2 Comments to “Omega-3 USA Today Article”

1. Kina Robeson Says:
   

   November 13th, 2007 at 11:38 am

   Patrick I also saw that article. It was a little shocking to me. As a health foody enthusiast I think it’s important that people eat a balanced diet. It shouldn’t be a matter a one shot magic bullet. Realistically people aren’t going to eat Salmon every day, many consumers may not even be able to affor Salmon or have access to the right type of Salmon that the article suggest. By infusing meals with various foods that give part of all of the Omega suggested daily amount, things like a Kashi frozen pizza or Mission foods Tortilla or making a sandwich with Pepperide farm bread, which are all fortified with flax and then maybe having fish for dinner makes getting omega 3s a lot easier and tastier!

2. Patrick Rea Says:
   

   November 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

   Adam Ismail, the Executive Director of GOED (www.goedomega3.com) send me a response to the USA Today article. Please enjoy his expert analysis.

   This is a good article overall, but there are some fundamentals that I think should be qualified. For one, the boom in the number of products making omega-3 claims has not necessarily been driven by studies showing omega-3s help prevent fatal heart attacks. If this were true we would see a similar boom for other products that does not exist. The real growth has come from a growing awareness of omega-3s as an essential nutrient in the diet. They are versatile enough that companies can tailor the positioning of products to specific health benefits like heart health or brain development, but they are also used frequently as just a general wellness ingredient.

   Really for the market to continue to grow, the education efforts focused on consumers need to be even more sophisticated. This means clearer labeling so that EPA and DHA are called out separately and establishing a Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) for EPA and DHA. In addition, it means further scientific consensus is needed on what the right level of EPA and DHA is for chronic disease prevention. This article references a 500mg per day recommendation, but does not mention that this is only a derivation of the recommendation the American Heart Association for heart-related issues, but other expert groups have recommended between 120mg and 650mg per day for general health. It is difficult to draw conclusions on whether or not products have sufficient levels when there is scientific disagreement on what is the right amount.

   Finally, there is often talk that compared to supplements, which typically deliver 300mg of EPA and DHA or more per dose, that foods are an ineffective source of omega-3s. It is important to note when having such discussions that many of the levels have been set in foods using a rationale that industry has not argued about in other nutrients. The FDA has strict criteria about how much of a nutrient must be in a product to make “good source” and “excellent source” claims on nutrients, which I believe are 15% and 30%, respectively, of the recommended intake. The rationale for this is that consumers should not generally be getting 100% of their needs from a nutrient from a single product because they will be eating various foods over the course of a day that will likely also provide more of that nutrient. This is the same logic that applies to the maximum limits on vitamins in the EU on supplements, but is instead applied to minimum levels for making claims here. It is not a coincidence that food products mostly contain 30-32mg of EPA and DHA per serving in the US, this is because three companies filed petitions with the FDA to make source claims, and the FDA did not respond within the required timeframe, so the claims essentially went into effect.

   Rather than blame industry for most of these problems, as the article implies, a more practical solution is to try to get the FDA and/or IOM to clarify their recommendations and guidelines. At least there are some positive signs here. The FDA actually asked the Office of Management and Budget to approve for public comment a rule that clarifies the source claim issue, but OMB is still working on this and as of yet it has not been published. Also, the FDA is working on clarifying the process for nutrition labeling and having daily values for nutrients on labels, but as most people in this industry know, that is a process that takes many years to finalize.

Leave a Comment