Great Mother’s Belly Butter

A review of the Great Mother’s Belly Butter web site and its claims about psoriasis.

Grade F

Great Mother’s Belly Butter is a “luscious salve” used primarily to combat stretch marks. At this web site, the company claims it will “heal various skin conditions.” This is the first of its suspect claims.

“The herbs chosen for the formula are known for their synergistic effects of relaxing, nourishing, and rebuilding of skin tissue and collagen strands.” Known by whom? The site gives no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to back up this statement.

“Great Mother’s Belly Butter is Internationally recognized for treating & healing the following skin conditions…” They then list a number of complaints/illnesses, psoriasis among them (there is no known cure for psoriasis right now). The manufacturer’s never make it clear what “Internationally recognized” means. They claim that OB/GYNs (among others) recommend their products, but do not offer any testimonials from professionals. Such testimonials would be meaningless even if present.

Probably the biggest strike against Great Mother’s is that during pregnancy, many women find that their psoriasis goes away by itself. So, is relief from psoriasis due to the Belly Butter, or to pregnancy clearing? The web site makes no distinction, although a single testimonial hints that anyone’s psoriasis will be cleared.

The Belly Butter contains cocoa butter, olive oil and coconut oil, which are all effective emollients when used on psoriasis. However, they will not “heal” psoriasis as their ad claims.

Great Mother’s Belly Butter also contains the following herbs and other ingredients:

Great Mother’s Belly Butter sells for $5.50 for 1 oz. and $22.00 for 4 oz. While it may help moisturize, there are many other products that sell for less money that are probably just as effective.

April 23, 2001, Update: I received an email from Gene Chappell stating that the link we have below does not go to the Great Mother’s Goods web site, but instead to the site of an independent distributor in Texas. Sure does, although much of the same text that Linda reviewed, above, appears at the actual siteBroken Link (the site we linked to, below, is now drastically different from 8/10/1999). Chappell also sent me a “full rebuttal” of Linda’s review, but since it he sent it as a Word document attached to his email, I told him I wouldn’t open itBroken Link, and asked that he send it as an email of its own. As of May 20, 2001, there has been no response at all to this request.

March 31, 2002, Update: Still no response.


Linda M. contributed this review on August 10, 1999.