Photo by suchitra prints/Flickr CC
The European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) has just rejected a proposal from Merck to allow it to use a health claim stating that omega-3 supplements promote eye and brain health in infants. Merck wants moms to take omega-3 supplements during pregnancy and give such supplements to their infants. EFSA reviewed nearly 90 studies on this topic and concluded that the study results were not "informative." In other words, they showed no benefit. Imagine. The EFSA demands scientific substantiation of health claims. I wish we could do that.
Here's another example from the pomegranate folks. They do brilliant advertising, but this time the British are complaining that these marketers went too far when they posted billboards stating that pomegranate ("antioxidant powerhouse") juice will help you cheat death. The British advertising standards agency balked. Here too, pesky science gets in the way. Studies not only fail to support a benefit of antioxidants but sometimes show harm.
Imagine. Europe demands scientific substantiation of health claims. I wish we could do that.Our Congress, however, forces the FDA to permit health claims, no matter how absurd. Try the FDA-allowed, "qualified" health claim for omega-3's: "supportive but not conclusive evidence shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease" [my emphasis].
The FDA allows omega-3's to be added to infant formulas, but here's what it says about them:
The scientific evidence is mixed...There are no currently available published reports from clinical studies that address whether any long-term beneficial effects exist.The EFSA interprets all this as unworthy of a health claim.
What can the FDA do? If it says there isn't enough evidence, it gets sued, and it loses. The courts tend to rule that food companies can say whatever they like about health benefits on the grounds of free speech and the First Amendment.
In January, the FDA published "guidance" for industry about how it plans to evaluate the scientific basis of health claims. Guidance is just that. It is non-binding.
Hello new administration. How about taking a fresh look at the health claims situation and paying close attention to what regulators in Europe are doing. How about considering just saying no to health claims.
SHOP THE ATLANTIC FOOD MARKETPLACE
Subscribe to Atlantic Food
This is a very misleading article. Readers should be aware that there is substantial evidence in favor of omega-3, as in fact the American Heart Association has concluded. The summary of the studies is here: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632.
Much of the evidence comes from large observational studies rather than clinical trials and therefore is not the kind of evidence the FDA requires to approve a drug -- but food will never be the subject of such trials, which cost tens of millions of dollars and make economic sense only because of the patent protection available with prescription drugs. However, the observational studies include substantial, long-term, and prospective studies that should be considered for health care. The statement that the evidence is "supportive but not conclusive" is a fair if conservative characterization of the evidence. Just saying no to well-supported health claims would be very bad public health policy.
You want real science on Omega 3s and not just the one 2002 study you have linked to? Which by the way does not offer "substantial" evidence. What you mean is that there has been substantial press coverage on the benefits of omega 3 - not substantial scientific evidence?
Here is the largest comprehensive systematic review on the subject ever:
British Medical Journal 2006: Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer
After the British Medical Journal's review of 89 earlier studies looking at heart disease, cancer or strokes they found no evidence omega 3 fats offered protection. What they did find however was the following:
Now - who might have an interest in not promoting this science? Given that the seas are empty - who has an interest in promoting deep sea fats as healthy for rainforest apes - even though the scientific evidence points in the other direction? I say that omega 3s are the new other white meat and all of us know it.
PS: The AHA has been serving stakes and other food high in saturated fats at their dinner parties for decades. What do you expect? Their advice is - eat more fruits and vegetables and less saturated fat...???? What? Why mention real foods on one hand and then switch to nutrients? Who can understand that? Given that more people in the US die prematurely from heart disease than from the next seven causes including cancer and accidents combined - they must feel like the least successful organization ever?
I tend to agree with the author that if you cannot follow or give scientific advice properly - it is better to just say no to health claims.