![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jakeman on January 10, 2005, at 21:06:38
Their website states that the tested fish oils had "safe levels" of mercury and PCB's, which is not exactly "free" of contaminants. I wonder what is considered to be a safe level. Does anyone have the full report?
-Jake----------------------
FISH OIL SUPPLEMENTS APPEAR FREE OF CONTAMINANTS
by January Payne
Washington Post
A survey of 41 brands of omega-3 fish oil supplements found they do not contain mercury and polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs) --two contaminants found in many species of fish high in omega-3 fatty acids.
Mercury contamination is especially problematic for pregnant women.
"The good news is that none of the products were contaminated, so the supplements appear safer than many popular (types of) fish," said Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com, a White Plains, N.Y.-based group that evaluates health and nutrition products.
"Contaminants are generally found not in the oil but in the meat of the fish," Cooperman said.
Studies show that omega-3 fats may help lower blood pressure and prevent heart attack and stroke.
ConsumerLab.com picked 17 popular brands of fish-oil supplements to test; 24 other makers paid to have products tested.
Not all the supplements measured up. ConsumerLab.com examined the amount of two principal fatty acids in each product. Two of the 17 popular brands -- products made by Health From the Sun and EHP -- contained just over half the claimed amount of the studied ingredients. A third, made by Garden of Life, was spoiled.
The full report is available only to ConsumerLab.com subscribers. A free summary appears at www.consumerlab.com/results/omega3.asp.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 10, 2005, at 22:35:12
In reply to ConsumerLab.com reviews fish oils, posted by Jakeman on January 10, 2005, at 21:06:38
> Their website states that the tested fish oils had "safe levels" of mercury and PCB's, which is not exactly "free" of contaminants. I wonder what is considered to be a safe level. Does anyone have the full report?
> -JakeThe website said, "None of the products contained detectable levels of mercury, nor unsafe levels of PCBs."
The limit of detection for mercury is about 0.1 ppb, and none was detected. Therefore, there must be less than that, in any brand of fish oil. Metals do not dissolve in oil. It's that simple.
All foods are contaminated with PCBs. Organic vegetables are contaminated. Your McDonald's hamburger is contaminated. Milk, eggs, wheat flour..... You can't avoid PCBs, not matter what you do. If you're especially concerned, by a brand like Carlson's or Eskimo, that have those toxicants removed.
Lar
Posted by Jakeman on January 10, 2005, at 23:41:11
In reply to Re: ConsumerLab.com reviews fish oils » Jakeman, posted by Larry Hoover on January 10, 2005, at 22:35:12
> > Their website states that the tested fish oils had "safe levels" of mercury and PCB's, which is not exactly "free" of contaminants. I wonder what is considered to be a safe level. Does anyone have the full report?
> > -Jake
>
> The website said, "None of the products contained detectable levels of mercury, nor unsafe levels of PCBs."
>
> The limit of detection for mercury is about 0.1 ppb, and none was detected. Therefore, there must be less than that, in any brand of fish oil. Metals do not dissolve in oil. It's that simple.
>
> All foods are contaminated with PCBs. Organic vegetables are contaminated. Your McDonald's hamburger is contaminated. Milk, eggs, wheat flour..... You can't avoid PCBs, not matter what you do. If you're especially concerned, by a brand like Carlson's or Eskimo, that have those toxicants removed.
>
> LarI thought you might help put things in perspective. I broused the site again and came across this:
"To achieve a "Pass" in the testing a product must meet the following criteria:
Contain 100% and not exceed 150% of the claimed amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA;
Have a peroxide value (PV) of no more than 5 meq/kg, an anisidine value (AV) of no more than 20, and a TOTOX value of no more than 26 (calculated as (2 x PV) + AV) (CRN Monograph Recomendation); Contain less than 0.1 ppm of mercury (CRN Monograph Recomendation);
Contain less than 0.09 mg/kg (ppm) of Total PCBs (sum of four non-ortho PCBs and eight mono-ortho PCBs). (CRN Monograph Recomendation);
If tested for dioxins (sum of 17 individual dioxin congeners), contain no more than 2 TEF/g (expressed in World Health Organization (WHO) toxic equivalents as WHO-toxic equivalent factors (TEFs). (CRN Monograph Recomendation)"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?
Jake
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
Posted by Jakeman on January 11, 2005, at 20:46:26
In reply to Re: ConsumerLab.com reviews fish oils » Jakeman, posted by Larry Hoover on January 11, 2005, at 10:43:33
> > 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?
> >
> > Jake
>
> That'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.
>
> LarThanks Lar for all the information. The tables are especially interesting. I think now I have a better comfort level about taking fish oils in significant quantities on a regular basis. And it's heartening (no pun intended) to know that these pollutants have been rapidly declining in recent years due to government intervention in addition to changes in industry practices.
To your health- Jake
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.