Argentina dominates tea production in the Americas, but it is not the continent’s only tea origin. Beyond Misiones and Corrientes lies a far smaller, fragmented and unusually varied map: the remains of export industries in Brazil and Ecuador, cooperative production in Peru and Guatemala, renewed artisan work in Bolivia, one distinctive Colombian estate, and specialty gardens in the United States and Canada.
These origins belong together in a regional guide because most do not yet justify a procession of thin country pages. Their value is not that they rival China, India, Kenya—or even Argentina—in volume. It is that they show how Camellia sinensis reached the Americas through different routes and survives under very different economic models.
The scale difference is stark. FAOSTAT records 373,667.79 tonnes of harvested tea leaf for the Americas in 2024. Argentina supplied 356,753 tonnes, or about 95.5%. Every other reporting country combined supplied only 16,914.79 tonnes. Even that remainder needs care: Ecuador’s value was imputed by FAO, while those for El Salvador and Guatemala were estimates rather than official national figures.
This article therefore separates three questions that are too often mixed together: Does a country report tea leaf? Can we identify a current garden or factory? And can a shopper buy tea whose leaf is demonstrably from that country? A “yes” to one is not automatically a “yes” to all three. For the dominant regional industry, read our full guide to Argentine tea. For the global setting, continue with our guides to tea-producing countries and tea-growing regions.
The short answer: where is tea grown in the Americas?
South America contains nearly all of the reported crop. Argentina is in a class of its own. Ecuador is the largest number in the remainder, although its imputed status makes false precision especially unhelpful. Peru, Brazil and Bolivia form the next small tier; Colombia is much smaller. FAOSTAT also carries estimated rows for El Salvador and Guatemala. It does not show 2024 national tea-leaf rows for the United States or Canada, even though operating gardens in both countries are independently documented.
| Country or region | Tea leaves | Share of Americas | FAOSTAT status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 356,753.00 tonnes | 95.47% | Official figure |
| Ecuador | 10,235.23 tonnes | 2.74% | Imputed by FAO |
| Peru | 2,029.85 tonnes | 0.54% | Official figure |
| Brazil | 2,011.00 tonnes | 0.54% | Official figure |
| Bolivia | 1,201.02 tonnes | 0.32% | Official figure |
| El Salvador | 672.73 tonnes | 0.18% | FAO estimate |
| Guatemala | 539.21 tonnes | 0.14% | FAO estimate |
| Colombia | 225.75 tonnes | 0.06% | Official figure |
| Americas total | 373,667.79 tonnes | 100% | Sum published by FAOSTAT |
| Americas excluding Argentina | 16,914.79 tonnes | 4.53% | Calculated from the published values |
The table is a map of reported agricultural output, not a league table of finished tea quality. “Tea leaves” here means the freshly harvested crop. It is much heavier than the dry black, green, white or oolong tea that leaves a factory after withering and drying. Do not compare these figures directly with a table of made tea, export tonnage or retail packs. Processing losses, moisture, inventories and cross-border trade make those different measures.
What the figures prove—and what they do not
Agricultural databases are essential, but small tea sectors expose their limits. A national office may report leaf from an industry whose companies are difficult to trace online. FAO may estimate or impute a missing observation. Conversely, a tiny farm can grow, process and sell excellent tea yet remain below a national reporting threshold. The absence of a United States or Canadian row is not proof that no leaf was plucked there.
| Evidence | What it can establish | What it cannot establish alone |
|---|---|---|
| National or FAO production row | A reported quantity for a country and year, with a data-quality flag | Which estate made it, whether it is still for sale, or how it tastes |
| Government or university documentation | A garden, cooperative, project, location or historical development | That every marketing claim remains current indefinitely |
| Producer’s current site | What that business says it grows, makes, certifies and sells now | Independent verification of every superlative or sensory description |
| Retail country-of-origin label | The stated origin of the packaged tea when the wording is specific | Garden, cultivar, harvest or process if these are omitted |
That distinction also explains the editorial choice. Argentina deserves a standalone country guide because it has scale, an export economy, research, many factories and a protected geographical indication. Brazil, Peru and Ecuador may eventually support deeper individual pages. For now, one honest regional article gives readers more context than eight introductions padded with universal claims about antioxidants and “unique terroir”.
Brazil: an old industry in the Vale do Ribeira
Brazil is the most substantial historical tea story in the remainder of the Americas. Its core is the Vale do Ribeira in São Paulo state, especially Registro. The city has held the legal title “Capital Estadual do Chá” since 1984 and is also recognised as a landmark of Japanese colonisation. Those identities belong together: Japanese immigration was central to the crop’s commercial development in the region.
Earlier Portuguese experiments with Chinese tea plants did not create a durable industry. The decisive phase came in the twentieth century. Registro’s public history associates Torazo Okamoto with planting Assam-type material brought from Sri Lanka, and the municipality eventually hosted dozens of factories. Much of the output was a commodity black tea for export and blending rather than a prestige loose-leaf origin sold under the name Brazil.
The industry then contracted sharply. São Paulo’s legislative assembly describes tea as important in the 1970s and 1980s, followed by decline from the 1990s as foreign competition increased. Bananas and palm hearts now matter more to Registro’s agriculture. FAOSTAT’s 2,011 tonnes of fresh leaf in 2024 confirm that production survives, but at a fraction of Argentina’s scale.
Survival does not mean one uniform model. Registro’s current municipal pages list the long-running Amaya business, with black and green products, alongside Chá Obaatian. The latter is a tiny family project: Ume Shimada and her daughter restored an old plot in 2014 and built a small factory for hand-picked, artisan black tea. It is a valuable example of heritage becoming traceable tea, but it should not be presented as representative of every Brazilian kilogram.
| Aspect | Documented picture | Caution |
|---|---|---|
| Main historic region | Vale do Ribeira, especially Registro in São Paulo state | “Brazilian tea” does not identify a particular farm |
| Historical model | Export-oriented black tea, shaped by Japanese immigrant enterprise | Past factory counts are not current operating counts |
| Current scale | 2,011 tonnes of fresh leaf in FAOSTAT for 2024 | Fresh leaf is not the weight of dry tea |
| Traceable small-batch example | Chá Obaatian, restored and made by the Shimada family in Registro | Artisan scale should not be inflated into a national renaissance |
Ecuador: Palora’s Amazonian estate, with a statistical warning
Ecuador has the largest non-Argentine number in the 2024 table, but it also has the weakest data flag among the larger rows. FAO imputed 10,235.23 tonnes rather than publishing an official submission. The responsible wording is therefore “FAOSTAT’s imputed value”, not “Ecuador produced exactly 10,235.23 tonnes”.
The underlying industry is nevertheless real and identifiable. It is centred on Palora in Morona Santiago, on the Amazonian side of the Andes. The municipal government traces the Compañía Ecuatoriana del Té, or CETCA, to 1964. Its history records an initial planting of about 500 hectares and a processing plant whose workforce helped shape the settlement that became Palora.
Palora’s current tourism portal still lists CETCA as an operating tea plantation and agroindustry, saying it exports most of its output to markets in the Americas and Europe. That provides strong evidence of continuity, but the municipality’s promotional percentage is not a substitute for audited company accounts. Nor does one estate prove a national flavour profile. Origin claims should name Palora, CETCA and the actual product when possible.
Peru: Huyro tea and cooperative rebuilding
Peru’s best-documented tea landscape lies in Huayopata district, La Convención province, Cusco. The name Huyro appears as a locality, a cooperative identity and a tea brand. This is a warm, lower-elevation valley, not a plantation on the cold high plateau suggested by the word “Andean” alone.
Tea once occupied important areas of La Convención and supported a network of cooperatives. A 2013 regional ordinance declared the Central de Cooperativas Té Huyro No. 43 part of Cusco’s regional agroindustrial heritage and recognised the Huayopata valley as a traditional production zone for aromatic Huyro tea. The same ordinance ordered studies and legal work towards origin certification. It did not itself grant a protected denomination of origin, so a retailer should not claim one without a later registration.
More recent public investment shows a living, if small, chain. In 2021 Peru’s agriculture ministry described 42 families in the Cooperativa Agraria de Agricultores Huyro moving from raw-leaf supply into filtered and bulk tea after installing a processing plant. The project cost S/947,000, with S/662,000 co-financed through Agroideas. A Huayopata municipal resolution dated 23 June 2026 approved the final accounting for another project improving black- and green-tea processing at Asociación de Agroindustrias Té Huyro.
Those facts make Peru more than a ghost line in an old production table. They also define the honest scale of the story: cooperative recovery, local processing and black and green tea—not a new global powerhouse. FAOSTAT reports 2,029.85 tonnes of fresh leaf in 2024 as an official figure.
Bolivia: old bushes, renewed artisan production
Bolivia offers one of the most encouraging current stories because named producers can be matched to the national data. FAOSTAT reports 1,201.02 tonnes of fresh leaf in 2024. In July 2026 Bolivia’s Ministry of Tourism and Cultures documented artisan teas from Caranavi in La Paz department and from Cochabamba.
At Caranavi, the family behind Té de Montaña says its parents worked with Chinese cooperation from 1980 to rehabilitate tea fields. Commercial sales began in 2019, and the family now makes loose green and black tea from plants grown around 1,500 metres. In Cochabamba, growers planted Japanese material in 1999 and formed Agroté, associated with the Té Chapare name. When collective leaf collection stopped in 2024, one family continued through Té Brotes de Infusiones de Mi Tierra, making green, black and white teas.
The ministry reported competition results for these makers, but an award is evidence about the entered lots, not every Bolivian tea. The more important point is continuity: old plantings are being processed as named, loose-leaf products rather than surviving only as an aggregate statistic.
Colombia: Bitaco changes the logic from commodity to origin
Colombia’s reported volume is the smallest in the 2024 South American table—225.75 tonnes of fresh leaf—but its tea is among the easiest to identify by estate. Agrícola Himalaya grows tea at Bitaco in Valle del Cauca, in a misty Andean landscape near La Cumbre. A university case study documented about 51 hectares under tea in the middle of the last decade and described it as Colombia’s only commercial tea plantation.
The company historically supplied the domestic market under the Hindú name, including broken tea for bags. Its Bitaco line deliberately shifted the proposition towards origin: hand-plucked, loose-leaf, orthodox tea from the estate. The current company site lists organic certification in Colombia, the European Union and the United States as well as Rainforest Alliance certification. Those schemes are not interchangeable, but the named certifications are much more useful than the unsupported word “sustainable”.
Bitaco demonstrates why production rank is a poor proxy for interest. Colombia is tiny by volume, yet a garden name, a location, a processing choice and current traceability give readers more to work with than a much larger anonymous row.
Central America: Guatemala, El Salvador and Panama
Guatemala: the Q’eqchi’ tea cooperative at Chirrepec
Guatemala’s tea story is unusually concentrated. Near Cobán in Alta Verapaz, the Chirrepec cooperative grows, processes and sells black tea under the Té Chirrepeco name. A 2026 field study describes it as the sole black-tea producer in the region and documents domestic and international distribution. It also records the transition from a plantation established under German ownership in the early twentieth century to continued cultivation by the local Q’eqchi’ community and its connection with the cooperative federation Fedecovera.
That history matters. Chirrepec is not merely an exotic garden planted to entertain visitors. Black tea is a productive activity, a cooperative asset and the basis of a community-run tea tour. University work from Guatemala likewise describes the cooperative’s core activities as planting, harvesting and marketing black tea.
FAOSTAT’s 539.21-tonne value for Guatemala in 2024 is estimated, so it should not be used to infer the cooperative’s exact crop. The named operation and the national number are complementary pieces of evidence, not two measurements of the same thing.
El Salvador and Panama
FAOSTAT estimates 672.73 tonnes of fresh tea leaf for El Salvador in 2024, slightly more than its Guatemala estimate. Yet current public documentation does not reveal an operating Camellia sinensis estate with the clarity available for Chirrepec. Search results are easily confused by coffee-leaf infusions, cascara and herbal “teas”. Until a present-day garden and factory can be verified, the national row should be reported as an estimate—not embellished into a tasting profile or producer directory.
Panama appears in older regional tea tables, including a 2012 snapshot used in an Argentine presentation to FAO, but its 2024 crop-dataset entry is blank and flagged as missing. That is a useful warning against copying historical production lists into the present tense. A dormant field, discontinued factory or old estimate is part of history, not automatic proof of a tea currently on the market.
The United States: real gardens, no national-scale industry
The old RealiTea page treated the United States as though it had a coherent national terroir and were on the verge of becoming a celebrated global origin. The evidence supports a more interesting and modest conclusion: the country has several real tea gardens, but they form a dispersed specialty sector rather than a nationally significant commodity crop.
The clearest large garden is on Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina. The state agriculture department lists Charleston Tea Garden as a Bigelow-owned operation with 127 acres of Camellia sinensis, a factory, tours and tea sold directly. This is firm evidence for South Carolina-grown tea. It does not make the Pacific Northwest a recognised tea region, and it does not justify one flavour description for every US-grown lot.
Hawai‘i represents a different model. University of Hawai‘i research traces repeated cultivation trials and concluded that high costs make commodity competition difficult while specialty tea can make sense. The islands’ growers have worked with green, black and oolong styles, often at small scale and with hand processing. The study’s farm count dates from 2011 and should not be recycled as a current total; its economic conclusion remains the useful part.
Research and commercial experiments also continue elsewhere. A 2023 US Department of Agriculture grant funded Louisiana State University work on soil, shade and selective harvesting, including a commercial farm at Amite. USDA research has also examined California tea germplasm. These projects show serious agronomic interest, not proof of an imminent mass industry.
| Place | Documented role | Responsible conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | Charleston Tea Garden, 127 acres, factory and direct sales | An established commercial garden, not a proxy for the entire country |
| Hawai‘i | Long-running university research and small specialty production | Premium positioning is more plausible than commodity-scale competition |
| Louisiana | Current university field research involving a commercial tea farm | An emerging crop and research site, not yet a national production centre |
| Other states | Individual farms and experimental plantings exist | Verify the grower, harvest and current availability lot by lot |
Canada: a cold-climate garden, not a production statistic
Canada supplies the cleanest example of a micro-origin that a national dataset can miss. Westholme Tea Company grows Camellia sinensis in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island. British Columbia’s government described the project as an experimental tea planting in 2011; the company now identifies itself as Canada’s first commercial organic tea grower and sells limited Canadian harvests. Its site also advertises a 2026 garden-tour season, providing current evidence that the planting remains active.
Westholme also imports tea and creates blends, which makes label reading essential. “Blended in Canada” and “Canadian company” do not mean Canadian-grown leaf. Look for a specific Canadian harvest or Cowichan Valley origin. The small crop is interesting precisely because it is scarce; it should not be inflated into a Canadian tea industry comparable with Ecuador or Brazil.
A regional map of very different tea economies
| Origin | Named centre | Main model | Evidence strength in 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | Registro and the Vale do Ribeira | Contracted legacy industry plus small heritage makers | Official production and current municipal producer documentation |
| Ecuador | Palora, Morona Santiago | Estate and export factory | Current municipal documentation; national volume is imputed |
| Peru | Huyro and Huayopata, Cusco | Cooperatives and publicly supported processing | Official production, regional law and projects through 2026 |
| Bolivia | Caranavi, La Paz; Cochabamba and Chapare | Rehabilitated fields and family-scale artisan tea | Official production and named current makers |
| Colombia | Bitaco, Valle del Cauca | Single estate, domestic brand and premium origin line | Official production, university work and current producer evidence |
| Guatemala | Chirrepec, Alta Verapaz | Q’eqchi’ cooperative, black tea and community tourism | Current field study and university documentation; national volume estimated |
| El Salvador | Not clearly identified in current public sources | Estimated national production | Statistical evidence stronger than producer traceability |
| United States | South Carolina, Hawai‘i and scattered farms | One established larger garden plus specialty and research projects | Strong garden-level evidence; no 2024 FAOSTAT country row |
| Canada | Cowichan Valley, British Columbia | Very small cold-climate specialty garden | Current producer and historical provincial evidence; no FAOSTAT row |
Why Mexico, the Caribbean and most countries are absent
A regional article should not turn every climate that can keep a tea bush alive into a commercial origin. Camellia sinensis may grow as an ornamental, in a botanical collection or in a private experimental plot without producing a marketable crop. Imported tea may be flavoured, blended or packed locally and acquire national branding without becoming locally grown tea.
The 2024 FAOSTAT crop data contain no tea-leaf rows for Mexico, the Caribbean, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela, Guyana or the countries of Central America other than Guatemala and El Salvador. That does not prove the botanical absence of every tea bush. It means there is no basis in this dataset for presenting those countries as national producers. A future named farm can be added when there is evidence of current harvest and processing.
Tea, mate, cascara and herbal infusions are not the same crop
The language of the Americas makes this distinction especially important. Spanish té and Portuguese chá are used casually for many infusions. A packet can therefore say “tea” in everyday speech while containing no tea plant. RealiTea uses tea for beverages made from Camellia sinensis and tisane or infusion when a different plant supplies the leaf, flower, fruit, bark or seed.
| Drink or label | Plant | Tea in the strict sense? |
|---|---|---|
| Black, green, white, oolong or dark tea | Camellia sinensis | Yes; the processing families differ mainly through manufacture |
| Yerba mate or chimarrão | Ilex paraguariensis | No; it is a caffeinated South American holly infusion |
| Cascara | Dried fruit around the coffee seed, usually Coffea species | No; it is a coffee-fruit infusion |
| Coffee-leaf “tea” | Leaves of Coffea species | No; the word tea describes the brewing method informally |
| Lemongrass, hibiscus, mint or rooibos | Several unrelated plants | No; these are herbal or botanical infusions |
Yerba mate is not an inferior substitute to be corrected into tea. It is a major drinking culture across the Southern Cone and an important crop especially in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. It simply should not be counted as Camellia sinensis output. Our guide to tea and tisanes explains the vocabulary in more detail.
There is no single “American tea flavour”
The old USA article offered national tasting notes. A two-continent guide makes that mistake even more obvious. A mechanically harvested Brazilian black tea, a steamed Bolivian green tea, an orthodox Colombian black tea and a hand-made Canadian micro-lot differ in leaf standard, cultivar, season, field conditions, oxidation, heat and particle size. Continental latitude cannot compress those variables into one cup.
Even a named country is too broad. “Peruvian tea” does not reveal whether the leaf came from Huyro, whether it was made as black or green tea, or how long it has been stored. “American Classic” can be a product name, but “American” alone does not identify a state or garden. Taste the lot in front of you, and use origin as a question rather than an answer.
| Variable | Question to ask | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Leaf material | Bud and young leaves, mature leaf, or mechanically cut hedge? | Changes chemistry, tenderness and the maker’s processing options |
| Manufacture | Black, green, white, oolong, broken or orthodox whole leaf? | Creates the processing family and much of the aroma and structure |
| Harvest and storage | Which season and year, and how was the dry tea packed? | Freshness can matter more than an evocative origin paragraph |
| Garden and cultivar | Is either named and traceable? | Allows meaningful comparison between lots and years |
| Brewing | How much leaf, what water, temperature and time? | A strong extraction can hide differences or manufacture bitterness |
How to buy genuinely American-grown tea
The greatest practical problem is not finding a company in the Americas that sells tea. It is establishing where the leaf grew. The United States, Canada, Brazil, Colombia and every other country discussed here also import tea. A local address may identify the blender, packer, distributor or retailer rather than the farm.
| Wording | What it usually establishes | What to ask next |
|---|---|---|
| “Grown and made at [garden]” | A specific field-to-factory origin claim | Harvest date, style, cultivar and certification where relevant |
| “100% [country]-grown tea” | A national leaf-origin claim | Region, producer and whether all ingredients share that origin |
| “Made”, “crafted” or “blended in [country]” | Where blending or packing occurred | Country of origin of the tea leaf |
| “American”, “Amazonian” or “Andean” | Possibly a brand story or broad geography | Exact country, garden and ingredient list |
| “Organic”, “fair” or “sustainable” | Nothing specific unless a standard and scope are named | Certifier, certificate status, covered site and covered ingredient |
Whole leaf is not automatic proof of local origin or quality. Neither is a picturesque farm image. Look for a garden, cooperative or factory name that can be matched to the packet. A transparent broken black tea is more informative than an anonymous large leaf accompanied by a romantic map. Our beginner’s guide to loose-leaf tea gives a practical foundation for evaluating what is actually in the bag.
How to taste a flight across the Americas
A useful flight compares production models, not flags alone. Choose three or four plain, unflavoured teas with explicit leaf origins: perhaps a Brazilian or Ecuadorian legacy-industry black tea, a Huyro or Bolivian cooperative tea, Chirrepeco or Bitaco, and a United States or Canadian micro-lot. If a verified tea is unavailable, leave the place out rather than substituting a blend merely packed there.
| Style | Leaf and water | First infusion | Adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fine or broken black tea | 2.5 g per 250 ml; 95–100°C | 2–3 minutes | Shorten before reducing leaf if dryness arrives too quickly |
| Orthodox whole-leaf black tea | 3 g per 250 ml; 90–95°C | 3–4 minutes | Add leaf for body before extending an already bitter brew |
| Green tea | 3 g per 250 ml; 75–85°C | 2 minutes | Lower temperature when heat obscures sweetness and aroma |
| White or lightly oxidised artisan tea | 3–4 g per 250 ml; 85–90°C | 3–5 minutes | Open leaves may need more leaf or time; follow the maker first |
- Cover the packets and taste blind before reading promotional flavour notes.
- Record leaf size, liquor colour and clarity, aroma, body, bitterness, astringency and finish.
- Reveal the processing style before the country. Ask whether manufacture explains more than geography.
- Then reveal garden, country, harvest and price. Note which claims are documented and which are adjectives.
- Serve mate or cascara only as a separate botanical comparison, not as another tea sample.
Do the rest of the Americas justify tea coverage?
Yes—collectively. The remainder of the Americas produced only about 4.5% of the region’s reported fresh tea leaf in 2024, so volume alone would make eight country articles repetitive. A regional guide reveals the more important pattern: similar bushes survive in an industrial export remnant, an Amazonian estate, Andean cooperatives, an Indigenous community enterprise, a premium Colombian garden and cold-climate micro-farms.
Individual pages should follow evidence, not a publishing checklist. Brazil may justify a deeper history of Japanese immigration and the Vale do Ribeira. Huyro could support a focused article if current producers, lots and local voices can be documented. Colombia’s Bitaco estate is already a strong single-garden story. The United States is better served here than by a national page filled with promises of a coming boom.
The future is likely to remain split. Labour and processing costs make it difficult for small North American farms to compete with global commodity tea. Older Latin American industries face factory, market and renewal pressures. Their opportunity lies in different places: reliable bulk supply where infrastructure remains, and traceable specialty tea where a buyer will pay for careful plucking, manufacture and a named origin. Climate suitability starts the garden; it does not write the business plan.
The best conclusion is neither “the Americas do not grow tea” nor “a great new tea continent is emerging”. Argentina is a major producer. Several smaller countries maintain real industries. A handful of gardens make rare specialty lots. Each deserves the scale of language that its evidence can carry.
Sources and further reading
- FAOSTAT: Crops and livestock products, 2024 “Tea leaves” production values and data flags.
- FAOSTAT bulk-data catalogue, dataset description, file and update date for the production series.
- Legislative Assembly of São Paulo: Registro, tea capital of the state (2023), including Japanese immigration and industry contraction.
- Municipality of Registro: products made in Registro, including current descriptions of Chá Amaya and Chá Obaatian.
- Municipality of Registro: rural tourism and Chá da Obaatian, including the Shimada family’s restoration of the tea plot in 2014.
- Municipality of Palora: history of CETCA and the settlement.
- Municipality of Palora: current CETCA tea-plantation listing.
- Peru’s Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation: Huyro cooperative processing project (2021).
- Cusco Regional Ordinance 051-2013, recognising Huyro’s agroindustrial heritage and traditional production zone.
- Municipality of Huayopata: Resolution 109-2026, black- and green-tea processing project at Té Huyro.
- Bolivia’s Ministry of Tourism and Cultures: current producers in Caranavi and Cochabamba (14 July 2026).
- Agrícola Himalaya: current Bitaco origin and certification information.
- Universidad Icesi: Agrícola Himalaya sustainability case study (2016), including estate and tea-area context.
- Field study of community-based ecotourism in Guatemala (2026), including current research at Chirrepec and its Q’eqchi’ cooperative history.
- Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala: Cooperativa Agrícola Integral Chirrepec (2015), including its black-tea activities.
- South Carolina Department of Agriculture: Charleston Tea Garden, including ownership, acreage and current visitor information.
- University of Hawai‘i: Hawai‘i-Grown Tea, a market feasibility study (2011), including the crop’s history and specialty-market economics.
- USDA: 2023 Specialty Crop Block Grant projects, including tea research and a commercial farm in Louisiana.
- Westholme Tea Company: current Canadian-grown tea and 2026 garden information.
- Government of British Columbia: Vancouver Island experimental tea planting (2011).
- Kew Science: Camellia sinensis.
- Kew Science: Ilex paraguariensis, the yerba-mate plant.
- Argentine government: the yerba-mate plant and drinking tradition.