From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Massai tea[edit]

Is it the same?? Noserider (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
From what I can find Masai tea is Rooibos tea blended with lemon oils. I'm Afrikaans and I've never heard of it, it's definitely not called Masai tea here in South Africa. See ZARguy (talk)


I took out the word tasty because I felt it was non-POV. (JFerreira 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

since i found no sources about the taste, i tried it myself: it tastes like dry hay infused with hot water. though smells nice, no recognizible taste beyond dry hay. probably this information on taste or rather lack of taste is not widely publicized because of marketing reasons. and the lack of any distinct taste might be the reason for added flavouring and use of rooibos in mixtures with other herbs and aromas that do have a taste. (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It does indeed have quite a strong taste if you have the high quality product and infuse it for long enough.. many South Africans I know either love it or hate it. Personally I don't like "herbal" teas but because I no longer drink caffeinated tea or coffee I now use rooibos tea exclusively and quite like it. POV I know, so maybe we need to source a reliable quote to describe the taste in a non POV way.

Nutrient Information[edit]

"Despite some promotional claims that rooibos is a source of vitamin C, Joubert says it is not." Who the hell is Joubert??? His estimation sounds absolutely new for me. Is that source reliable??? -- 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Joubert, Ph.D., specialist researcher at South Africa’s ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and a rooibos expert" --Somnilocus 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "walking on water" sentence under Nutrition seems to have crept in from Uncyclopedia ......--Tumadoireacht (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The next time you see such vandalism it's really not necessary to turn it into a discussion, just revert it and move on. Roger (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The statement that rooibos contains ascorbic acid is incorrect as described in Joubert & De Beer [1]. The original paper describing the presence of ascorbic acid in rooibos used a non-specific method based on redox reaction of ascorbic acid, however, rooibos also contains phenolic compounds (antioxidants) that will give the same reaction as ascorbic acid. Many subsequent studies performed using more specific methods, i.e. high-performance liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection, have failed to detect ascorbic acid in extracts from rooibos. Dbeerd (talk)


  1. ^ Joubert, Elizabeth; De Beer, Dalene (2011). "Rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) beyond the farm gate: From herbal tea to potential phytopharmaceutical". South African Journal of Botany. 77 (4): 869–886. doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2011.07.004. 

Request for sources[edit]

Which University? Which manufacturer? What are your sources? Paul Beardsell 14:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot find any sources on both the claims about the infants as well as the adults (over-consumption). Anyone with info? Sander Spek 08:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"nappy rash"? --ChadMiller 20:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

nappy rash = daiper rash ; Dr Elizabeth Joubert is one of the main researchers of rooibos tea in South Africa and she works at the Agricultural Research Councel in Stellenbosch. N.Coetzee


I know of no actual science saying any component of Rooibos is anticarcinogenic. If that's to remain in the article, we need to come up with some kind of reference for it. As far as I can see, all of the common herb tea chemicals thought to be anticarcinogenic are absent in Rooibos. It does have some antioxidants, but if that's the only sign, it should be cited directly, without drawing the anticarcinogen conclusion. Kaz 18:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A PubMed search for Aspalathus linearis finds about 20 articles, the first of which [1] seems (based on the abstract) to describe a study on tumorigenesis suppression effects of herbal extracts in mouse tissue, including rooibos. This might be a good starting point for a literature search, if someone is interested. Jks July 6, 2005 18:51 (UTC)

fluoride in tea, bad!?[edit]

I keep seeing websites that say rooibos has traces of fluoride. I would avoid giving this to infants if thats the case. From what i gather in my brief research on the web it sounds like some plants absorb more fluoride from pollutants than others. The plant green tea comes from absorbs more fluoride than rooibos from what i can tell. It's very important to watch fluoride levels for children.

What is the source for the above assertion?

I'm aware that lots of people think that fluoride is horrible, but there really isn't much in the way of evidence to back that up. Adding information like this to the article and treating it like it's totally accepted as truth is totally one sided and irresponsible. (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a hard scientific fact that sodium fluoride is toxic in sufficient volume, and that it accumulates in the body. The question is whether the trace amounts ingested from tap water and toothpaste (and, in this case, perhaps some teas) is enough to be harmful. --Kaz (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Malinowska et al Rooibos has much less fluoride than normal tea. And according to this HerbalGram article:

A 200 ml serving of rooibos provides over 5 percent of the RDI of fluoride for adults and over 7 percent of the RDI for copper (see Table 5). Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Policy Institute for Integrative Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland, notes that when rooibos is used as a fluid replacement throughout the day, as is done with some athletes in South Africa, it does provide measurable amounts of several minerals and electrolytes.

The RDI is the "reference daily intake", namely the amount that nutritionists think you should be getting, and which is below the acceptable daily intake limit. For comparison, water with a fluoride content below 0.3 mg/L is considered to be non-fluoridated (Brody, Nutritional Biochem), and Rooibos contains about 0.22 mg/cup according to the HerbalGram article (Data from Rooibos Ltd), or on the order of 0.1 mg/L according to Malinowska et al, who found concentrations on the order of 1 to 3 mg/L in black tea. I've downloaded Malinowska et al, so if you need a copy, I guess I could email it to you. --Slashme (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be reminded that with the above statement: "... and Rooibos contains about 0.22 mg/cup... " User:Slashme is saying that rooibos tea's fluoride content is 1.1 mg / litre or higher (considering, that "a cup" volume is about 0.15-0.2 litres, or in other words one litre is equal five or more cups, so the Fluride content per litre will be five times the content of "a cup"). (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

...besides "a cup" is not an SI unit of measurement and not even an exact one: cups can be different. (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


to the fellow who was asking about the anticarcinogenic effects. The link included with the article to, specifically , mentions this.

In fact there seem to be passages cut straight out of this document. Passages about how it's harvested, nutrient content, and so forth are all lifted off that page. Who is "Joubert", for instance?

Dthatcher 06:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You made an interesting point there, D. If one comes across a surname that hasn't been previously "introduced", could one assume that that passage containing that surname has been lifted from elsewhere? Maybe its just me, but i think this site is no place for such slap-dash edits! 10:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that in this case it was exactly the correct assumption to make. Unintroduced, not included in references, and suddenly mentioned name (like in this case before the edit; it was just a last name - no title, credentials or first name). Checking the linked article indeed showed that it was just a rip. I suppose we may appreciate someone's veracity to post something about rooibos, and forgive them their obvious, glaring, legally punishable error? Looks like someone's jumped on it and straightened the whole mess out, anyways. Hurrah for collaborative effort. Dthatcher 09:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

reference links[edit]

I replaced the commercial reference links at the bottom of the page with links to noncommercial sources. This seems to be the trend for several of the tea-related pages, many of which had links to that have now been removed because the site is primarily a commercial sales vehicle.

Feb. 18 2007 - Two more links to africanredtea,com (commercial site) were added to "external links" - I think people from africanredtea,com and grentealovers,com are spammers. Should they be blacklisted ??

more reference links[edit] spam !! they keep replacing existing URL with a link to their web site - this a commercial site. They post links to their web site on several Wikipedia pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


I removed the non-IPA pronunciation as it was innacurate. The 's' in rooibos is not voiced as was suggested, 's' is never voiced in Afrikaans. Booshank 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "bawz" is just wrong, but "boss" is probably a closer approximation. dewet| 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The recorded pronunciation is not accurate. In Afrikaans a single "o" is pronounced the same way as the "o" in the English word "dose," not as in the English word "boss." I would edit it but I don't have a microphone on this computer. (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Jeff Davis209.237.75.67 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that simply is not the correct pronunciation. The file also is not a midi as the extension would suggest, but actually a 16bit PCM WAV. Will remove that from the article and replace with a ref to a South African podcast that has the correct pronunciation. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
In North America it's most often pronounced phonetically as "roo-EE-bohs", probably due to its relative novelty, and the lack of knowledge of its origins. (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In South African English "Rooi" is pronounced exactly the same as the name "Roy" and the vowel in "bos" is pronounced like the vowel in "or", "for", "pause" just a bit shorter. Roger (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says "It is sometimes spelled rooibosch in accordance with the old Dutch etymology, but this does not change the pronunciation." - I disagree as a native Afrikaans speaker. The "s" in Rooibos is simply an s, unvoiced, like the s in boss, as mentioned above. However the "sch" in dutch is more like a "Sh" sound, like in German surname Schreuder or the English word "Bush". I have edited the sentence to say the following: "It is sometimes spelled rooibosch in accordance with the old Dutch etymology." ZARguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC).

I've never heard a native Afrikaans speaker pronounce it with a "sh" at the end - always a plain unvoices "s". In my experience the archaic "sch" spelling is only used as a marketting gimmick or in a brand name - much like "ye olde" is used in English. I live in the Northern Cape and also spend quite a lot of time in the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and southern Free State - maybe the pronunciation is subject to regional variation. Roger (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, to the best of my knowledge in Afrikaans rooibos is never pronounced with a "sh" at the end, just as you've pointed out. But if it was spelled "rooibosch" (which I've never seen), it would be pronounced with a "sh" (eg. the auto electric company "Bosch"). I agree spelling it like that is probably just a marketing gimmick and no-one would pronounce it like that. I obviously can't cite any sources, but I've lived in the Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Western Cape, Northern Cape and I was born in Kwazulu-Natal and I have also never heard it pronounced with a "sh", but then again I've never seen it spelled with a "sch". That's why I think the original sentence was misleading. It's spelled rooibos and pronounced with an unvoiced "s" and if it was spelled rooibosch, for historical or marketing reasons, it would be pronounced with a "sh". But it cannot be spelled rooibosch without changing the pronunciation. Hope that clarifies my point. --ZARguy (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
How about we just remove that sentence? I'm sure it can be spelled many ways in different languages but this is not a page on the Dutch language or pronunciation but a page about the drink that everyone knows as "rooibos", not "rooibosch" or "redbush" --ZARguy (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Peter Thunberg[edit]

According to the swedish wiki, this plant was "found" by the swedish Carl Peter Thunberg. He is supposed to be the one who gave it its scientific name, honoring Carl von Linné. Dan Koehl 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceylon Tea?[edit]

I'm wondering why ceylon tea is mentioned specifically in this article. Ceylon tea is no different than any other tea, it just happens to come from a certain area (Ceylon, aka Sri Lanka). Most tea from ceylon is black tea, which is not always prepared exactly the same way as rooibos. Often times it is recommended to prepare rooibos at a slightly lower temperature and steep slightly longer, similar to white tea. TAsunder 18:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because many people use the term Ceylon tea when they actually mean black tea. I've changed the link. Greenman 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Does someone know if the 80GBP price is adjusted for inflation or not? 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)GoClick

I would assume not, as 80GBP per pound is not an excessive price for specialist seeds today. One could probably plant hundreds or thousands of square metres with one pound of small seeds, so if that was todays money it would not be an excessive investment.

Trade Disputes[edit]

How about more regarding Trade Disputes?


--nocturnal omnivorous canine 14:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fermented vs. Unfermented color[edit]

The article says that unfermented is red and fermented is green. This web site states that unfermented is yellow and fermented is red. One of the sources for the artilce, this one, states that green is unfermented and fermented is red. This, too, doesn't jive with what the article is saying. Does anyone have a solution to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhetth (talkcontribs) 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Fermented rooibos leaves are reddish-brown, and the tea itself is more red than brown. Well-prepared unfermented rooibos leaves are grass green, and the tea is yellowish-beige. Less carefully produced unfermented rooibos is straw-coloured, and the tea is a bit browner. These observations are "original research" at the moment, as they are my experience in working with rooibos, but there have been some published articles with tristimulus colour measurements that could probably help, and I could get some samples and photograph them sometime. --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Khoisan name[edit]

What do the khoi and the san call the Rooibos?

Contradiction to resolve[edit]

The first paragraph of history contains a contradiction: first the Dutch settlers are said to adopt rooibos, by implication readily and almost upon their landing, since no time frame is stated, and then the copy says that their use of it was minimal until the 19th century, implying they resisted adopting it. Though the contradiction is not direct, anyone trying to imagine the attitude and ease of the adoption by the Afrikaans with any degree of precision is left at sea.

I hope someone with knowledge of the history can emend the statements. 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)LINKBook

Imported tea from Europe?[edit]

The Dutch settlers to the Cape adopted rooibos as an alternative to black tea, an expensive commodity for the settlers who relied on supply ships from Europe.

But Cape was colonized as a stop for the ships carrying trade between Asia and Europe! Actually, Asian tea should be cheaper for South African colonizers than for European consumers, because of the lesser distance. -- 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the distance to the sorce of tea was indeed shorter for the colonist of south africa, Tea could still have been more expensive due to taxation and other levies. I'm vage on the exact dates and such, but the Cape town was run as an outpost of the East india trading company for many years. It was therefore run as a bussiness. The Tea would therefore not be sold in cape town but rather taken to england and alsewhere where it could be sold at a higer price.

It should also be noted that later when the first vryburgers(Afrikaans for "free Citizen" ths not an employee of the Dutch East india trading company) reference: were allowed to trade independatly of the Trading company, they were at a treated at a consireable disadvantage, as the company had certain rules and regulations inforced at the port. For example: the were not allowed to bid on a certain commodity (or sell anything to the ships) until after the company had done so.

I apologise for the lack of refernces: Most of this is from memoy of high school history classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Superoxide Dismutase[edit]

It contains superoxide dismutase, a great antioxidant in a living cell, but with respect to drinking it in a tea, is there any evidence that this compound is absorbed into the body directly via oral consumption? Could the health benefits of this plant be due to the presence of other antioxidant chemicals that are perhaps more stable and more absorbable that also exist in higher levels for the same reason the plant has higher levels of SOD - a greater demand for antioxidant activity in the plant itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talkcontribs) 03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

At least to me it does not make any sense to talk about SOD in a tea. I mean, this is an enzyme and as such it should be denaturated when exposed to temperatures close to water's boiling point. It's true that some enzymes are extremely temperature resistant (those from extremophiles) but I don't believe this is one of those. And denaturated means inactive. Even if the extraction procedure from the leaves using hot water is not enough to destroy its function, our stomach pH would ruin this beautiful enzyme. But one thing is true: I've seen already SOD being advertised on some Rooibos packages as being a powerfull antioxidant so it might be that it is appreciated all over the globe for its SOD, even if this is biologically meaningless...-- (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. SOD in rooibos is of no consequence to human health. The main antioxidants in rooibos are the polyphenols. --Slashme (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also - superoxide dismutase is expressed in mammals at effectively saturating concentrations and it is the fastest working enzyme known to man. Summary - superoxide dismutase in tea is very unlikely to help.


The article says that one woman found a lot more seeds by opening an ants nest. Then in the next paragraph, rooibos has grown in popularity, presumably as a result of this discovery. But it would be nice to make explicit how this happened... are ant colonies routinely exploited to gather rooibos seeds today? How is this done on a large scale? --Angelastic (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fermented, inaccurate?[edit]

In the Production section, it claims that "Generally, the leaves are oxidized, or often inaccurately referred to as fermented, to produce the distinctive reddish-brown color". I'm pretty sure that the process of curing tea leaves is called "fermenting", even though they're not actually being fermented. As far as I know, everyone I've met who has used this term knows perfectly well what the difference between fermenting sugars into alcohol, and curing tea leaves. If this is the commonly used term, is it not fair to say it has two meanings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the afrikaans word for it is "sweet" meaning to sweat, this implies that water is added to the tea, it is left for a few hours, the meterial experiences a rise in temp, and then when the smell is sweet enough for bees to be attracted to it, it is rapidly spread open and dried in the sun. This is why some call it fermentation because of the increase in temperature. Sugars is converted not into alcohol but aromatic compounds that gives sweet smell.

A good source on rooibos is Ben-Erik van Wyk's Medicinal plants of South Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed for historical use by Khoi & San[edit]


I don't have a copy of "In the Land of the Afternoon". Can someone email me the relevant pages (pp. 52-4)? My "Email this user" link works. --Slashme (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Herbal infusion is not the same as "tea"[edit]

An herbal tea, tisane, or ptisan is an herbal infusion made from anything other than the leaves of the tea bush (Camellia sinensis). Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Milk and sugar[edit]

In South Africa it seems more common to drink rooibos as one would black tea, with milk and sugar. Outside SA it seems more common to drink it without milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. The other day at work I asked for it black as I heard milk cancels out the anti-oxidants and you should've seen the look I got. I don't know many people in SA who drink it black, although obviously there would be some. But maybe the section should just be changed to mention how you could drink it and not make authoritative statements about how we drink it in SA that probably cannot be proven. --ZARguy (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rooibos Tea is a legume, and there is now some indication that people with G6PD deficiency (favism, hemolytic anemica) should avoid drinking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rooibos and urinary tract infections[edit]

I am genetically predisposed to UTI infections and have battled them for almost 70 years. Rooibos is known to inhibit the production of uric acid, and is used in the treatment of gout. I drink a quart a day of red tea, and have not had a UTI in a year. I have never in my life gone more than 3 months without a urinary tract infection. It is unscientific and anecdotal, but I wanted to pass it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncited "Japanese scientists" claim[edit]

A literature search failed to turn up the study claimed in: "A recent study performed by Japanese scientists also suggests that Rooibos tea is beneficial in the topical treatment of acne.[citation needed] This is due to levels of alpha hydroxy acid, zinc and superoxide dismutase present in the herb.[citation needed]". The CNs are from 2011 and 2010. I removed the claim. This is as close as I could find: [[2]] (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New Picture[edit]

What do you think about the new picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soultea (talkcontribs) 18:05, 29 November 2012‎

Note: Old picture File:Rooibos.jpg, and New picture File:Rooibos geschnitten.jpg
I think it looks good. Thanks :)
The old picture does draw attention to the red-colouring, and it might be good to place the old picture back in the article, but lower down. –Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


It seems to me the question of whether Rooibos is a stimulant is an important one. It is commonly drunk as an alternative to drinks that are stimulants, such as tea and coffee. On the other hand, it is reported on this page - and widely promoted by manufacturers - that it contains no caffeine, which might lead readers to assume that it is not a stimulant.

Having searched the web for some time, I have found no reliable source on this topic, just some stray individuals reporting some stimulant effect. So it seems to me we have an important question on which there is no reliable source. In my view, the correct thing to do in this case is to address the issue but not to take sides. I suggest we add the following to the Nutritional and health benefits section:

"The absence of caffeine from Rooibos does not mean that the tea does not contain other stimulants." Willbown (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying - the fact that someone is not in prison doesn't mean they're not an embezzler. It either does or does not contain stimulants, such a question is not a matter of opinion. If no RS reports the presence of stimulants then unsourced speculation and inuendo about it isn't useful and amounts to OR, "some stray individuals" doesn't strike me as RS. This article looks like it might contain useful information but unfortunately the full text requires an academic subscription and I live hundreds of km from the nearest university library. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External link to the official Rooibos Council website[edit]

A disagreement has emereged between myself and User:Zefr about the acceptability of listing the Rooibos Council website in the External links list. As I understand it, Zefr argues that the website should not be listed as it is not a reliable source. My counter-argument is that the website is never actually cited as a reference in the article, thus RS is irrelevant. Secondly I argue that as the Rooibos Council is the official representative body of the industry the inclusion of it's website is legitimate, regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the content of the website. We do not prohibit the listing of the official websites of companies on articles about them, even though such sites are inherently "blatantly promotional". Using such a website as a source for article content is an entirely separate issue unrelated to its inclusion as an external link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rodger (Dodger67) is correct in applying WP:ELOFFICIAL. My concern is the outrageous misinformation on the Council's website about the supposed anti-disease activity of rooibos tea against diabetes, cancer and fat development.[3] By Wikipedia and scientific standards, these claims are false without support per WP:MEDRS. No such claims would be permissible in Europe (EFSA) or USA (FDA). --Zefr (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
No such claims appear in this article and, I repeat, the Rooibos Council website is never cited in the article at all. We are not responsible for what the council says on its own website, no more than we are accountable for the "blatant spam" in the official websites linked on thousands of articles about companies, bands, movies, products, etc. or even the "promotion" of unhealthy diets in the websites of fast food chains about which we have articles - all of which do include such external links. The content of the official website is not relevant to wether we link it or not, and the default position (per ELOFFICIAL) is that we do link to it in the External links list. We are not in any way shape or form responsible for the content of the websites listed in External links. It's simply not our problem if they include lies or even actually illegal content. The article would not be complete without an ELOFFICIAL link to the industry's official organisation.
I hope this adequately explains my opinion. Now I suppose we need to wait to see if other editors join the discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As the official representative body the link should certainly be there. It's inappropriate to apply WP:MEDRS in this case. Greenman (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain me why, a plant (used to make an infused drink)needs to have an "Official representative body" whose link must be present as "external link" in an article about the plant and it's consumption? How any "body" becomes more representative of this plant, than letssay an organisation of botanical studies, or pharmacology or cuisine? Does this representative body claim the control of this plant, it's production and does it control and provide all available reliable information regarding this plant and it's uses for human consumption? I am not taking part in the above discussion on either side, but the argument concerning representativeness of an organisation with regard to a biological species (a plant that presumably can grow wild) seems rather confusing to me. (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC).
I don't understand how the guidelines at WP:ELOFFICIAL have anything to do with this topic. That guideline is only relevant when "the linked content is controlled by the subject of the Wikipedia article." There is no rational argument that can be made that rooibos plants control the content of The relevant part of the external link policy says that links should be avoided to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". That would rule out including the link in question here. Deli nk (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)