“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”
This quote is written by Dr. Richard Horten, Dr. Horton is the chief editor of the Lancet, one of the leading scientific journals. The combination of research and nutrition is even more problematic. The standards and parameters set on what is “good” and “healthy” food seem more to be influenced by political and economic standards than scientific ones. Food nutrition research only really started in the mid-1930s, but research was conducted along the lines of economic systems, furthermore, most scientists at that time and some still do, did not think of nutrition as a serious science as nutrition and supplements were associated with snake oil salesmen.
“When it came to the recognition of the more subtle forms of malnutrition and their relationship with the vitamins, physicians were wary. This is entirely understandable, for it must be remembered that diet, for centuries, has been a fertile field for quackery. Food fads have come and gone by the score”(1)
The onset of the second world war brought tighter bonds between the existing food conglomerates, the governments, and the different advisory committees that provided food recommended intake and health advice.
“The machinery for government regulation of foods was devised to prevent the sale of spoiled, adulterated, or misbranded foods. The interest has been more in protecting pocketbooks than health. Also unhappily some food legislation has discriminated in favor of special interest groups with large political influence, to the detriment of the public at large”[1]
Many of the leading science writers of the benefits of omega 3 are in close contact or have been paid by companies with an interest in selling fish oil as part of their products. I am not suggesting conspiracy or collusion or even faul intent. I am suggesting that culture, environment, and previous studies can create an image, difficult to refute in a position of power. Fish oils studies are frequently financed by edible fat conglomerates (Unilever for example[2]), by scientists that are paid by conglomerates, or by governmental agencies that promote the use of fish oils. Furthermore, conglomerates organize symposiums that are attended by international scientists and policymakers to enforce specific messages. The elected scientist, policymakers, and strategists work out strategies to implement plans for “education” of scientists, hospitals, schools, and communities [3]. This top-down approach is very dangerous in science as it stifles independent thought and critique.
Some examples include;
- a 2003 study compared EPA and DHA (omega 3 fish oils) with ALA (omega 3 plant oil) and an omega 6 (plant oil) on atherosclerosis risk factors. One of the focusses was the oxidation of LDL cholesterol (oxidized LDL is a risk factor in heart disease), the results showed that increased oxidation of LDL was seen in the fish oils group (even though a lot less fish oil was supplemented than the quantity of oils in the other groups). The authors concluded the study as:
“At estimated biologically equivalent intakes, dietary ALA and EPA+DHA have different physiologic effects”[1]
- The pharmaceutical companies may support foundations that in turn finance research that puts omega 3 in a favorable light. One example is Mead Johnson that provides the omega 3 fatty acids in infant formula. Mead Johnson for example, supports the March of Dimes foundation which in turn finance studies that may favor omega 3. In example is an 2011 study that concluded
“DHA supplementation during pregnancy decreased the occurrence of colds in children at 1 month and influenced illness symptom duration at 1, 3, and 6 months”
Looking into the study one finds that beyond decreased colds, the DHA group experienced a higher increase in rashes, longer duration of nasal congestion, and longer duration of vomiting![1]
[1] Imhoff-Kunsch B, Stein AD, Martorell R, Parra-Cabrera S, Romieu I, Ramakrishnan U. Prenatal Docosahexaenoic Acid Supplementation and Infant Morbidity: Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics. 2011;128(3):e505-e512. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1386.
[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Apr;77(4):783-95. Plant- and marine-derived n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have differential effects on fasting and postprandial blood lipid concentrations and on the susceptibility of LDL to oxidative modification in moderately hyperlipidemic subjects. Finnegan YE1, Minihane AM, Leigh-Firbank EC, Kew S, Meijer GW, Muggli R, Calder PC, Williams CM.
[1]Wilder, R.M. (1941). Mobilize for total nutrition!. Survey Graphic, 30(7), 381. Retrieved [date accessed] from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/mobilize-total-nutrition/
[2]Jenkins G, Wainwright LJ, Holland R, Barrett KE, Casey J. Wrinkle reduction in post-menopausal women consuming a novel oral supplement: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized study. International Journal of Cosmetic Science. 2014;36(1):22-31. doi:10.1111/ics.12087.
[3]European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010) 64, S1–S13; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2010.242. Essential fats for future health. Proceedings of the 9thUnilever Nutrition Symposium, 26–27 May 2010. P C Calder1, A D Dangour2, C Diekman3, A Eilander4, B Koletzko5, G W Meijer4, D Mozaffarian6,7,8, H Niinikoski9, S J M Osendarp4, P Pietinen10, J Schuit11,12 and R Uauy2,13