Take a walk through a supermarket in any wealthy nation and the promise of omega-3 health benefits screams off products from bread to milk to juice. But are consumers getting the superfood they paid for?
“Consumers don’t understand what it is,” Vivian Tysse, sales manager with Norwegian fish-oil producer Denomega, said at a health ingredients trade show in Paris this month.
Processed foods labeled with nutritious omega-3 fatty acids can contain anything from Peruvian anchovy oil, Norwegian cod liver oil, micro algae produced in vats, or prairie flaxseed.
Added to other foods, omega-3 pledges to deliver the health benefits of fish oil without its smell or taste. And scientific literature links the acids to cardiovascular protection and generally better heart, brain and eye health.
But the nutrition industry says there is continuing confusion around the additives.
Unless cleared up, the world will continue to face “a high risk of chronic disease that costs health care systems trillions of dollars,” said Adam Ismail, executive director of the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3 (GOED).
According to GOED, a trade group based in Salt Lake City, “omega-3” is a blanket term that misleads consumers because it refers to three separate fatty acids — EPA, DHA and ALA — which do not perform in the same way.
While in most countries ALA (alpha-linolenic acid), which is derived from plant sources such as flaxseed, can be labeled “omega-3,” it does not carry the same nutritional punch as EPA and DHA.
EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) are longer chain fatty acids derived from marine sources such as oily fish, while DHA can also be taken from micro algae.
“Consumers don’t really get the difference, but it’s EPA and DHA that your body really needs,” said Ian Lucas, executive vice-president of innovation and strategy at Ocean Nutrition Canada, an omega-3 fish-oil producer.
Nutritional balance can be achieved by eating about two portions of oily fish, containing both EPA and DHA, per week, according to Tysse.
“But people don’t eat enough fish,” said Tysse of Norway, so omega-3 added foods are “the next best way.”
Producers of omega-3 fish oil hail Sweden’s recent decision to essentially ban use of the term “omega-3” on food packaging meaning food manufacturers there will now have to specify which of the three fatty acids their product contains.
EAT MORE FISH
“Consumers need to be informed and make their own choice,” said Philip Fass, executive director of industry and commercial relations at Martek Biosciences Corporation, a US manufacturer of oil from micro algae rich in DHA.
Martek has avoided some of the omega-3 confusion by branding its ingredients as “Life’s DHA” on major food brand labels from Yoplait to Minute Maid.
But if consumers are confused, the industry itself offers little clarity.
Contrary to the message issued by fish-oil producers, Martek for instance claims DHA works alone as a nutrient. “We believe that DHA supplies all the health benefits you need,” said Fass.
Meanwhile suppliers of plant-derived omega-3s claim their ingredients are more appealing to consumers and safer than fish products.
Fish-oil producers counter that contaminants found in fish are sifted out of the oil and that new technologies such as micro-encapsulation — which turns fish oil into a long lasting powder — have removed obstacles of putting fish oil into food.
“Now you can put fish oil into food without affecting the taste,” said Lucas.
The fish-oil industry upholds its product as having an optimum ratio of EPA/DHA, mirroring the traditional oily fish diet that Danish researchers in the 1970s attributed to a low incidence of coronary heart disease among the Inuit.
That discovery paved the way for research into omega-3 and a booming global industry, where fish-oil producers say that by reaching into more and more food brands they can return an essential building block to human nutrition.
“We’re not adding something to the diet, but giving it back,” said Tysse, while admitting consumers might not be clear as to exactly what they are getting back.
Behind a car repair business on a nondescript Thai street are the cherished pets of a rising TikTok animal influencer: two lions and a 200-kilogram lion-tiger hybrid called “Big George.” Lion ownership is legal in Thailand, and Tharnuwarht Plengkemratch is an enthusiastic advocate, posting updates on his feline companions to nearly three million followers. “They’re playful and affectionate, just like dogs or cats,” he said from inside their cage complex at his home in the northern city of Chiang Mai. Thailand’s captive lion population has exploded in recent years, with nearly 500 registered in zoos, breeding farms, petting cafes and homes. Experts warn the
No one saw it coming. Everyone — including the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — expected at least some of the recall campaigns against 24 of its lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) to succeed. Underground gamblers reportedly expected between five and eight lawmakers to lose their jobs. All of this analysis made sense, but contained a fatal flaw. The record of the recall campaigns, the collapse of the KMT-led recalls, and polling data all pointed to enthusiastic high turnout in support of the recall campaigns, and that those against the recalls were unenthusiastic and far less likely to vote. That
A couple of weeks ago the parties aligned with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), voted in the legislature to eliminate the subsidy that enables Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) to keep up with its burgeoning debt, and instead pay for universal cash handouts worth NT$10,000. The subsidy would have been NT$100 billion, while the cash handout had a budget of NT$235 billion. The bill mandates that the cash payments must be completed by Oct. 31 of this year. The changes were part of the overall NT$545 billion budget approved
The unexpected collapse of the recall campaigns is being viewed through many lenses, most of them skewed and self-absorbed. The international media unsurprisingly focuses on what they perceive as the message that Taiwanese voters were sending in the failure of the mass recall, especially to China, the US and to friendly Western nations. This made some sense prior to early last month. One of the main arguments used by recall campaigners for recalling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers was that they were too pro-China, and by extension not to be trusted with defending the nation. Also by extension, that argument could be
RSS