Coffee and tea consumption reduce MRSA risk

July 15, 2011 by Deborah Braconnier report

While an apple a day may keep the doctor away, new research published in the Annals of Family Medicine say that hot tea or coffee may keep the methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus, or MRSA, bug away, or at least out of your nose.

The study, led by Eric Matheson from the University of South Carolina, looked at 5,500 Americans and their and hot tea consumption in association with the presence of the MRSA bacteria in the .

In general, around one percent of the population in the United States carries the MRSA in their nose or on their skin but does not become sick with MRSA. Laboratory studies have shown that tea extracts that were inhaled or topically applied showed anti-MRSA activity. This laboratory evidence prompted Matheson to look at how the consumption of tea and coffee might play a role in MRSA nasal carriage.

Out of the 5,500 participants, 1.4 percent was positive for MRSA in their nose. However, when the group was broken down into groups based on tea and , the number lowered. Those that drank either tea or coffee saw a reduction of around 50 percent, while those that consumed both beverages say a reduction of 67 percent.

While the study was unable to show a direct between coffee and tea consumption and nasal MRSA, the researchers do believe there is a connection. They are looking at the potential of glyoxal, methylglyoxal, trigonelline and diacetyl in coffee and tannic acid and catechins in tea.

Debate is still out however as to whether a reduction in a person’s MRSA nasal carriage risk by drinking coffee and tea would also reduce a person’s risk of falling ill to MRSA. It is also still debated as to whether MRSA carriers are at an increased risk of active infection.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Monkeys in Asia harbor virus from humans, other species

November 19, 2015

When it comes to spreading viruses, bats are thought to be among the worst. Now a new study of nearly 900 nonhuman primates in Bangladesh and Cambodia shows that macaques harbor more diverse astroviruses, which can cause ...

One-step test for hepatitis C virus infection developed

November 14, 2015

UC Irvine Health researchers have developed a cost-effective one-step test that screens, detects and confirms hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. Dr. Ke-Qin Hu, director of hepatology services, will present findings at the ...

Computer model reveals deadly route of Ebola outbreak

November 10, 2015

Using a novel statistical model, a research team led by Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health mapped the spread of the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, providing the most detailed picture to date ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2011
Many hospitals routinely test for MRSA in the nasal passages of patients. For positive results, they routinely treat the patient.

It is rather foolish to test and treat people for a disease they do not have. Such are the results of government pressures to "do something" even when that "something" is foolish and ineffective.
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2011
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2011
Staphyloccus aureus is a bacteria, it is NOT a virus.
For positive results, they routinely treat the patient...for MRSA in the nasal passages of patients.
Really? With what and at what cost? This ignorance is precisely the source of resistant organisms.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.
not rated yet Jul 15, 2011

Bacteria is the plural form of bacterium.

The word forms bacterium and bacteria are Latinized, i.e. vulgarized versions of the Greek original vacterion (meaning "small rod") and its plural vacteria.

The confusion between the letters "b" and "v" stems from the fact that the Greek letter beta somewhat resembles the Latin letter b but is spoken like the English v.
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2011
Dispite it's etymology, the medical and scientific community differentiate the words due to their basic life functions. Something this obvious should be immediately corrected on principle alone. I've been in the medical field for almost 30 years and a fan of for at least three years. I actually thought about not finishing the article when I encountered this gross error. Come on editors... edit!
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2011
I see that they have... thanks!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.