Last
week, Canadian researchers published a paper that dismayed nutrition and fisheries
experts alike.
Weirdly,
the Canadians concluded that the health benefits of omega-3s are "insufficiently
substantiated" to justify added pressures on fish stocks and render it irresponsible
for doctors and others to recommend fish oil supplements (Jenkins DJ et al. 2009).
As
they wrote, "Our concern is that fish stocks are under extreme pressure globally
and that studies are still urgently required to define precisely who will benefit
from fish oil."
We
certainly share their concern about overfishing, but their conclusions lack credibility.
To reach them, one must ignore or mischaracterize the available evidence, which
demonstrates two things:
1.
Most of the beneficial impacts of supplemental fish oil are broadly applicable.
2.
Even sharply increased use of fish oil supplements will not necessarily imperil
fish stocks.
Let's
begin by addressing the Canadians' assertion that the benefits of fish oil are
"overdramatized" and that doctors and others shouldn"t recommend
fish oil based on current evidence.
Fish
oil benefits based on sound research
The
Canadian team, led by David Jenkins, MD, of the University of Toronto, wrote that
fish oil benefits are "overdramatized."
This
odd comment implies that expert medical bodies worldwide have exaggerated the
positive impacts of fish oil on heart and brain health.
The
heart benefits of fish oil are endorsed by the American Heart Association and
virtually every heart-health agency in the world. And the AHA felt no need to
make any distinctions, except to recommend that people with diagnosed cardiovascular
disease take at least 1000mg of fish oil per day.
Second,
the mental health benefits of omega-3s
from fish oil were endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association in 2007, based
on substantial evidence.
To
be sure, the body of evidence that prompted these recommendations rarely reaches
the level required of prescription drugs - though some of the cardiovascular studies
meet or closely approach FDA drug-approval trial standards.
In
fact, one (chemically modified) fish oil supplement very high in omega-3 EPA (and
very low in DHA) already is an FDA-approved triglyceride-lowering "drug."
(Note:
This is not because the high-EPA product in question is proven superior, compared
with any standard fish oil containing the same amount of EPA. The only real difference
is that its maker was able to afford the hugely costly clinical trials needed
to gain FDA approval as a drug!)
Instead,
the health benefits of fish and fish oil stem primarily from very large amounts
of positive epidemiological evidence (diet-health surveys), backed by voluminous
lab research and a relatively modest (compared with some prescription drugs) but
substantial body of clinical trial results.
We
invite Dr. Jenkins and company to reconsider the medical literature that persuaded
so many official authorities, and peruse a compelling report lead-authored by
clinical psychiatrist Joe Hibbeln, MD, of the NIH, and world-renowned fatty acid
researcher William E. Lands, PhD, which strongly correlates higher fish intake
(and lower omega-6 fat intake) with reduced rates of major disease.
In
cogent comments provided to trade publication NutraIngredients, Dr. Lands
noted that the need for fish oil would be less were Americans to stop over-consuming
the omega-6 fats in common vegetable oils and the processed and takeout foods
made with them:
"Ironically,
the call for 'responsibility' in the face of [overfishing] pressures is irresponsibly
ignoring massive molecular pressures that current omega-6 intakes are making on
the ability of omega-3 fats to maintain healthy balances in our cells and tissues."
He
went to say, "Unfortunately, the impact of excessive omega-6 intakes and
actions on our personal tissue microenvironments is being ignored by some well-intentioned
scientists concerned about the macro-environment. If we just lowered the current
flood of omega-6 fats, sustainable amounts of omega-3 fats could manage our health."
We
couldn"t agree more!
While
it makes sense to eat fish or take fish oil even if your diet is lower in omega-6
fats than average, very small amounts of omega-3s can have big benefits when your
diet isn"t awash in excess omega-6s.
"Alternative"
omega-3 sources can't cut it
The
Canadians suggested using alternative sources of omega-3s to ease the pressure
on fish stocks.
Omega-3
fatty acids come in two distinctly different forms, which differ greatly in their
ability to enhance human health.
The
two kinds of omega-3s occur in two different groups of foods:
Short-Chain
"Green" Omega-3s (Alpha Linoleic Acid or ALA): Leafy green veggies
such as spinach, walnuts, flaxseed, and canola oil, and foods fortified with ALA.
Long-Chain
"Marine" Omega-3s (EPA and DHA): Oceanic and fresh-water foods
such as fish, shellfish, and algae, and eggs from hens fed extra DHA.
Experts
agree that the long-chain "marine" omega-3s found in fish and fish oil
are far more potent and beneficial to human health.
This
is why the FDA-approved heart-health claim for omega-3s applies only to foods
or supplements that contain long-chain omega-3s, extracted from fish or algae.
Just
last week, the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL)
- the premier scientific association in this field - confirmed that plant-derived
ALA offers far less nutritional value than marine omega-3s.
The
Canadians" suggested alternatives included algal-sourced DHA, as well as
short-chain ALA from plant sources:
"Until
renewable sources of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids - derived from plant, algae,
yeast, or other unicellular organisms - become more generally available, it would
seem responsible to refrain from advocating to people in developed countries that
they increase their intake of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids through fish consumption."
(Jenkins DJ et al. 2009)
But
as we've just said, plant-source omega-3s just aren't the same, and while DHA
from algae is fine, people get more benefit from fish oil, which contains both
of the two key long-chain omega-3s: that is, omega-3 EPA as well as omega-3 DHA.
We
know that EPA and DHA have distinct effects and roles, with complementary interactions
likely.
Virtually
all of the evidence that establishes the benefits of omega-3s comes from studies
involving fish or fish oil rich in both of these omega-3s.
And
there is no basis to assume that plant-form omega-3s or manipulated fish oils
with grossly unbalanced EPA-DHA proportions " that is, supplements consisting
mostly or exclusively of EPA or DHA " are just as good.
Sustainability
concerns? Real, but not imminent
The
UN Food and Agriculture Organization just released its annual report, which concludes
that 27 percent of the fisheries they assessed are over-harvested or fully depleted.
But
it is clear that for the foreseeable future, demand for fish oil is unlikely to
place any fisheries at risk.
In
contrast, most fish oil comes from small wild "bait" fish, with an increasing
share coming from farmed salmon.
More
than 80 percent of the fish oil in supplements comes from regulated and apparently
sustainable anchovy, sardine, and mackerel fisheries in Peru, Chile, and Morocco.
And
the fish oil used in supplements accounts for only about six percent of the
oil extracted from fish in these fisheries, with the remainder going into
industrial applications and to feed farmed salmon.
This
means that sales of supplemental fish oils could grow 15-fold or more before raising
sustainability concerns.
We
agree with a blog entry by Environmental Defense Fund scientist Tim Fitzgerald,
posted recently in response to the Canadian study:
"To
provide a secure supply of seafood for future generations, recommendations for
consuming fish and fish oil must weigh the proven benefits of omega-3's against
the harm done to ocean ecosystems from taking unsustainable quantities of fish
from the sea."(Fitzgerald T 2009)
We
were gratified to read his recommendations, which support our wild Alaskan Salmon
Oil: "Fish (and fish oil) lovers weighing these questions on a personal level
can help by choosing sources that are fished or farmed responsibly, that are high
in omega-3s and low in environmental contaminants 'sablefish (aka black cod),
wild Alaskan salmon, sardines' and West Coast albacore tuna are some
of the choices that are safe to eat and safe for the environment." (Fitzgerald
T 2009)
Our
fish oil comes from wild Alaskan sockeye salmon: a certified-sustainable fishery.
The
sustainable-fishery origin of our whole, unrefined Vital Choice Sockeye Salmon
Oil is certified by the respected Marine Stewardship Council, based on ongoing
chain-of-custody audits.
Standard
fish oil is chemically distilled to remove contaminants, and "deodorized"
at high temperatures to remove rancid elements.
But
our gently processed, unrefined oil is naturally pristine, and certified safe
and pure by the world-renowned NSF labs.
Vital
Choice oil also presents the natural blend and proportions of fatty acids and
other lipids in salmon fat "we'd rather not mess with the natural "formula"
that makes salmon so healthful!
Editor's
note: We
consider organic whole foods from both plant and animal kingdoms to be a major
key to superior health. We also think it's terribly important to eat fish at least
twice a week to get the essential fatty acids. Here at our house, we only eat
wild Alaskan salmon and other wild seafoods from our friends at Vital Choice.
Click here
to visit Vital Choice Seafood.
Sources
Fitzgerald
T/Environmental Defense Fund. Is Eating Seafood Regularly Really Such a Good Thing?
March 27, 2009. Accessed online at http://sustainablog.org/2009/03/27/environmental-defense-fund-is-eating-seafood-regularly-really-such-a-good-thing/
Jenkins
DJ, Sievenpiper JL, Pauly D, Sumaila UR, Kendall CW, Mowat FM. Are dietary recommendations
for the use of fish oils sustainable? CMAJ. 2009 Mar 17;180(6):633-7. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081274
Click
Here to
share this page with your friends, website visitors, ezine readers, social followers
and other online contacts.
Disclaimer:
Throughout this website, statements are made pertaining to the properties and/or
functions of food and/or nutritional products. These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and these materials and products
are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.