The Food and Drug Administration has rejected the petition of Ito En Ltd, a Japanese company and supposedly the world’s largest green tea manufacturer that wanted to sell this tea and make the claim that drinking five ounces a day can reduce the risk of cardio vascular disease.
Despite the wide spread popularity of green tea there has been no scientific evidence to indicate that these unfermented tea leaves offer any preventative health benefits whatsoever.
The FDA found “no credible evidence to support qualified health claims for green tea or green tea extract and a reduction of a number of risk factors associated with cardio vascular disease.” Translation: green tea does nothing for you.
This latest FDA ruling gives green tea a batting average of .000, as the FDA has already ruled that this tea does not offer any protection from contracting any type of cancer.
Despite these rulings people will still cling to the superstitious belief that green tea offers some kind of benefits. And in the face of this stake through the heart, I fully expect the green tea believers and the other natural remedy folks to make the claim that the FDA is somehow in cahoots with the drug companies in the effort to discredit an alternative remedy, or some other conspiratorial nonsense.
People can still buy Green Tea, but they will have to face the reality that it does nothing for them.
Perhaps this ruling — which adds more weight to the preponderance of scientific evidence that these panaceas don’t work — will help some people understand that there are no individual foods that can prevent disease or cause disease, and to understand that the term “lifestyle” means more than just drinking something or not eating something.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
You do have a legitimate point there at the end that it takes more than taking A pill or drinking a cup of tea to take care of your health. But then, no one was saying otherwise.
However, the FDA rejecting claimed benefits is near to meaningless scientifically. The FDA is not a legitimate authoritative voice of knowledge. The FDA is a HIGHLY political and not a scientific organization. They are an agency of the federal government with the power to enforce their opinions at gunpoint.
That is, they have legal and law enforcement authority, but that does not mean that they are correct when they make a scientific claim. Hey, the guys with guns say this tea's no good for you. Okay, I'll put it down- just don't shoot me.
I'm agnostic about green tea. I don't have that much knowledge or personal experience to make any big claim to knowledge on the topic. However, this stuff has a big reputation for therapeutic benefits over a couple of thousand years. I would tend to lean to thinking that there might likely be something to some of it.
Controlled scientific studies on green tea and other herbal and non-prescription type substances do tend to be minimal, though. Studies cost money, and who's going to pay a million bucks to study the health benefits of something they don't have a patent on? That's not even to accuse the drug companies of conspiracy.
However, there are actually a number of studies indicating various types of health benefits from green tea. The Vitamin Research Products website, for example, has a number of articles on documented benefits. HERE are a COUPLE for example. That first link goes to studies offering specific evidence that green tea does in fact have cancer preventing benefits, at least in mice.
But the FDA says NO, so that settles it.
2 - Mark Saleski
hell, all i know is that green tea tastes good....though i like white tea better.
3 - RJ Elliott
I like to tea bag my ex...does that prevent cancer?
4 - Phillip Winn
RJ, it depends on how often you do it.
5 - Christopher Rose
She's your ex and she still lets you do that? I'm not sure whether to be impressed or concerned!
6 - RJ Elliott
"She's your ex and she still lets you do that? I'm not sure whether to be impressed or concerned!"
LOL!
Not to worry. She probably let's the neighbor's dog do it as well. She's not very discriminating. Hence, the "ex"...
7 - sal m
rather than be critical of the FDA, i'd rather point the finger of blame at the hucksters who try to sell these types of products and make claims based on no legitimate studies.
if there were bona fide benefits to green tea - or enough reason to pursue legit studies - you can be sure that the drug companies would be the ones at the forefront of the research so that they could deliver the good news and the tea itself.
and to use one or two studies that were performed on mice almost 5 years ago as an indication that green tea might do something good somewhere and somehow, is to ignore the hundreds of other studies that have been done that show no benefits to mice or men.
8 - RogerMDillon
Got to go with Al on this one. The FDA should be looked at very critically. The availabilty of the morning-after pill was decided based on religion, not science, so what they say has to be taken with a grain of salt.
cbsnews.com
Also, your article is misleading. You originally state, "no scientific evidence to indicate that these unfermented tea leaves offer any preventative health benefits whatsoever", then in the comments concede that there were one or two. I'm not saying one or two studies is conclusive of anything, but it is more than none.
Your translation is incorrect as well because the claims that were disproven were regarding cardiovascular disease. Since there was no general, all-encompassing study, what do you base the statement that it does "nothing good for you" since you haven't shown anything else was tested?
"She's not very discriminating."
Hence, she was willing to let RJ call her his girlfriend
[I take it you didn't see my email to the group qabout making urls active, Roger? Comments Editor]
9 - RJ Elliott
That's a cold shot, Roger...
10 - Matthew T. Sussman
Mister Tea prevents heart disease, so stay in school.
11 - sal m
The FDA made their decision after reviewing over 100 studies and papers dealing with the purported benefits of green tea.
it was written:
"Also, your article is misleading. You originally state, "no scientific evidence to indicate that these unfermented tea leaves offer any preventative health benefits whatsoever", then in the comments concede that there were one or two. I'm not saying one or two studies is conclusive of anything, but it is more than none."
You do not understand the nature of the game. Two studies that purport to show that any substance may have some kind of benefit, can indeed be the same as zero positive studies if the studies in question have design flaws or are not conducted under responsible guidelines. By simply recognizing that there are two flawed or otherwise substandard, or irrelevant, studies that allege to prove something is not conceeding anything.
In many cases studies are performed that arrive at a conclusion that is at odds with the preponderance of evidence that has been compiled as a result of other studies. Questionable methods and/or faulty conclusions are most frequently the reason these studies come up with "different" results.
Referring to the study linked above, there are no details at all with regards to the study or to the statisitics that allowed these researchers to arrive at their conclusion.
Abstracts of studies - like those in the link provided above - offer zero details with regards to the design and protocols of the study, and therefore can't be seriously considered.
Studies that show some kind of benfit in murine studies mean nothing if the same benefits aren't found in humans.
12 - RogerMDillon
You do not understand the nature of writing. Nowhere in your article do you write or link to the fact that "The FDA made their decision after reviewing over 100 studies and papers". Is there some sort of Rosetta Stone needed to derive that information from your article?
If everything you say in comment #11 is accurate, then you should have used it in the original post to reinforce your point. If you had dealt with these faulty studies and explained their false results, it would strenghten your argument instead of making it look like you are avoiding information that doesn't fit your thesis.
I'm not a Green Tea drinker, so I don't have a dog in the fight, but blind trust is not something I give anyone in government, especially when they have a record of ignoring perfectly good science in the past.
Speaking of dogs, RJ, just so I have it straight, it's a cold shot to say a women is so indiscriminate that she'd go out with you, but there's no harm in saying that she'd take a dog's balls in her mouth. Remind me not to have you pet sit when I go on vacation.
Mr Rose, I don't recall giving out my email here, so I'm not sure what group you are referring to. If a rule I'm unaware of has been broken, consider it civil disobedience to get the site to make the template easier for people to post links. You should join the crusade as it would make your thankless job easier as well.
13 - sal m
I do understand the nature of writing, thanks.
You made several major errors with regards to what constitutes proof and the way research is handled that indicate that you don't understand the subject.
You also incorrectly portrayed my recognition of irrelevant and flawed studies as a concession that some kind of valid proof exists as to the efficacy of green tea.
So I guess being that you misunderstand so much, I see why you'd rather talk about some bizarre canine testicular ritual.
14 - Stu
Green Tea replaces the sugary softdrink, or fat-ladden coffee with cream, that I and others would otherwise drink, if green tea wasn't available. So at the very least, its indirect health benefits are apparent to me.
15 - sal m
stu:
if the marketeer's ad campaign used your sound logical premise, there would be no arguments. "replacing soda with green tea can help reduce your daily caloric intake while replacing chemicals with tea, and as a result you'll be healthier...." that's a home run.
green tea or soda? or urine and soda? the answer is clearly NOT SODA!
the problem was the marketeer wanted to claim that 5 ounces of green tea per day would prevent heart disease...
16 - Hairynipples
I like bananas.
Perhaps the key to a healthy body is a healthy soul first? If it makes you relax and feel good, it gots to help, brother.
In your defense, vitamins made of "green tea extract" probably won't.
Best to stick to the basics and common sense. Keep typing away. Very nice volley going today.
Nips
17 - sal m
yes a healthy soul is good...Fez from the junior high - middle school was called "junior high" back in the day - had no soul whatsoever. but he had a hearty BO and halitosis to boot. actually, halitosis like a boot, but i digress...
common sense is also good, except for the denizens of 1A, like Fez...
18 - What's Next In Health
Unfortunately, people in this country are contsantly looking for the easy way to health...that one little pill, or one little cup of juice...
People need to realize that it is a COMBINATION of factors which affect your health, not one EASY thing.
The Latest Health News - What's Next In Health
19 - Hairynipples
I am not sure but I think that was a personal attack.
20 - sal m
nah...although your screen name could be considered a personal attack...if directed at the proper person.
21 - Hairynipples
A guy I know named Dave asked if it was true...