FEBRUARY2007

Fluoride in Tea

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho replies

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details here

Several readers alerted us to the problem of fluoride in tea after the circulation of our recent article [1] Green Tea, The Elixir of Life? Fluoride is a known systemic poison, and there is massive opposition to government policy in fluoridation of public drinking water supplies worldwide [2] ( No to Fluoridation , SiS 25).

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis Missouri found that instant tea preparations contain 1 to as much as 6.5 ppm of fluoride (1 to 6.5 mg per litre of tea) [3, 4]. The US Environmental Protection Agency allows 4 ppm maximum in drinking water, based on their calculations that it takes at least 20 mg of fluoride a day everyday for 20 years to produce crippling skeletal fluorosis. But the Food and Drug Administration permits 2.4 ppm in bottled water and beverages, while the Public Health Service says it should not exceed 1.2 ppm in drinking water.

The World Health Organisation recommends optimum levels of 1-1.2 ppm, and an upper limit of 1.5 ppm. The 1 ppm level of fluoride in UK water supplies deemed safe by the government is already 100 times that in mother's milk [2], and fluoride, like most toxins, is particularly harmful for infants.

The discovery of fluoride in tea stemmed from a woman diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis in 1998 by Dr. Michael P. Whyte [4], a bone specialist at Washington University. The disease afflicts people in remote regions of Tibet, Mongolia and China, in which fluoride replaces calcium in the bones. The bones become dense, weak and brittle, and sometimes the ligaments harden and changes bone structure, causing pain and crippling.

The 52 year-old drank huge amounts of tea, one to two gallons of double-strength instant tea every day of her adult life. Studies in Tibet and other areas where people drink large amounts of brick tea have shown that the beverage can be a significant source of fluoride. Brick tea is made from mature leaves, berries and twigs of the tea plant, which often contain high levels of fluoride absorbed from the soil, and instant tea tends to be made from brick tea.

Whyte tested the woman's tea and found that her beverage added 26-52 mg of fluoride to her diet each day, besides the water she used to make the tea, which contained 2.8 ppm. By Whyte's calculation, the woman drank a total of 37 - 74 mg of fluoride a day.

Whyte said consumers should not be alarmed by the results, and that the amount of fluoride in tea fluctuates from batch to batch even from the same manufacturer. The woman drank to unusual excess and her symptoms improved over a five-year period once she stopped drinking tea and switched to lemonade.

Dr. Michael Kleerekoper, a professor of medicine at Wayne State University in Detroit said most tea drinkers have nothing to fear, and drinking tea within normal limits will probably not cause any health problems.

Tea can become very high in fluoride because tealeaves, especially older leaves accumulate more fluoride from pollution of soil and air than any other edible plant. Fluoride content in tea has risen dramatically over the past 20 years due to industry contamination [2, 5]. Recent analyses have revealed a fluoride content of 17.25 mg per teabag or cup in black tea and 22 gm per teabag or cup in green tea. Aluminium content was also high, over 8 mg. Normal steeping time is five minutes, and the longer a tea bag is steeped, the more fluoride and aluminium were released. After ten minutes, fluoride and aluminium almost doubled.

To get the maximum health benefits from green tea, we should continue to oppose fluoridation in water [2] while organic cultivation in non-polluted soils is essential. Leaf tea, especially young leaves and shoots should be used rather than teabags or instant tea. A requirement for routine analysis and listing of fluoride, aluminium and other heavy metals in tea labels would do much to protect consumers from harm while enjoying its health benefits [1].

Cancer study ordered into mobile phones

Philip Webster, Helen Rumbelow and Alice Miles
Government expert warns of 'hint of a link' 200,000 join research into long-term users


A mass study of the long-term impact of mobile phones is to be undertaken amid fears that people who have used them for more than ten years are at greater risk from brain cancer.

More than 200,000 volunteers, including long-term users, are to be monitored for at least five years to plot mobile phone use against any serious diseases they develop, including cancer and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.

Professor Lawrie Challis, who is in the final stages of negotiation with the Department of Health and the mobile phone industry for the £3 million that he needs to fund the study, told The Times that research has shown that mobiles are very safe in the short term but that there is a “hint of something” for people using them longer.

In an interview, Professor Challis, a world expert on mobile phone radiation, and chairman of the government-funded mobile telecommunications health research programme, emphasised that the “hint” was just that. One European study has found a slight association and using a mobile for more than ten years. The few long-term users developed more acoustic neuroma brain tumours which were found close to the ear used for phoning.

But, because of the tiny numbers involved, “it could be by chance,” he said. Asked whether the mobile phone could turn out to be the cigarette of the 21st century in terms of the damage it could inflict, he replied: “Absolutely.”

He said that the study was necessary because all the important breakthroughs in what caused cancers had shown that the effects often took more than ten years to show. “You find absolutely nothing for ten years and then after that it starts to grow dramatically. It goes up ten times. You look at what happened after the atomic bombs at Nagasaki, Hiroshima. You find again a long delay, nothing for ten years. The same for asbestos.”

He made plain that he was not put off because many existing studies had shown no dangers. “The fact that you don’t see anything in ten years is also more or less what you would expect if there is something happening,” he said.

Announcing the new study, he said: “Because there is a hint and because the professional epidemiologists who I trust and who do this all the time feel there is a chance that this could be real, they can’t rule out the possibility. And because we all know that most cancers don’t show up for more than ten years, I think you have to carry on. It’s essential we carry on.

“Otherwise what are we going to do? If in ten or fifteen years’ time people start getting trouble it won’t show up until it’s a really big effect.”

The move was welcomed by the Conservatives. Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said: “It’s not scare-mongering to ask these questions for future generations. At the moment there is little evidence to suggest that use of mobile phones has any impact on health, but it is vital that there is continuing research to establish if long-term use is a danger.”

Professor Challis is planning a separate study monitoring the impact of mobile phone use on children. He disagreed with the claim of some scientists that there was no cause to believe mobiles affected them differently from adults.

“We all know that if you’re exposed to sunlight as a kid you are much more likely to get skin cancer than if you’re exposed as an adult.”

He insisted that there was nothing irresponsibly alarmist about his message. Even if a risk were found, people would not have to stop using phones, but perhaps reduce their use.“I do it because I think it’s worthwhile,” he said.

2006 Largest study yet, of 420,000 Danish users for up to 21 years, ruled out any large effect on any cancer after short or long-term use

It suggested there could be a very slightly raised risk of acoustic neuroma, a rare, benign cancer of the inner ear, among users of more than ten years