Posted by Larry Hoover on January 11, 2005, at 10:43:33
In reply to Re: ConsumerLab.com reviews fish oils » Larry Hoover, posted by Jakeman on January 10, 2005, at 23:41:11
> So I guess one could surmise (if their tests are accurate) that fish oil is no more contaminated with mercury or PCB'S than tap water or most anything else that people ingest?
>
> JakeThat's a pretty fair summary statement. Here's an excerpt from something I wrote previously:
"One of the most important aspects to interpreting data as reported in that fish study is to consider the context in which they are collected. For example, dietary exposure to PCBs and dioxins is continuously falling (in general terms), and has been falling for at least two decades. It is revealing to find that eggs and grain in 1982 (Britain) had similar levels of PCBs and dioxins as do fish today, and that historically, daily intake via different foods was quite similar between e.g. meat, fish, milk, eggs, and grain. See:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fsis38_2003.pdf, and refer to the tables at the end of the article. (The British government seems to be a tad more diligent in analyzing and publishing data than are North American administrations. For more, see:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/surveillance/ ) The take-home points are: a) *all* food is contaminated by POPs ; and, b) contamination levels are falling over time.Now, as all food is contaminated, but fish oil confers health benefits, the good outweighs the bad in all ways you can think of.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:440363
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050101/msgs/440618.html