Day: February 21, 2023

• A chemical process leaves many fish oil supplements lacking in actual EPA and DHA omega-3s

• Trans-esterification transforms most fish oil into a synthetic product that’s far removed from the natural fish oil you’d get when eating sardines or other fatty fish

• A class-action lawsuit filed against The Bountiful Company and its subsidiary Nature’s Bounty alleges consumers are being misled, as the supplements contain “not a single milligram” of the omega-3 fats found in fish

• In fish, DHA and EPA occur in the form of triglycerides, which are the most bioavailable; in most fish oil supplements, the omega-3 fats are in ethyl ester form

• Ideally, consume omega-3 fats by eating fatty, cold-water fish such as wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, anchovies, mackerel and herring; if you choose to use a supplement, krill oil provides a superior alternative to fish oil

Reading medical journals and following the mass media, it’s easy to get the idea that fish oil is something any sensible person should use. It’s rare to see anything suggesting that it could be dangerous.

The omega-3 fats, including those with long chains found in fish oils, are said to make babies more intelligent, to be necessary for good vision, and to prevent cancer, heart disease, obesity, arthritis, depression, epilepsy, psychosis, dementia, ulcers, eczema and dry skin.

Certain fish oil supplements contain “not a single milligram” of the omega-3 fats found in fish, according to a class-action lawsuit filed against The Bountiful Company and its subsidiary Nature’s Bounty.

As a result, people consuming these supplements in the hopes of gaining omega-3’s many beneficial effects may be being misled.

Wild-caught salmon, sardines and certain other fish are an excellent source of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), two omega-3 fats known for their role in brain health, heart health and more. It’s been shown, for instance, that eating fatty fish two to three times a week reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke.

However, because most Americans do not consume much seafood, many rely on fish oil supplements instead. But Nature’s Bounty fish oil contains no EPA or DHA, the suit alleges.

Fish oil is among the most popular supplements in the U.S. Globally, the fish oil market was valued at $1.9 billion in 2019, with estimates suggesting this will rise to $2.8 billion by 2027.

Many of these dollars may be wasted, however, due to a chemical process that leaves many fish oil supplements lacking in actual EPA and DHA. According to the suit, which was filed in September 2021:

“Defendants manufacture, label and sell a Product which they claim to be 1400 mg. of Fish Oil containing of 647 mg. of Eicosapentaenoic Acid (“EPA”) and 253 mg. of Docosahexaenoic Acid (“DHA”)—the essential omega-3 fatty acids that naturally occur in fish …

They also proudly claim that the contents are USP verified, which, among other things, assures consumers that the Product “contains the ingredients listed on the label, in the declared potency and amounts” … Contrary to what is represented on the label, however, this Product is not fish oil, nor does it contain a single milligram of EPA or DHA.”

The issue with most fish oil supplements is the chemical process used — trans-esterification — which transforms the oil into a synthetic product that’s far removed from the oil you’d get when eating sardines or other fatty fish. The suit explains:

“What was once a low-grade oil derived from fish offal, has been subjected to a chemical process by which its molecular structure and constituent parts have been substantially transformed and irrevocably altered into a synthesized product that does not otherwise exist in fish, or nature.

Through this chemical process, known as trans-esterification, an industrial solvent is introduced into the fish oil in order to break its natural triglyceride bonds and cleave the glycerol backbone from fatty acid molecules.

Thereafter, ethanol is introduced to which the newly freed fatty acids bond to form fatty acid ethyl esters. Fish oil is stripped of hundreds of its constituent sub ingredients, and the Omega-3s, which include DHA and EPA, are converted into ethyl esters.

Critically, these newly formed Omega-3s are different molecules than the Omega-3s which exist naturally in fish oil. The new chemical by-products are universally recognized by their common or usual name — Fatty Acid Ethyl Esters (“FAEE”).”

Dietary supplement labels should use the product’s common name in order to inform consumers of what they’re purchasing. But fish oil is trans-esterified, it becomes FAEE, the lawsuit alleges, and therefore can no longer be called fish oil on labels.

“To do so, as NBI [Nature’s Bounty Inc] has done, is false, misleading, deceptive, unlawful and perpetrates an actionable fraud on the consuming public,” according to the suit, which added, “Defendants falsely represented the fundamental nature of their product, and as a result of this false and misleading labeling, were able to sell these products to tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout New York and the United States.”

Nature’s Bounty and The Bountiful Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in February 2022. They denied that labeling their fatty acid ethyl esters “fish oil” was misleading and also suggested their label complies with federal law. In January 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields recommended granting the motion to dismiss, writing:

“If it has not already been made clear, the court states clearly here that there is nothing false about labeling the product as fish oil. Describing the product this way denotes nothing more than a statement of fact that the OM3’s [omega-3 fats] therein are derived from fish oil. It says nothing about the process by which crude fish oil makes its way to the OM3’s found in each capsule.

Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, argue that other supplements containing OM3’S derived from fish oil are properly named only if they are derived via a different process. All such products get their OM3’s from fish oil. To suggest that molecular differences between such products make a difference to a reasonable consumer is plainly implausible.”

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Michael Braun and Mai Kats, pushed back, urging the district court judge overseeing the lawsuit to not take Shields’ recommendation, stating:

“In short, under Second Circuit precedent, plaintiffs are entitled to proceed with their claim that when purchasing defendants’ product, they read the label and believed the product to be comprised of authentic fish oil — that is, oil 1) derived from pressing fresh fish and 2) containing both DHA and EPA.

Additionally, plaintiffs are entitled to show, through discovery and expert testimony, that reasonable consumers attribute a higher value to the marketed product — a clean product — than to the product they received, which is a lab-created, artificial concoction, comprised of intensely and chemically-processed fish waste (offal) that lacks both DHA and EPA and consists instead of unnatural ethel ester compounds found nowhere in any fish ever.”

While the judge suggested a “reasonable consumer” won’t care whether their omega-3 fats are in ethyl ester form, I’d suggest most will absolutely care — if they’re informed about the difference. In fish, DHA and EPA occur in the form of triglycerides,

which are the most bioavailable.

A triglyceride consists of a three-carbon molecule that forms a “backbone” for the fatty acids to latch onto. Each carbon molecule is linked to a fatty acid, so in total, a triglyceride is composed of three carbons bonded to three fatty acids. In most commercial fish oil supplements, however, the DHA and EPA are delivered in the form of ethyl esters.

Ethyl esters are essentially a synthetic substrate, created through the micro distillation process of crude fish oil, in which ethanol and/or industrial alcohol is added. This mix is heat distilled in a vacuum chamber, resulting in a concentrated omega-3 ethyl ester condensate.

Not only does this molecular distillation process remove vital resolvins and protectins that are important in reducing inflammation, but it also concentrates the EPA and DHA. You can tell the concentration of these two fats in any given supplement by looking at the label. In fish, the oil consists of 20% to 30% EPA and DHA, whereas purified fish oil concentrate typically contains between 60% and 85% EPA and DHA.

Most corporations produce ethyl ester fish oil because it’s far less expensive to produce than the triglyceride form. Ethyl esters are also easier to work with during processing, as they have a higher boiling point, which becomes important when the oils are heated and purified of environmental pollutants.

The problem with ethyl esters is they’re the least bioavailable form of omega-3. Manufacturers could convert them back into the triglyceride form by detaching the ethyl alcohol molecule and reattaching a glycerol molecule in a process known as re-esterification,

but most don’t because it’s so costly.

This is unfortunate, as your body metabolizes the triglyceride and ethyl ester forms differently, and this is when the issues arise. Since the glycerol backbone is missing in the ethyl ester form, the EPA and DHA will scavenge for available triglycerides or steal a glycerol molecule from somewhere.

One way or another, the fatty acids need to be converted back into triglyceride form or your gut epithelium will not be able to process them. When the ethyl ester form of EPA or DHA ends up stealing glycerol molecules, the molecule that lost its glycerol will then go searching for a replacement, creating a negative domino effect. Further, the fatty acids cannot be transported through your blood unless they’re in triglyceride form.

On the other hand, when you consume omega-3s in triglyceride form, the fatty acids are first separated from the glycerol backbone. All of the individual parts are then absorbed by gut epithelial cells, where they’re reattached to form triglyceride.

When you consume ethyl esters, they must be processed in your liver. There, the ethanol backbone is separated from the free fatty acids, and your body must then reattach the free fatty acids to glycerol to form triglyceride. Your liver must also process the ethyl alcohol, which may release free radicals and cause oxidative stress — the opposite of what you’re trying to achieve when you consume fish oil.

Many are aware of the fact that omega-3s are also PUFAs just like omega-6s that are so dangerous when consumed in excess quantities. But most don’t know that omega-3 fats are actually ten times more perishable than omega-6 fats and far more susceptible to oxidative damage. Fish oils are also generally much more immunosuppressive than omega-6 seed oils.

This is important to know because of all of the processing that occurs in processed fish oil. Invariably these highly perishable fats will be damaged and cause far more harm than good. I personally would never take processed fish oil in the ethyl ester form and strongly encourage you to seriously reconsider your choice if you are taking them.

Even if you were able to get unoxidized ethyl ester fish oils, absorption is also an issue. Free fatty acids of fish oil have an absorption rate of at least 95%. EPA in its natural triglyceride form had a 69% absorption rate in one study, while ethyl ester forms absorbed only about 20%.

Importantly, unstable molecules are also more prone to oxidative damage and thus rancidity, which means consuming synthetic fish oil could potentially cause more harm than good. As explained by Douglas MacKay, N.D., senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition:

“The potential negative health effects of consuming rancid fish oils have not been fully elucidated. However, it has been shown that oxidized by-products of polyunsaturated fatty acids, including DHA, are elevated in patients with neurodegenerative conditions.

The triglyceride structure is the natural “resting” state for lipid molecules. The inherent structure of three fatty acids attached to one glycerol backbone provides protection to the double bonds in the long-chain PUFAs from being exposed to free radicals.

An ethyl ester fatty acid, on the other hand, exists as a single strand, and is exposed on all sides to free radicals. Although there is little data that directly compares the stability of EE [ethyl ester] fish oils to TG [triglyceride] fish oils, such basic biochemistry suggests the superior stability of TG fish oils both inside a capsule or liquid as well as within the body.”

Ideally, it is best to get your omega-3 fats from whole-food forms. This includes wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, anchovies, mackerel and herring. If you choose to use a supplement, krill oil provides a superior alternative to fish oil.

Krill oil contains less EPA and DHA per gram of supplement than fish oil does. However, krill oil is more bioavailable as the EPA and DHA are bound in a phospholipid form, allowing you to take lower doses while still reaping similar results.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• In the most comprehensive assessment to date, ultraprocessed foods were associated with an increased risk of developing and dying from cancer

• Consuming more ultraprocessed foods was linked with a greater risk of developing any cancer, as well as ovarian and brain cancers specifically

• Consumption of ultraprocessed food was also associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer, including ovarian and breast cancers

• Each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food consumption was associated with a 6% increase in risk of cancer mortality overall, along with a 16% increase in risk of breast cancer mortality and 30% for ovarian cancer mortality

• The health risks of ultraprocessed foods are concerning enough that one researcher called for warning labels to be added to their packaging so consumers can make informed dietary decisions

Globally, 1 in 6 deaths is caused by cancer, an especially tragic statistic since it’s estimated that at least 50% of cancer causes are preventable.

One key risk factor you can modify to lower your risk? Diet, including intake of ultraprocessed foods.

In the most comprehensive assessment to date of the link between ultraprocessed food consumption and cancers, researchers from Imperial College London’s School of Public Health found these cheap convenience foods are linked to an increased risk of developing and dying from cancer.

Intake of ultraprocessed foods is on the rise worldwide. In the U.S. and the U.K., more than half of daily caloric intake comes from these junk foods.

What exactly are ultraprocessed foods (UPFs)? The Imperial College London researchers defines them as:

“… foods that are industrial formulations made by assembling industrially-derived food substances and food additives through a sequence of extensive industrial processes. UPFs contain little or no whole foods and are often energy dense, high in salt, sugar and fat, low in fiber, and liable to overconsumption.

They are aggressively marketed with strong brands to promote consumption and are gradually displacing traditional dietary patterns based on fresh and minimally processed food.”

The study involved data from the diets of 197,426 people between the ages of 40 and 69 years. Participants’ health was monitored for 10 years; the mean consumption of ultraprocessed foods was 22.9%.

Overall, consuming more ultraprocessed foods was linked with a greater risk of developing any cancer, as well as ovarian and brain cancers specifically. It was also associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer, including ovarian and breast cancers. Further:

• Each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food consumption was linked to a 2% increased incidence of cancer overall and a 19% increased incidence of ovarian cancer.

• Each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food consumption was associated with a 6% increase in risk of cancer mortality overall, along with a 16% increase in risk of breast cancer mortality and 30% for ovarian cancer mortality.

Study author Kiara Chang of Imperial College London’s School of Public Health said in a news release:

“The average person in the UK consumes more than half of their daily energy intake from ultra-processed foods. This is exceptionally high and concerning as ultra-processed foods are produced with industrially derived ingredients and often use food additives to adjust color, flavor, consistency, texture, or extend shelf life.

Our bodies may not react the same way to these ultra-processed ingredients and additives as they do to fresh and nutritious minimally processed foods. However, ultra-processed foods are everywhere and highly marketed with cheap price and attractive packaging to promote consumption. This shows our food environment needs urgent reform to protect the population from ultra-processed foods.”

The Imperial College London study was observational and therefore can’t establish a causal link. However, past research has revealed similar cancer risks. In one study, men who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods had a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than those who consumed the least.

Among subgroups of ultraprocessed foods, ready-to-eat meat, poultry and seafood products along with sugar-sweetened beverages were associated with increased colorectal cancer risk.

There are a number of reasons why ultraprocessed foods likely increase cancer risk, not the least of which is their link to other conditions that increase cancer risk, like obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Plus, ultraprocessed foods are nutritionally inferior to their fresh counterparts.

However, ultraprocessing a food also leads to “alteration of food matrices” that “results in degradation of food health potential and deterioration of nutrient bioavailability and bioaccessibility,” the researchers explained. Further:

“Emerging research has suggested other common properties of UPFs that may contribute to adverse cancer outcomes, including through the use of controversial food additives, neoformed contaminants during ultra-processing, and toxic contaminants migrated from food packaging.”

Phthalates and bisphenols-F are among the common endocrine-disrupting chemicals in ultraprocessed food packaging that have been linked to human cancers and DNA damage.

The health risks of ultraprocessed foods are concerning enough that Chang called for warning labels to be added to their packaging so consumers can make informed dietary decisions. She said:

“We need clear front of pack warning labels for ultra-processed foods to aid consumer choices, and our sugar tax should be extended to cover ultra-processed fizzy drinks, fruit-based and milk-based drinks, as well as other ultra-processed products.

Lower income households are particularly vulnerable to these cheap and unhealthy ultra-processed foods. Minimally processed and freshly prepared meals should be subsidized to ensure everyone has access to healthy, nutritious and affordable options.”

Indeed, a warning label isn’t a stretch, considering eating ultraprocessed foods has also been found to be a significant cause of premature death, according to researchers with the University of São Paulo in Brazil.

That study found about 57,000 premature deaths were due to the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, which amounted to 10.5% of all-cause premature deaths, and 21.8% of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases

among this age group.

Among Americans, ultraprocessed foods make up about 57% of daily calories, on average, leading the researchers to suggest premature deaths linked to the foods are likely even greater in the U.S.

In Brazil, meanwhile, the study found that if the contribution of ultraprocessed foods to total caloric intake was reduced by 10% to 50%, anywhere from 5,900 to 29,300 deaths could be prevented, annually.

Further, the researchers estimated that if ultraprocessed foods made up less than 23% of adults’ daily calories, about 20,000 premature deaths could be prevented each year.

A study of 22,985 adults in Italy also found those who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods had the highest risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Consuming heavily processed junk food takes a toll on your whole body, including your brain. Research published in JAMA Neurology demonstrated that consuming UPFs such as breakfast cereal, frozen foods and soda could lead to cognitive decline and increase your risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

The study involved 10,775 people living in Brazil over an eight-year period. The data showed a correlation between an individual’s “high consumption” of ultraprocessed food, such that high consumption led to a 28% faster decline in global cognitive scores, including memory, verbal fluency and executive function.

However, instead of using 50% or 60% of the daily caloric intake of ultraprocessed food as high consumption, this study defined high consumption as “more than 20%.” The study didn’t identify whether there was a dose-dependent effect. In other words, they only looked at whether eating more than 20% of the daily caloric intake in ultraprocessed foods would affect cognitive decline. If a person ate double or triple that amount, would the rate of cognitive decline be greater?

Another study also found brain risks of ultraprocessed foods. It included 72,083 participants aged 55 years or older. Over a 10-year follow-up period, consumption of ultraprocessed food was associated with an increased risk of dementia and vascular dementia.

Meanwhile, replacing just 10% of ultraprocessed foods in the diet with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with a 19% lower risk of dementia — highlighting how powerful even minimal healthy dietary changes can be.

“Although more research is needed, as a neuroscientist who researches how diet can influence cognition later in life,” Sara Burke, associate professor of neurobiology and cognitive aging at the University of Florida, wrote in Science Alert, “I find that these early studies add a new layer for considering how fundamental nutrition is to brain health.”

As research pours in over the health risks of ultraprocessed foods, it’s ironic that fake meat and other lab-made plant-based pseudofoods are still being passed off as healthy. It’s hard to ultraprocess a food more than a lab-made burger.

Plant-based or lab-grown meat and dairy alternatives are the very definition of ultraprocessed foods, containing no healthy animal fats but, rather, heavily processed fats from industrial seed oils like soy and canola oil.

A hallmark of ultraprocessed foods is their long ingredient lists. “You are not likely to find the ingredients that make up most of these foods in your home kitchen,” Burke said.

Beyond Burger’s fake meat patties, for instance, contain 22 ingredients. Among them are expeller-pressed canola oil, pea protein isolate, cellulose from bamboo, modified food starch and methylcellulose

— hardly “health” foods.

To morph these ingredients into a patty that resembles meat requires significant processing, so don’t fall for the hype that fake foods are somehow good for you. They’re likely to cause all of the same health problems now being linked to more obvious ultraprocessed foods, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, along with all-cause mortality.

Is it coincidence, then, that according to the World Economic Forum and other Great Reset proponents, a traditional whole food diet is being vilified as unsustainable and environmentally destructive? Instead, they’re pushing for a transition away from whole foods to a highly unnatural, ultraprocessed food diet.

For example, the EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, developed a Planetary Health Diet

designed to be applied to the global population. It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.

Their largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system by working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives that are certain to be detrimental to human health.

There’s little doubt that ultraprocessed foods have no place in a healthy diet. Eliminating them means avoiding junk foods, fast foods and many packaged items in your grocery store, from bread and pizza to cookies, salted crackers and meat products such as lunch meat and hot dogs. If you want one ingredient to target, however, start with seed oils, also known as vegetable oils, such as corn oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil and canola oil.

In the last 50 years, global vegetable oil production increased 10-fold, rising from 17 million tons in the 1960s to 170 million tons in 2014 — and 218 million tons in 2018.

Vegetable and seed oils are high in the omega-6 fatty acid linoleic acid (LA).

While an essential fat, when consumed in excessive amounts LA acts as a metabolic poison. The reason for this is because polyunsaturated fats such as LA are highly susceptible to oxidation.

As Americans consumed greater amounts of seed oils high in LA, there was an increase in the concentration of LA in subcutaneous fat tissue, which correlates with an increase in the prevalence of asthma, obesity and diabetes.

Eliminating ultraprocessed foods from your diet is essential to keeping your LA intake low, and vice versa, as the two go hand-in-hand.

If the thought of overhauling your diet to remove ultraprocessed foods seems daunting, reframe it from a move of scarcity to one of abundance. By giving up these toxic junk foods, you’re gaining a place in your diet to add in whole foods, which — instead of taking away your health one meal at a time — will give your body the nutrients it needs to heal and stay well.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.