“Although the draft provided only an incomplete description of the test material, it appears a unique extract of green tea (presumably leaf) was used and this particular extract may or may not be similar to other green tea leaf extracts marketed in the US” said Michael McGuffin, AHPA President.
“The report should make every effort to clarify that these studies are only relevant to the specific green tea extract used and not necessarily relevant to other extracts.”
Despite the Senate Appropriations Committee urging the NTP last year to be "highly precise" when describing particular extracts of an herbal species to avoid confusion about different extracts from the same species, the new draft document appears to imply that the specific green tea extract used in two studies is similar to other green tea leaf extracts, said AHPA.
“AHPA encourages the NTP Peer-Review Panel to take this Senate urging into account and revise the draft report accordingly,” said McGuffin.
To address this issue, the trade association is recommending two specific revisions to the draft report:
1. The title should be changed to accurately reflect that the specific green tea extract used in these studies is a unique ingredient that may or may not be similar to other green tea leaf extracts marketed in the US
2. All statements that claim or infer that the green tea extract used in the studies is similar to other green tea extracts should be removed.
For a full copy of AHPA’s comments, please click HERE .
AHPA's comments also highlight that the description of the material used in the studies referenced by the NTP draft report is incomplete because it fails to identify the part of the tea plant (i.e., Camellia sinensis) or the solvent used to manufacture the extract.
The NTP draft report can be found here: NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology Studies of Green Tea Extract in F344/NTac Rats and B6C3F1/N and Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Green Tea Extract in Wistar Han [Crl: WI (Han)] Rats and B6C3F1/N Mice (Gavage Studies)