Talk:Kombucha

Section entitled "Kombucha Drops - Kombucha Extract - Information"

Kombucha drops has been merged and redirected to this article, however, the information appears to be copied and pasted verbatim from this webpage: [[1]]. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights, I am removing that information. Edwardian

POV

I've added a POV tag to the "Health claims" section. The section makes no effort to be neutral and instead seems to indicate this relatively common beverage is some kind of dangerous and borderline poisonous snake oil with zero benefits. It does have nutritional value and millions of people drink it without any adverse side effects. Commercially produced kombucha is sold in grocery stores. It's lazy and incorrect to denigrate a harmless beverage simply because some new age types glommed onto it years ago. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've been reverted. The section is POV, yet I'm being told to shut up. I think that section needs to be expanded to include all health and nutritional information, otherwise it's purely negative. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS - the relevant guideline for claims regarding nutritional or health benefits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against including the current information, I'm trying to say that it's a POV section without including some basic information regarding the nutritional content. Surely there's nothing controversial about saying how much vitamin C (etc.) is in kombucha? It would also be nice to edit the section so that it doesn't read as some kind of slam piece, which is how it currently appears to me (and I don't even like the stuff). Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article already contains a section entitled 'chemical and biological properties', which states (amongst other things) that "Kombucha contains about 1.51 mg/mL of vitamin C." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. This is my first talk page post. I came here because the "Health Claims" section has nothing to do with health claims and instead talks about the dangers. I feel like the headline should be changed. Also I was disappointed to be unable to find out what the health claims are by reading this article. I just came here to learn why Kombucha is sold in my QFC! Doctrix (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah its kinda rubbish. Totally POV and lacks any impartiality. Heads up their ... Zarkme (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It might not support your point of view, but it seems completely in line with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. Take a look at http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/kombucha-tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.131.58 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been added by someone, but it lacks impartiality. Does POV policy apply when authoritative sources basically make statements which are misleading because the statement could apply to all? You could make the same statement for water that the ACS is making here. False equivalence argument. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Kombucha Safety

Hello,

While the source for the line in the header description is legitimate, the context of it does not seem reasonable or appropriate for the page. No statistics or other corroborating information is included which would indicate health risks of a standardized, commercially produced kombucha product.

Quoted via the CDC website, "FDA has evaluated the practices of the commercial producers of the Kombucha mushroom and has found no pathogenic organisms or hygiene violations (5). However, because the tea is produced under varying conditions in individual homes, contamination with pathogenic organisms such as Aspergillus is possible."

I could find no references suggesting commercially produced kombucha associated with any health problems. The problematic issues arise from kombucha produced at home with no regulation. This should be noted in the wiki page as there are many food products (alcohol, cheese, cured meats, etc.) that are potentially dangerous when produced non-commercially and in the absence of a regulatory body, but which are perfectly safe when properly produced.

73.53.53.138 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. The CDC source you're quoting is from 1995, which is pretty old by WP:MEDDATE standards, but the wide-spread commercial availability is barely even touched on in the article. If that's expanded, and it looks like it should be, then it might make sense to change the lead. Here's one source:[2] More research is needed. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Please fix this biased entry!

The entry on kombucha is the most biased I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and that bothers me greatly because I am an educator who advocates for the site as a valuable source of initial information on any topic and a superb example of a self-policing community. I have no vested interest in kombucha whatsoever; I just wanted to know what it is because someone handed me a bottle and said it was good for me. The wikipedia page taught me that it doesn't cure cancer (which is hardly surprising)and that it is dangerous (which IS surprising). There seems to be no middle ground between these two extravagant claims of Ultimate Health on one side and Death on the other side. If this is an acceptable way to present a topic, then someone should edit the article on carrots to focus primarily on dissuading readers from the belief that eating them helps you see in the dark, followed by a discussion of the dangers of allergic reactions and other carrot-related health hazards.

I can see that my critique of this article is nothing new, but the issue seems to be perpetually unresolved so I had to add my thoughts from a kombucha-neutral perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.235.137 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Zarkme (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the article intro should be completely rewritten. I am tempted do so myself, but need some guidance. Research referenced in the intro section seems to be misused. Statement "the claims are not supported by scientific evidence" should probably be replaced with "The research on animals does indicate health benefits but no sufficient research has been done to validate lauded human health benefits". Also, the line referencing death should be replaced with "There is no substantial evidence to confirm the toxicity of any kombucha tea or the occurrence of illness by earlier studies" which is the quote right from the referenced research paper .

That would provide more balanced picture which would be more in line with listed references. Sashalav (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't pick stuff out of primary sources, but instead rely on the secondary review from the American Cancer Society. Their document is accurately reflected here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

But you did pick and choose a secondary source which doesn't have any actual statistics in their statement. The same statement could be made of water or jam. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:MEDRS, we are not going to cite animal studies for claims of supposed benefits in humans. And secondly, you have cherry-picked a single sentence from a section which starts by saying that "Although kombucha tea has been reported to have curative effects, there is some evidence of toxicity associated with it...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I do understand and accept that we cannot use finding about health benefits to animals but I do not agree with your statements regarding toxicity. The sentence you quoted goes on and refers to lead poisoning. There is no lead in kombucha. The poisoning was the result of fermenting in the jar containing lead. If lemonade was prepared in such jar, there would be the same risk of lead poisoning. There is no scientific evidence that kombucha itself is toxic in any way. The sentence I quoted "There is no substantial evidence to confirm the toxicity of any kombucha tea or the occurrence of illness by earlier studies" is the conclusion of the research on, among other things, kombucha toxicity. Any food prepared in unsanitary conditions, or kept in the wrong place on in the wrong conditions can become toxic. That stands for kombucha in a same way it does for chicken breasts, so I do not see why is it necessary to mention it on this page. Sashalav (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The source we reference refers to a number of problems arising from Kombucha's brewing conditions (not just from lead vessels), and serious side effects and death linked with Kombucha drinking. It's a good source, possibly the strongest in this entire article. We need to reflect it. Failing to do so would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are slowly getting to the point here. Sources quoted do not state that there is scientifically proven direct connection between drinking Kombucha and health benefits, so those benefits are not stated in the article intro. In a same way sources quoted do not show scientific proof that health issues linked are due to toxic properties of Kombucha but rather issues in fermentation process. As there is no scientific proof for either positive or negative effect of Kombucha to human health - neither should be highlighted in the article intro. Both are just claims but not necessarily facts and that should be noted. For an example, searching news for salmonella poisoning resulting from chicken consumption will yield many results but that is not mentioned in Wikipedia's Chicken article intro, and, in a same way, it should not be in the Kombucha article intro but not in the intro. I think that pointing to the lack of scientifically documented health benefits while at a same time listing possible health problems which are not scientifically documented makes for unbalanced article intro.Sashalav (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We have an entire section on health claims, some summarizing some of it in the lede is quite in line with WP:LEDE and also satisifies our need for a WP:NPOV. We wouldn't want to airbrush all "critical" content out of the lede, now would we? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Not only that the content is NOT supported by sources in the same magnitude as showcased here, but no such content exist for any other item on Wikipedia. Look at pages on Kefir, Chicken, Grapes, Aspirin ... all of them can cause sickness or even death when not prepared, used or cared for properly but that is not listed right in the intro of those pages. Under 10 documented people got sick that may or may not be in some way related to consuming Kombucha (none of the sources listed claims direct connection) but that certainly is not the most important thing about it. Sashalav (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As WP:LEDE says "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". We need to follow the WP:PAGs, and not try and invent rules derived from completely unrelated articles. One of the principal aspects of Kombucha in the reliable litertaure (and on many dubious web sites too) is its supposed healthful properties. Wikipedia faithfully reflects that as neutrality requires. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The review article cited as the source for "the claims are not supported by scientific evidence" concluded that the claims were supported by preliminary studies but that further research is necessary. This is far from saying that "the claims are not supported by scientific evidence," and an average reader may infer from the wording of the statement that the claims have been refuted, something which the review article most certainly does not claim. The sentence should be changed to be NPOV Trinu talk 05:37 23 January 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To quote: "There has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials". We are true to the source. Implying there might be benefit would be OR and not neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The study did NOT conclude that there was lack of evidence; merely that the evidence was preliminary in nature. Quote: "Kombucha tea's current status as a functional food as summarized in this review, lends credibility to what has been believed by kombucha tea drinkers for a long time." We could say that there have been no human trials to this effect, or that the only trials thus far have been in animal models and cell culture, but implying that the claim has been refuted is POV and misleading, particularly when the source cited lends (limited) support to the claims. Trinu (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all: you're assuming the preliminary research has some bearing on human health effects; the "refutation" is in your mind. As regards human health we accurately reflect the source, as we should. (Add: another issue here is that this source does not appear to be published in a proper medical journal, and so is not a WP:MEDRS for health information in any case.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Probiotic, unsourced, unrelated, chicken feed

I have moved the content below here from the article.

"Another main ingredient found in all fermented foods and beverages are probiotics which are beneficial bacteria necessary for adequate digestion and absorption of nutrients. They are viable microorganisms that improve gut microflora by secreting enzymes, organic acids, vitamins, and non-toxic anti-bacterial substances once ingested. Probiotics have also been shown to improve metabolism and to treat antibiotic-associated symptoms such as diarrhea. In a recent study, alternative diets such as probiotics, green tea extract and kombucha tea were fed to broiler chickens to measure their effects on growth and immunity. The chickens fed with kombucha showed an increase in protein digestibility. The conclusion of the study stated, "adding kombucha tea (20 % concentration) to wet wheat-based diets improved broiler performance and had a growth-promoting effect. Probiotic diets also resulted in enhanced growth and performance, but to a lesser extent.""

The first sentence is unsourced and doesn't really jibe with the article on probiotics. Specifically "necessary for adequate digestion and absorbtion" and "found in all fermented foods and beverages". The characterization as "main ingredient" is unclear, are probiotics a main ingredient of kombucha? The next sentence is sourced to a study on chickens, followed by a sentence sourced to a 2008 article that makes no mention of kombucha at all. Discussion of the general benefits of probiotics belongs in that article and would hopefully be based on much more MEDRS quality source. Then the removed content goes on to extensively discuss a study of broiler chickens. Animal studies are not appropriate for basing content on human biomedical information. If something is of use to humans it will be studied in humans and those studies reviewed. We are not talking of kombucha as chicken food so the content is undue, primary and irrelelvant. I added a reference, (Jayabalan, 2014) that is a decent review that could be used to improve the article. Jayabalan's conclusion section doesn't reflect the facts of the review but the review itself is pretty decent. Perhaps those that find the article "biased" could read that review and make a proposal or two. A good read of what the actual WP:NPOV policy says would good coupled with WP:MEDRS and WP:V and for good measure WP:RS. WP is an encyclopedia that reflects what is published in reliable sources with due weight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

By definition, a 'probiotic' is the main ingredient of kombucha. And if something is of use in humans, there's actually no evidence that it would be studied in humans... Someone has to pay for the study. Not all foods have had this treatment. It's not a very good presumption you've made.

However, the chicken link probably should stay on the comment page until it's gotten more specific review. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Mention of possibly unrelated deaths do not belong in Lede

In this edit, I added an update to the claim of linked deaths. However, I am not convinced this deserves mention in the Lede. It would be different if the deaths were found to be caused by Kombucha drinking. That side effects have been noted seems fitting for the Lede, but 2 deaths with no causal link found after 10 years seems more like a fringe claim, and creates a Lede/article that violates WP:NPOV. petrarchan47คุก 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing the otherwise well supported dead link seemed premature, per WP:LINKROT, as it still supplied enough information to find the article offline. I'm restoring the link, and moving the dead link template inside the ref tags, per Template:Dead link. Grayfell (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of the history, especially in such cryptic terms as "remedy for immortality" should be clearly explained with solid sources in the body before it is introduced to the lead of the article, otherwise it is undue and non-neutral. (Isn't poison a remedy for immortality?) Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi GreyFall, I'm not tremendously interested in working on this article, but it does seem strange to leave all mention of history out of the Lede. Would you go ahead and add something you find appropriate? It doesn't read well to have a one line description, and then to jump right into the dire warnings. The unsubstantiated health claims are unsubstantiated because no trials have been conducted, however the current wording suggests that perhaps they have actually looked for evidence and found none. So this is misleading, and what you reverted was my attempt to fix it. Further, I did not remove the dead link from the article, only the Lede, since the claims sourced to it in the Lede were also covered in the NBC reference. Best, petrarchan47คุก 05:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with the removal of the linked-deaths thing (although I suspect that may prompt further discussion as well). I agree it's odd to leave out the history from the article, but I'm also not all that interested in digging deep on this article, and I don't have any sources handy. I don't understand why you didn't include your source? It was a direct quote from something, no? What you added was reasonable, but without a source it was still scuttlebutt and this article already gets a lot of opinion editing and pseudoscientific blogspam and such, so the last thing it needs is more scuttlebutt. "The claims are not supported by scientific evidence" seems like a perfectly accurate way to phrase it. A lack of studies or trials is the same as a lack of support by scientific evidence. This is veering into WP:MEDRS territory, but when we have multiple sources saying that no benefits have been found, it seems reasonable to me. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it's in the NBC puff piece. I'll look it over and expand the history section a little. It's very weak as a source, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually if I am citing multiple claims to one source, I will link to it only at the end of all claims, rather than at the end of each one. I'm open to suggestions, though, as this has confused people before. petrarchan47คุก 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We should summarize the best sources. The ACS mentions death by kombucha. So we do too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the CDC, Kombucha's "beneficial and/or adverse effects have not been determined scientifically". This is a much more neutral account than the WP article gives. Are there any objections to rephrasing the Lede/article in accordance with the CDC?

I don't know what ACS source you are referencing, perhaps you could leave a link, Alex? Do you consider it stronger than the CDC? petrarchan47คุก 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this article or are you just lede bombing? We quote the ACS in the body: "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Kombucha tea promotes good health, prevents any ailments, or works to treat cancer or any other disease. Serious side effects and occasional deaths have been linked with drinking Kombucha tea". ACS is a strong MEDRS source and does not contradict the CDC statement. Do not edit war and be aware this page is subject to discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)