Fish oils, rich in n-3 PUFA, have become one of the most popular dietary
supplements worldwide with millions of regular consumers(). Sales in the USA alone exceed US$ 1 billion
annually(). There
is a broad range of benefits claimed for n-3 fish oils including: prevention
of CVD(), reduced
cognitive decline(),
and the improved management of inflammatory diseases (arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease
and asthma)().
However, a series of recent studies has not demonstrated significant benefits, particularly
regarding the secondary prevention of CVD(,).n-3 PUFA are highly prone to oxidative degradation, making fish oils one of
the most labile supplements sold to consumers. Recently in the Journal of Nutritional
Science, Jackowski et al. evaluated primary and secondary
oxidation in all of the n-3 fish oils available over the counter in retail
stores in Canada().
A total of 171 supplements from forty-nine brands were assessed, with 50 % exceeding voluntary
limits for at least one measure of oxidation, and 39 % exceeding the international voluntary
safety recommendations for total oxidation (TOTOX) value. These findings are not unique to
Canada. In the USA, 27 % of products tested were found to have more than twice the recommended
levels of lipid peroxides(), while in South Africa() and New Zealand() more than 80 % of supplements
tested exceeded recommended levels.The oxidation of n-3 PUFA is complex, and the degree and rate of oxidation
of fish oil are influenced by many factors, including fatty acid composition, exposure to
O2 and light, temperature, antioxidant content, and the presence of water and
heavy metals().
The initial stage of oxidation of fish oils leads to increased levels of hydroperoxides, which
decompose into a variety of radicals(). These react with unoxidised PUFA to form additional
hydroperoxides, while also breaking down to form a wide range of possible secondary oxidation
products such as volatile ketones and alcohols. These are strongly linked to the rancid smells
and off flavours(,).While oxidation leads to a complex array of primary and secondary oxidation products, the
degree of oxidation can be characterised by just two industry-standard assays. The peroxide
value (PV) provides a quantitative measure of hydroperoxide levels. The most common method to
estimate secondary oxidation is the calculation of the anisidine value (AV), which provides a
measurement of aldehydic compounds (predominately 2-alkenals and 2,4-alkadienals). By
measuring both PV and AV, primary and secondary oxidation can be characterised, enabling an
overall assessment of the degree of oxidation. This is reflected in the TOTOX value
(=2PV + AV)(). A
number of authorities have published maximum limits of oxidation in fish oils(–), including the Global Organization for EPA and
DHA Omega-3s (GOED), a trade organisation(). The maximum recommended limits are: PV 5 mEq/kg, AV 20,
and TOTOX 26.It is not surprising that many retail fish oil products are oxidised to varying degrees, when
one considers the complex process from ocean catch through to the final consumer product. The
major sources of fish oil are small pelagic fishes, caught off the coast of Peru and
Chile(). Each
catch is transported on a fishing vessel to shore, where it is then processed by fractionation
into fish meal and crude fish oil. The oil produced is stored in large tanks before being
shipped on for further refining, particularly to China. This refining process typically
involves several steps, notably including repeated heating at high temperatures. The last
stage of refinement is deodorisation to remove NEFA, aldehydes and ketones, which are
responsible for the undesirable taste and rancidity of oxidised oils(). Less than 25 % of the total
crude fish oil supply is destined for human consumption and undergoes additional refinement
and deodorisation. The remainder is predominantly used in the aquaculture
industries(). As
a result, fish oil supplements are just one small part of an international commodity trade,
where early steps in processing are not specific for supplement production and the catch,
isolation, purification and manufacture of oil all occur well removed from the final consumer
market. Therefore, there is limited opportunity for the consumer to link the source, the age
of the product, the extent and process of refinement with the marketed and packaged final
consumer product.The end result is that consumers are at risk of purchasing an oxidised supplement, for which
there is little tangible information on the packaging to provide details of the oil's original
source, age and levels of refinement. The levels of oxidation now described in four
independent studies since 2012 (analysing 260 n-3 PUFA products) suggest that
the general public is consuming oxidised products exceeding voluntary industry-standard
levels. Importantly, the biological effects and health consequences of consuming oxidised fish
oil supplements are not yet established. In 2010, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA)
panel on biological hazards presented a scientific opinion on fish oil for human
consumption(),
concluding that ‘information on the level of oxidation of fish oil (as measured by peroxide
and anisidine values) and related toxicological effects in humans is lacking’.Of note, it must also be recognised that n-3 PUFA supplements used in
previous clinical trials may have been oxidised. It is therefore possible that the trial
literature may have been significantly confounded by the use of oxidised oils. As a result,
there should be independent analyses of fish oils adopted in clinical trials, and their
oxidative state should be reported in future studies.Jackowski et al.() and similar studies highlight a number of important issues
that need to be resolved regarding fish oil supplements. There is pressing need for research
that can establish the effects of oxidised oils on human health and the safe limits of
oxidation for human consumption. Further, greater monitoring is required to ensure that
over-the-counter products meet recommended limits.
Authors: Evangelos C Rizos; Evangelia E Ntzani; Eftychia Bika; Michael S Kostapanos; Moses S Elisaf Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benjamin B Albert; José G B Derraik; David Cameron-Smith; Paul L Hofman; Sergey Tumanov; Silas G Villas-Boas; Manohar L Garg; Wayne S Cutfield Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Stefan A Jackowski; Azhar Z Alvi; Abdur Mirajkar; Zahabia Imani; Yuliya Gamalevych; Nisar A Shaikh; George Jackowski Journal: J Nutr Sci Date: 2015-11-04
Authors: John M McAfee; Henry G Kattesh; Merlin D Lindemann; Brynn H Voy; Cheryl J Kojima; Nicole C Burdick Sanchez; Jeff A Carroll; Barbara E Gillespie; Arnold M Saxton Journal: J Anim Sci Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 3.159