Page 10
The Willner Window Product Reference Catalog, Autumn, 2013
since 1911
• Willner Chemists •
the nutritional supplement professionals
CRN Says New Study On
Omega-3 Conclusions Are
Overblown
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 11, 2013—In
response to a new study, “Plasma
Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer
Risk in the SELECT Trial,” published yester-
day online in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, the Council for Responsible
Nutrition (CRN), the leading trade association
representing the dietary supplement industry,
today issued the following statement:
Statement by Duffy MacKay, N.D., vice
president, scientific and regulatory affairs,
CRN:
“The numerous benefits of omega-3 fatty
acids from foods (like salmon and sardines)
and dietary supplements are well-established
for men and women in all stages of life—and
this new study does not change those recom-
mendations about the importance of this
nutrient. Hundreds of studies over the past
two decades have shown omega-3 fatty acids
to have positive effects associated with car-
diovascular health, perinatal health, inflam-
mation, cognitive function, or cancer.
Collectively, this body of research serves as
the basis for numerous recommendations
from respected organizations, scientific
boards and healthcare practitioners that
Americans get omega-3 fatty acids in their
diets.
While we encourage researchers to contin-
ue to study omega-3 fatty acids with an open
mind, it is counterproductive when studying
nutrition for researchers to promote their
study as if it were the only piece of research
that counts. In this case in particular, it is
especially disingenuous for the researchers to
make the kinds of assertions we’ve seen in
the press, given their results are in stark con-
trast to previous epidemiologic studies1 that
not only demonstrate no correlation between
omega-3 consumption through fish and/or
supplementation and the risk of prostate can-
cer, but in many cases also showed a protec-
tive effect against prostate cancer.
Further, the researchers were quick to
blame dietary supplements even though
there is no evidence that anybody in this
study took fish oil dietary supplements. In
fact, the study demonstrates no cause and
effect; it can only purport to show an associ-
ation between higher plasma levels of
omega-3 fatty acids and those whom the
researchers advise had an increased rate of
prostate cancer.
One should also consider whether this
study could have simply been measuring a
biomarker reflecting recent intake of fish or
fish oil supplements in a group of high risk
cancer patients that had been told to
increase their EPA and DHA levels, as com-
pared to a group of non-cancer patients that
had not been told to consume more EPA and
DHA. Plasma levels of EPA and DHA reflect
very recent intake and are considered a poor
biomarker of long term omega-3 intake
especially when compared to red blood
cell levels, which reflect medium term
intake. A single fish oil dose (or hearty
serving of fish at lunch) results in >100
percent increase in plasma omega-3 lev-
els. So looking at plasma levels in
healthy and sick people may only pro-
vide insight into the recent habits of
these individuals.
Additionally, the study’s conclusions
are also limited by the fact that the
study was not designed to evaluate the
question the researchers sought to con-
firm.
The American Heart Association, the
World Health Organization (WHO), the
U.S. Institute of Medicine’s Food Nutrition
Board (IOM FNB) and the 2010 Dietary
Guidelines all have current policies advising
Americans to eat more fatty fish to get the
benefits of omega-3 fish oils. It is highly
unlikely this one study will change that
advice. Omega-3s can also be obtained by
taking one of the many supplement products
on the market. For those consumers who
have concerns about prostate cancer or other
questions about omega-3 fatty acids, we rec-
ommend speaking with your doctor or other
healthcare practitioner.”
1 References:
Berquin IM, Min Y, Wu R et al. Modulation
of prostate cancer genetic risk by omega-3
and omega-6 fatty acids. J Clin Invest 2007;
117: 1866–75
Wang MT, Honn KV, Nie D.
Cyclooxygenases, prostanoids, and tumor
progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2007; 26:
525–34
Terry P, Lichtenstein P, Feychting M,
Ahlbom A, Wolk A. Fatty fish consumption
. . . continued on page 14
inappropriate to attempt to draw “cause and
effect” conclusions from observational stud-
ies. Here is an example. Suppose we are
back in the 1600's and we are trying to figure
out what causes gout. We analyze the data,
and observe that people who live in big
houses, wear wigs, and ride in fancy carriages
are at much higher risk of gout than people
who live in shacks and can’t afford a horse.
So we call gout a “rich man’s disease,” and
conclude it is caused by large houses! . . . or
wearing wigs! We now know, of course, that
it was the high intake of meat and alcohol,
not the large house. This is the problem with
drawing conclusions about cause and effect
from “observational” studies.
•The study looked at omega-3 blood lev-
els. It did not look at fish, fish oil, or fish oil
supplement intake. And the differences
between “high” and “low” blood levels were
relatively small–about 0.2%! All within the
“normal” range! These are pretty big conclu-
sions to base on such a small difference. We
do not even know if the men took supple-
ments. So is it really appropriate for the lead
author to make the statement "We've shown
once again that use of nutritional supple-
ments may be harmful." This implies a strong
anti-supplement bias, and raises questions
about the authors objectivity.
•A dose of common sense: If it was true
that higher blood levels of EPA and DHA led
to increased risk of prostate cancer, you
would naturally expect to see high incidence
of prostate cancer in men living in those
countries where seafood represents a large
portion of the diet. In Japan, studies have
shown the opposite.
For those of you who would like a more
detailed critique of this recent study, here are
several detailed and informative responses:
OQOQO
Proventive Nutritional