General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

FDA restriction on fish oil in foods

Started by Hua Kul · · Last activity · 7 posts · 382 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
12 October 2004
Last activity
22 October 2004
Original author
Hua Kul
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
382
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The FDA has published a rule listing maximum levels of menhaden oil
    that it will allow to be used in commercial foods. (Menhaden is a
    bony fish harvested for it's oil content). The goal is to limit total
    EPA/DHA intake to no more than 3g/person/day. They list three main
    reasons for this restriction; "possible adverse effects of fish oil
    consumption on bleeding time, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol."
    Does anyone know of any group of peer-reviewed studies that would
    indicate these problems can be caused by taking more than 3g per day
    of EPA/DHA?

    ======================================================================
    As part of FDA's evaluation of GRASP 6G0316, FDA examined the
    scientific literature for evidence that consumption of fish oils may
    contribute to excessive bleeding. In the June 1997 final rule, FDA
    concluded based on this examination of the scientific literature,
    including more than 50 reports on fish oils with data on bleeding
    time,
    that when consumption of fish oils is limited to 3.0 g/p/d or less of
    EPA and DHA, there is no significant risk for increased bleeding time
    beyond the normal range (62 FR 30751 at 30752 to 30753). FDA also
    concluded that amounts of fish oils providing more than 3.0 g/p/d of
    EPA and DHA have generally been found to produce increases in bleeding
    time that are statistically significant, but that there are
    insufficient data to evaluate the clinical significance of this
    finding. Therefore, because of the lack of data on clinical
    significance and because of the potential risk of excessive bleeding
    in
    some individuals with intakes at higher levels, FDA concluded that the
    safety of menhaden oil was generally recognized only at levels that
    limit intake of EPA and DHA to 3.0 g/p/d.
    FDA also concluded in the June 1997 final rule that 3.0 g/p/d of
    EPA and DHA is a safe level with respect to glycemic control (62 FR
    30751 at 30753). This conclusion was based on FDA's review of a series
    of studies on non-insulin-dependent diabetics. Studies on type-II
    diabetics that reported increased glucose used higher amounts (4.5 to
    8
    g/p/d) of omega-3 fatty acids. One study found no change in fasting
    blood glucose levels among type-II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetics
    treated with 3.0 g/p/d EPA plus DHA for 2 weeks. Two other studies
    that
    used 3.0 g/p/d EPA plus DHA for 6 weeks and 2.7 g/p/d EPA plus DHA for
    8 weeks found only transient increases in blood glucose halfway
    through
    their respective supplementation periods. Another study that used 3.0
    g/p/d EPA plus DHA for 3 weeks found comparable increases in fasting
    blood glucose when either fish oil or safflower oil was fed, so the
    increase cannot be attributed specifically to omega-3 fatty acids. A
    study that compared the effects of fish oil and olive oil fed 3.0
    g/p/d
    of EPA plus DHA did not find a difference in fasting glucose or
    glycosylated hemoglobin after fish oil supplementation compared to
    baseline; they did find a significant difference compared to the olive
    oil treatment, which produced changes in the opposite direction from
    fish oil. Based on its evaluation of the available information, FDA
    concluded in the June 1997 final rule that consumption of EPA and DHA
    in fish oils at 3.0 g/p/d by diabetics has no clinically significant
    effect on glycemic control, although higher amounts of EPA and DHA
    (4.5
    g/p/d and above) remain of concern.
    The June 1997 final rule also considered the reported effects of
    fish oil on LDL cholesterol levels in healthy persons with normal
    cholesterol levels, as well as in persons with diabetes mellitus,
    hypertension, abnormal blood lipid levels, and cardiovascular disease
    (62 FR 30751 at 30753 to 30754). As a result of its evaluation, FDA
    found that although reported study reports are variable, there appears
    to be a trend toward increased LDL cholesterol values with increased
    fish oil consumption in all population subgroups, with the magnitude
    of
    the increase appearing greater and more consistent in populations with
    abnormal blood lipid levels, hypertension, diabetes, and
    cardiovascular
    disease. Based on its evaluation, FDA concluded that 3.0 g/p/d of EPA
    and DHA is a safe level with respect to LDL cholesterol.
    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-811.htm
    ============================================================================

    --Hua Kul
    [email hidden]

  2. "Hua Kul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The FDA has published a rule listing maximum levels of menhaden oil
    that it will allow to be used in commercial foods. (Menhaden is a
    bony fish harvested for it's oil content). The goal is to limit total
    EPA/DHA intake to no more than 3g/person/day. They list three main
    reasons for this restriction; "possible adverse effects of fish oil
    consumption on bleeding time, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol."
    Does anyone know of any group of peer-reviewed studies that would
    indicate these problems can be caused by taking more than 3g per day
    of EPA/DHA?

    I do appreciate that the government is trying to be cautionary, but I
    disagree with the premises themselves.

    1. About bleeding time. All the standardization data for
    bleeding/coagulation norms were collected after the Western diet was already
    transformed by substantial changes in the omega-6:omega-3 ratio. The
    diseases of Western culture include disorders which indicate that abnormal
    clotting is taking place (e.g. occlusive stroke, emboli, heart attack). To
    conclude that increasing omega-3 intake leads to an unhealthy disruption in
    clotting parameters does not adequately consider the possibility that they
    are actually being made normal. It also fails to address the possibility
    that normalizing the influence of omega-3 fats on clotting tendencies might
    uncover a hidden dietary defect which otherwise reduces clotting (e.g.
    vitamin K deficiency).

    2. The glycemic control data are not consistent in different studies.
    Subject selection bias is an obvious confound. Generalizing to other
    populations from a defined glucose-regulation-disordered group (e.g. type 2
    diabetics) is rather presumptuous.

    3. Cholesterol, same as with glucose.

    I can speak to my personal experience. Since supplementing with fish oils
    (which did not exceed the threshold mentioned in the advisory), my blood
    pressure has dropped by about 15 points, both systolic and diastolic. My
    total cholesterol has increased, while the LDL:HDL ratio has substantially
    shifted in favour of HDL. A familial tendency to glycemic dysregulation has
    not appeared in my body, in any case.

    To exceed the 3 gram/day threshold would take a bit of work, but I haven't
    found any evidence that would make me overtly concerned if anyone did. That
    said, some individuals may need to tailor their diet according to
    idiopathic/idiosyncratic characteristics.

    Lar

  3. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:24:34 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:

    some individuals may need to tailor their diet according to
    idiopathic/idiosyncratic characteristics.

    Hence the advice?

  4. "Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:24:34 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:

    some individuals may need to tailor their diet according to
    idiopathic/idiosyncratic characteristics.

    Hence the advice?

    Which would only apply to certain exceptional individuals. You cannot apply
    statistics to individuals. No, I take that back. You can fallaciously apply
    statistics to individuals. The exception is called that for a reason.

    Lar

  5. On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:14:30 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:


    "Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:24:34 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:

    some individuals may need to tailor their diet according to
    idiopathic/idiosyncratic characteristics.

    Hence the advice?

    Which would only apply to certain exceptional individuals. You cannot apply
    statistics to individuals. No, I take that back. You can fallaciously apply
    statistics to individuals. The exception is called that for a reason.

    So the statistic that 99.99% of humans have 2 eyes is irrelevant to
    the individual? Surely it depends what you do with stats?

  6. "Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:14:30 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:


    "Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:24:34 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    >some individuals may need to tailor their diet according to
    >idiopathic/idiosyncratic characteristics.

    Hence the advice?

    Which would only apply to certain exceptional individuals. You cannot
    apply
    statistics to individuals. No, I take that back. You can fallaciously
    apply
    statistics to individuals. The exception is called that for a reason.

    So the statistic that 99.99% of humans have 2 eyes is irrelevant to
    the individual? Surely it depends what you do with stats?

    Actually, it is irrelevant. The individual either has two eyes, or not. The
    outcome is binary, and does not include 99.99% as a possible outcome.
    Whether others do (or not) is not generalizable to the individual case.

    Lar

  7. On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:21:40 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:


    "Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:14:30 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    <[email hidden]> posted:

    Quoted message said:


    "Dunne E. Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:24:34 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
    > <[email hidden]> posted:
    >
    >>some individuals may need to tailor their diet according to
    >>idiopathic/idiosyncratic characteristics.
    >
    > Hence the advice?

    Which would only apply to certain exceptional individuals. You cannot
    apply
    statistics to individuals. No, I take that back. You can fallaciously
    apply
    statistics to individuals. The exception is called that for a reason.

    So the statistic that 99.99% of humans have 2 eyes is irrelevant to
    the individual? Surely it depends what you do with stats?

    Actually, it is irrelevant. The individual either has two eyes, or not. The
    outcome is binary, and does not include 99.99% as a possible outcome.
    Whether others do (or not) is not generalizable to the individual case.

    Lar

    So I could be regarded as normal (not unusual) if I had three eyes?
    You are getting bogged down in the minutia of one use of this stat.
    That 99.9% of humans have 2 eyes is terribly predictive of what an
    unknown human will have. As I said, it is what you do with the stats.
    You can't prove that an unknowen human will have 2 eyes from this
    stat, but you sure can predict the likelihood.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.