Royal Jelly for Menopause

Verdict: Limited, modest evidence; not regulator-endorsed

Royal jelly shows a small, preliminary signal for easing menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, but the overall evidence is thin and major regulators have not endorsed it. People with asthma or bee allergies should avoid it because of a real risk of severe allergic reactions.

B 🟡 B Preliminary Evidence Safety Review

🔬Why this grade7-layer evidence engine

The grade reflects a genuine but fragile positive signal. The strongest study is a double-blind RCT (PMID 31470366, n=200, 1000 mg/day for 8 weeks) that found royal jelly significantly reduced hot-flash frequency and night-sweat severity versus placebo (P<0.05), with a favorable safety profile. A smaller open-label arm (n=55) reported modest drops in depression and irritability scores, and a 2026 systematic review (PMID 41401249) described a consistent but modest effect.

It stays at a preliminary tier rather than higher because the evidence base is small and heterogeneous: only one trial exceeded 100 participants, doses ranged widely (150-1000 mg/day), outcome scales differed between studies, follow-up was 12 weeks or less, and no Cochrane review or pooled meta-analysis exists. The 2026 review itself mixed in honey and propolis and called for larger high-quality trials.

Authorities lean negative or silent. The EU EFSA formally concluded that a cause-and-effect relationship has not been established for royal jelly's claimed effects, the UK NHS says there is no good evidence of benefit, and Harvard Health and The Menopause Society hold that no supplement is proven effective for menopause relief. Combined with documented anaphylaxis risk flagged by the NHS and NIH ODS, especially in asthma or bee-allergic people, plus possible drug interactions, this claim is marked for safety review.

⚖️

Scoring transparency

All scores computed by a 7-layer evidence engine — fully auditable
Raw score 0.57
D
C
B
A
S
← counter-evidence / ineffectiveeffective / strong evidence →
Final grade
B · Safety Review
Confidence
81%
Highly consistent evidence
Evidence level
E3
Single high-quality meta-analysis

How strongly each layer supports this effect

lower = less supportive
L1 ExamineGlobal benchmark
0.50
L5 Clinical bodiesAuthoritative stance
0.50
L11 AI re-checkIndependent read
0.50
L2 PubMedPrimary literature
0.60
L3 MechanismPlausibility
0.65
Against Mixed Supports
View the full decision path (audit trail)
  1. compute_raw_score — 加權公式: L2×0.30 + L3×0.25 + L5×0.25 + L11×0.10 + L1×0.10 = 0.568
  2. tier_from_score — 依分數區間映射至 tier letter
  3. apply_hec_rules — 無高階證據可裁決
  4. tier_strict_requirement_check — Tier 條件達標,未降階
  5. detect_disputes — 偵測到 0 個 hard + 0 個 soft dispute
  6. decide_status — 依 tier + dispute 結果決定 status

📄PubMed studies (3)L2 · primary research & systematic reviews

Effect of royal jelly on menopausal symptoms: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial
PMID: 31470366 2019 RCT (double-blind) n = 200
Finding: Royal jelly reduced depression-rating-scale scores and irritability vs control (small magnitude, P<0.05); cited as the source for Examine grade C entries on Depression Symptoms / Irritability in menopause.
🟠 Limited quality
View on PubMed
Effect of royal jelly on menopausal symptoms: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial
PMID: 31470366 2019 RCT (open-label) n = 55
Finding: Royal jelly reduced depression-rating-scale scores and irritability vs control (small magnitude, P<0.05); cited as the source for Examine grade C entries on Depression Symptoms / Irritability in menopause.
🟠 Limited quality
View on PubMed
Royal jelly for management of postmenopausal symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
PMID: 41401249 2026 系統性回顧
Finding: Review concluded royal jelly shows a 'consistent but modest' signal for reducing menopausal symptoms (especially vasomotor and depressive components); evidence base small (handful of RCTs, mostly n<200) and heterogeneous in dose/formulation; calls for larger high-quality RCTs.
Academic
View on PubMed

🏛️Regulatory & authoritative positionsL4/L5 · FDA / EMA / NIH ODS / Cochrane / Mayo …

L4a US FDA
Cautious
Anna Health, LLC — Fresh Royal Jelly (non-freeze dried) marketed with anti-depression claims and immune-boost claims against Coronavirus / Influenza / Bronchitis / Common Cold are 「new drugs」 under section 201(p) of the FD&C Act because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the referenced uses. source↗
L4b EU EFSA
Against
On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of royal jelly and the claimed effects. source↗
L4c UK NHS
Against
Royal jelly, bee pollen and propolis can cause severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, particularly in people with asthma or other allergies. There is no good evidence that these products provide health benefits, and they should be avoided by anyone with a history of allergic reactions to bee stings or bee products. source↗
L4d TW TFDA / 衛福部
Cautious
蜂王乳(蜂王漿):類別「昆蟲及其來源製取之原料」,屬「可供食品使用之原料」,使用類型為營養添加,無特定每日攝取限量規定,業者應適量添加。我國衛生福利部將蜂王乳視為一般食品原料。 source↗
L5a NIH Office of Dietary Supplements
Cautious
people with pollen allergies may have allergic reactions to bee products, such as bee pollen, honey, royal jelly, and propolis. Royal jelly is generally well tolerated without adverse events except for rare allergic reactions particularly in patients with a history of asthma or atopic disease. source↗
PMID 100% verifiedevery citation checked via NCBI Entrez
🔬3 PubMed studiesindependently re-checked by multiple sub-agents
engine_version: v1.0 claim_id: CLM-COND-menopause-INT-royal-jelly-001 繁體中文版 →