Fish oil or snake oil?

Hmmm. Since I take one of the supplements listed in this lawsuit, I thought I'd do some calculations.

Turns out that the company does list the level of PCBs on the label (less than 0.09ppm). Taking 2 capsules per day gives a maximum of 2.16e-7 g per day of PCBs. I went looking at state and FDA advisories about eating fish. Eeek. Calming my fears, I find that Pennsylvania (and other great lakes states) recommends that you eat only one meal per week of fish with .06ppm to .21ppm of PCBs. That one meal is calculated as an 8 oz filet, which at .09ppm would give you 2.03e-5 g PCBs. That's per week, the per day exposure would be 2.9e-6 g PCBs. Thats more than an order of magnitude greater than the exposure from my daily dose of fish oil capsules.

So, my question is, given that PCBs are nasty things, how do you figure out what to eat? Bioaccumulation is notoriously complicated; it depends on what species of fish, how long it lives and how old the one you're eating is, where it fed, what it's metabolism was like during its life ... all things that you will never be able to find out about the fish on your plate. Well, except the species. Sometimes.

My point is that the uncertainty about exposure from "I'll just eat fish" is far greater than that from taking a supplement.

As my calculations show here, at least with these capsules I have a claim (true, it comes from the manufacturer) of the maximum level of PCBs I'm ingesting. I can do some calculations and figure out my exposure. It's less by far than the health guidelines for eating fish of (at least) one state health department.

On the other hand, I really like eating fish, so I do that to. Oh well.

Just hit up Pubmed on this: from one study

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf900462p

Quote: "Our analysis revealed that the relatively more volatile and lighter organic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and other smaller organohalogen compounds, were still present in two brands of "PCB-free" cod liver oils, albeit at much lower levels than in an untreated commercial sample. Moreover, the less volatile organic compounds, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers and brominated HNPs, were detected at similar levels in all three cod liver oils. This suggests that the commercial molecular distillation treatment used for removal of organic/inorganic toxic contaminants is only effective for the lighter organic contaminants."

Do you have a suggestion for how to find solid information about other supplements? I take two, both plant-based, both on my doctor's recommendation (cranberry and flax seed oil). The flax particularly is a largish dose. Of course, I take them because they work (don't you wish you could placebo-effect yourself somehow?) but it would be nice to know more about any of these kinds of concerns since I'm looking at taking them long-term.

JMT: My advice is "everything in moderation." Eat a balanced diet. Most of what you read about supplements will be different in 5 years anyway. Your doctor may think of it as a placebo, too, but many supplements have biologically active ingredients and they are not well regulated. If you make multivitamins you are probably sending most of what you take out into the sewer system. It is just making your urine very expensive. Of course if you eat a lousy diet, you may have to supplement it. So don't eat a lousy diet.

More sales for "Dr." Mercola's krill oil! Has anyone bothered to test his products?

Anyway, I'm giving fish oil to my dog only because my vet told me to, and I'm giving him the brand, but not the specific products, that are at the top of the list (hey, it's cheap!).

You will soon start taking vitamin D supplements, which is actually a hormone, not a vitamin. Check your levels. Most of the benefits of fish oil are likely from the vitamin D contained therein.

It would be a bit more interesting if they had separated the brands by which fish they were made of. There's obviously going to be a difference in lipophillic contaminants in high trophic level shark for shark oil, compared to say fish oil made from planktivore menhaden.

Though like with seafood, proper and accurate labeling is a major issue in itself...

The tragedy is that "human" activity has blindly and now knowingly befouled so much that finding clean and natural food and water is nearly if not already impossible.

Relating to this, I still think that somehow the bee problems are related to GM pollens. Something new that confuses the immune system. An unintentional consequence, but a consequence.

I'll have my perchlorate on the side with the PCB please.

Supplement manufacturing is much better regulated than it used to be due to Good Manufacturing Practices. Supplement-making facilities undergo periodic inspections by FDA agents.

GMP Failures can be dealt with harshly.

According to some, The "Expensive Urine" claim doesn't make scientific sense.

I found this news article giving the supplement-makers' point of view:

Omega-3 suppliers hit back at âmisguidedâ Proposition 65 attack

This is regulatory failure on the part of the FDA. Note that the EU regulates PCBS and dioxins in fish oil down to a ridiculously low level of 10 pg/g toxic equivalent (A weighted sum of concentrations and toxicities), that is parts per trillion, BTW.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006R1881…

All you have to do is to run the oil through a charcoal filtration step. The people who sell fish oil supplements in Europe don't seem to have a problem with meeting these requirements at all. The US supplement industry is an unregulated mess, I would do very careful due diligence before putting any supplement in my mouth.

@Jeff about GMP, you're right, GMP ensures consistency of quality, and avoidance of gross safety violations. However, it is not designed to handle issues like the presence of trace levels of PCBs, dioxins, etc. GMP is more about good record keeping, cleanliness and following of standard operating procedures

@ The Olive Ridley, as the FDA's website makes clear, the GMP rules are about much more than "cleanliness":

"The rules ensure that dietary supplements are produced in a quality manner, do not contain contaminants or impurities, and are accurately labeled. Under the final rule, manufacturers are required to evaluate the identity, purity, strength, and composition of their dietary supplements. If dietary supplements contain contaminants or do not contain the dietary ingredient they are represented to contain, FDA would consider those products to be adulterated or misbranded.The aim of the final rule is to prevent inclusion of the wrong ingredients, too much or too little of a dietary ingredient, contamination by substances such as natural toxins, bacteria, pesticides, glass, lead and other heavy metals, as well as improper packaging and labeling. During an inspection, FDA has access to all the manufacturersâ records, including access to the country of origin of all supplement ingredients."

I don't agree that supplements are poorly regulated. There are clear rules aginst false or exaggerated claims for supplements, and it is a criminal offense to adulterate a supplement with a drug (like a steroid). Unfortunately the FDA has been negligent in enforcing these laws - they plead lack of funds. The problem is lax enforcement, not poor regulation. Nevertheless tens of millions of people take supplements daily with very few problems occurring.

Can't you just get your Omega-3's from flaxseed oil and or flaxseed meal and add DHA from an algae source??

" Nevertheless tens of millions of people take supplements daily with very few problems occurring."

And not much benefit, either.

I take a one-a-day kind of vitamin because I don't often eat a balanced diet. On the subject of omega3 fatty acids, a recent study at Texas A&M has found that they are present in good amounts in beef brisket. Texans eat more beef brisket (barbecued, of course) per capita, than people of any other state. The study suggested incorporating more beef brisket into hamburger to make it more healthful.

Martek produces DHA from genetically-engineered algae grown in large vats. The company supplies DHA and arachidonic acid to almost all of the infant formula manufacturers in the developed world thanks to its puriity. You can buy their product at the following site: http://store.martek.com/store/ . Unfortunately, they charge a fourfold premium to ordinary fish oil.

Flaxseed oil, (ALA), although a precursor to DHA, does not provide the same benefits as DHA or EPA because it must be converted by Delta-6 desaturase. This enzyme becomes impaired with age or medical conditions such as diabetes. In effect, those who need DHA/EPA supplementation the most simply do not see much improvement to their health with flaxseed oil.

As to the benefits of vitamin supplements, the problem of rapid excretion is avoided by taking a sustained release formulation. Trader Joe's offers various vitamins with this formulation at vary reasonable prices. The retailer also offers molecularly distilled fish oil at a fair price as well. I buy this brand of fish oil and count on my liver to clear any residual amounts of PCBs. That's what it's designed to do. According to hormesis theory, (please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/ ), and recent scienctific evidence, the residual PCBs may actually provide a net benefit!

The selection of products tested is kind of odd, in my opinion. Why compare a bunch of cod liver oils with shark liver oil (I didn't even know that one existed!) and 2 random fish-body oils? They're three different products that won't be used the same way.

Ummm... I am wondering. I seem to remember the Bush family owns the major fish oil tankers that go off shore and rape the baitfish schools. Atlantic menhaden is getting totally overfished to support fish oil capsules. This species is the forage fish for hundreds of other species... just thought I'd throw this in here.

Have you seen this? A very lovely graphic, based on the kind of information on supplements that I wish I could find more routinely. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/snakeoil-scientific-evidence…

Well, the GM foods and nano particle food packaging, not to mention food processing and factory farming in general introduce contaminants that are for the most part untested and unregulated, at least not in any meaningful way. Not to mention the pharmaceuticals and supplements.

We are really all guinea pigs at the mercy of Big Agribusiness and Big Pharma, and the regulators either came from these industries or plan to join them after retirement from their government job.

But if it tastes good and makes you feel good, eat it or drink it, and worry about the consequences later, we all end up in the same place no matter what we eat.

And if said contaminants make you sick (try proving it) and reduces life expectancy, well, hey, thats less SS payments and fewer folks on medicare. Win-Win for corporate government and neo-malthusians alike.

I don't get it. You're going to make health risk decisions based on this level of information? http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6491/p/salsa/web/press_release/publ…

I'm not going to assert that PCBs in fish oil are not a health risk (that has yet to be determined), but at the same time, I'm going to keep taking my fish oil supps. The only thing I'm convinced of is that the folks bringing forward the safe harbor suit have produced crap for a risk analysis.

I'm going to take a run at the safe harbor calculations, and I hope to produce something while this topic is still warm. Wish me luck (note to self - post comment then start in on the Merlot).

Surely the question that you should be asking is simply: "Is the level of PCBs in randomly selected samples of fish oil supplements higher, lower, or about the same as the level of PCBs in randomly selected samples of oily fish."

My guess would be "about the same"...

JLowe: That wasn't the point(s). The first point is that a balanced diet is better thah a supplement. The second is that the supplements are not well regulated and are themselves not necessarily benign. My response to you is if you want to make an accurate estimate of the health risks of PCB ingestion at those levels, "good luck." You don't have the information either, because we still don't understand the action of the many PCBs out there. If you are relying on TEFs, "double good luck." Lots of evidence they are faulty. Moreover fish have two AH receptors, each of whose function is yet unknown. Etc.

Ian: That is yet another question. See above.

Those are good cautions - thanks. The proponents of the safe harbor lawsuit are relying on the same set of information that fails to give us an understanding of the mode of action of most PCBs, as well as relying on the existing TEFs; if safe harbor levels are going to be calculated, those will use the TEFs that OEHHA (and EPA and WHO) have developed. What I would like to see get done is the homework that evidently hadn't been done before this got launched all over the internet. I don't have a lot of tolerance for how manufacturers of all sorts of products essentially treat the public as lab animals in a giant uncontrolled bioassay. However, I've grown exasperated with the environmental activist community, while well-intentioned, seems disinterested in either in telling the scientific story clearly, or in communicating the risks effectively.

Makes more sense to get the omega-3 from flaxseed anyway. It may be shown eventually that there are benefits from consuming quantities beyond what can readily come from diet, but if so, we don't want to strip mine the ocean for the stuff. Fortunately it isn't necessary.

Fish oil is safe and effective. For all of you who are being sucked into this whole fish oil media farce, here is a good alternative supplement. I donât think there are any PCBs in this product: http://www.natebloch.com/

Cordell,

Good information thanks for clarifying that.

You said:

"In effect, those who need DHA/EPA supplementation the most simply do not see much improvement to their health with flaxseed oil."

Do you know of any studies where anyone has seen definitive quantifiable improvement to their health by taking EPA or DHA?

glock, here's a study which shows the consequences of an american diet highly deficient in Omega-3s. It was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and estimates that in 2005, among other things, 84,000 died from not having enough Omega-3s in their diet:

The Preventable Causes of Death in the United States: Comparative Risk Assessment of Dietary, Lifestyle, and Metabolic Risk Factors

From the study:
"The mortality-reducing effects of omega-3 fatty acids...have been confirmed in randomized trials."

Jeff, thanks. A valuable endeavor with beneficial finding.
I guess my idea of what I'd like to see is real time results of the benefits, rather than postmortem data mining based on statistical probabilities

Like, "after x amount of supplemental x, RA patient x, regained or increased or reduced x by x without any other
medical or therapeutic intervention nor any other identifiable variables".

Jlowe: thanks for this: ". . how manufacturers of all sorts of products essentially treat the public as lab animals . . . However, I've grown exasperated with the environmental activist community, while well-intentioned, seems disinterested in either in telling the scientific story clearly, or in communicating the risks effectively." We can transfer this directly to the wind-turbine noise issue--one I'm concerned with politically ever since my rural home is endangered by a proposed WT site, or de facto testing ground experimenting with whether we residents one mile from the proposed site will find our health affected by the WT noise. In fact, much of Oregon, Wash., and several other states are part of this experiment, conducted, with major local, state, and certainly federal, taxbreaks/subsidies/"crisis"-fasttracking, etc., by such "green" multinational corporate WT manufacturers as GE, Vesta, etc. Of course, already their AWEA-funded "research" shows that (surprise, surprise) the 500' tall machines are nearly silent, just big npussycats. Sort of like in Maus, maybe.

I wonder if any distinction was made between manufacturers who participate in the IFOS program of Nutrasource Diagnostics and those who do not. I wonder also if anyone else thinks the report should be approached with any skepticism at all, given that it was funded, framed, and phrased by professional rhetoricians who are party to a lawsuit.

"However, I've grown exasperated with the environmental activist community, while well-intentioned, seems disinterested in either in telling the scientific story clearly, or in communicating the risks effectively." (JLowe | March 5, 2010 9:22 AM)

You know their intentions? Do you know mine?

Kralizec: You know their intentions? Do you know mine?

Good question. What are they?

I take a pharmaceutical grade fish oil supplement, originally to enhance pain relief in my knees, but I have later found out there are additional benefits such brain function (seem to have better concentration). The Omega 3 Fatty Acid in Fish Oil helps balance the high Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios found in the western diet that are thought to cause oxidative stress and the resultant inflammation and pain in joints.
The Associated Press came out with an article on contaminants found in Whales, which highlight the potential of toxins in all seafood. I posted the article here: http://myachingjointsandknees.blogspot.com/2010/06/toxic-contamination-…

If you don't take nutritional supplements, and I mean pharmaceutical grade supplements, not the off the shelf food grade variety (which are very poorly regulated), then you are really missing the boat. There are two GMP standards: food grade and pharmaceutical grade.

And remember the RDA was developed around 1940's to provide a minimum level of nutrients to avoid scurvy, ricketts and such.