Commentary on the workshop statement. Essentiality of and recommended dietary intakes for Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids.

The Workshop document is welcome and important in its content and objectives. My comments deal with three topics, and are intended to set the historical perspective and take the discussion further as regards attitudes to infant nutrition. 1. ADVERSE ARACHIDONIC EFFECTS. I have some difficulty with the statement on the need to reduce LA (linoleic acid) content of the diet because 'This is necessary to reduce adverse effects of excesses of arachidonic acid and its eicosanoid products.'I have no problem with suggesting a reduction in the present level of LA in the USA but consider the expression 'adverse effects of arachidonic acid ...' to be misleading. Linking LA and AA in this way also implies a direct conversion of LA to AA, which is not the case. In fact, a very high dietary LA will reduce membrane AA. 2. EFA RATIOS. I suspect that their choice of omega 3/omega 6 ratio of 5.7 for early life may be high. Their recommendation for adults gives the much lower ratio of about 1.4. In view of the high requirement for DHA during neural development, I would have thought the ratios would have been the other way round or the same for infants as adults but with AA included in the omega 6. Also, I have some difficulty with the concept of a unitary ratio when there is clear disunity in the biological activities of the different parent and LCP EFAs. Hence the concept of omega 6/omega 3 ratio based on activity equality does not reflect the biological reality. 3. FDA RECOMMENDATIONS ON INFANT FORMULA. The Workshop essentially disagrees with the recent FDA recommendations on inclusion of LCPs in infant formula. There is, in addition, a need to re-think the requirements of the preterm infant beyond their recommendation. Copyright 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.