). Carcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol (IARC Monographs Working Group). The Lancet Oncology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37454664/
14. Eisenreich A, et al. (2021). Alkenylbenzenes in foods: aspects impeding the evaluation of adverse health effects (review). Foods. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34574258/

View all 14 references▾