Showing posts with label fish oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fish oil. Show all posts

Fish oil from Soy?

This one has me totally gob-smacked!  Or as my friend in OZ might say, CRICKEY! (which is a euphemism for another 4 letter word).

It seems as if the Big M just can't leave your food alone.

First its GMO soy oil in your aspirin, your vitamins, and where else one wonders, just so you can have better heart health and lower cholesterol.  I guess their ad reps spend a goodly amount of time dreaming up something to persuade you that its all OK.  The Secretary of Agriculture surely wouldn't lie, after all, he is working for the government.

Wondering how they think all the hexane and benzene used to make soil oil is going to be removed from this "wonder oil"?  Just ask your member of Congress.  After all they get some pretty heavy pockets from all that  PAC $ flowing around the Beltway.

And, this to the FDA: Where are the studies?

This was bad enough to give me another head shaking day especially after seeing Mike Adams push for using plant sterols to lower cholesterol.  Guess he isn't up on the science, or the hype.

A downside to using "plant sterols"

NON-GMO CAMPAIGN


"Two enzymes Monsanto has just added to soy effectively turn the legume’s oil into a proto fish oil.
The commercial ag giant Monsanto inserted genes for two enzymes – one derived from a flower (Primula juliae), the other from a red bread mold (Neurospora crassa) – into a line of soybeans."

Fishy fat from soy is headed for U.S. dinner tables
For most Americans, it could help redress a critical shortfall in a beneficial nutrient
Web edition : Saturday, April 9th, 2011
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. Most people have heard about omega-3 fatty acids, the primary constituents of fish oil. Stearidonic acid, one of those omega-3s, is hardly a household term. But it should become one, researchers argued this week at the 2011 Experimental Biology meeting.
In any case, stearidonic acid should at least become a welcome constituent of kitchen larders. The scientists’ reasoning: This fatty acid can provide fish oil’s heart and other health benefits – without the fishy taste or high cost of finned fare. Beginning next year, it also can be supplied without harming a single fish.
Numerous health organizations advocate that Americans down at least two fish meals a week, notes Eileen Kennedy, dean of Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston. This emphasis on seafood is not because nutritionists prize fish, per se, she says, so much their wanting to see consumers get more of two long-chain omega-3’s in the animals’ oil: eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
“The American diet, as typically consumed, is low in omega-3 fatty acids,” Kennedy says. And the recently released federal nutrition guidelines not only recommend consuming a variety of fish and shellfish species, but also set a weekly target of eating some 8 ounces of seafood. Pregnant women, she notes, are being advised to eat up to 12 ounces per week.
But consumers are also being cautioned to choose that seafood wisely, because fish can unwittingly bring toxic methyl mercury to the dinner table. “So this [fish recommendation] gets to be a challenge to communicate,” observes Kennedy, who co-chaired an April 8 symposium on dietary omega-3 sources and benefits at the conference. 

To date, toxic intakes of fish have not emerged as a big problem, but that’s largely because few Americans come close to meeting the recommended fish intake. Most people fall about 75 percent short of the national goal.
Against this backdrop, SDA-enriched soybean oil is very attractive, Kennedy says. It can be incorporated in a range of foods without affecting taste (I can vouch for that, having eaten an SDA-soy-oil laced muffin at the meeting). Moreover, if and when SDA-enriched oil becomes available, it should cost less than fish-oil capsules (some of which have been found contaminated with pesticides, dioxins and other toxic pollutants), and run just a small fraction of the price of getting an equivalent amount of omega-3s from eating fish.
However, even if consumers wanted to get their omega-3 intake from downing fish, there are growing concerns about how that might be achieved. Indeed, argued William Banz of Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, “there’s not enough fish in the sea.”
And what about people who don’t like the taste of oily marine fish – the species rich in EPA and DHA – or who live too far from the coast to make seafood readily available, asks William Harris, director of cardiovascular research at the University of South Dakota’s Sanford School of Medicine. For them, substituting the SDA product for some of the oils in prepared foods could be viewed as a healthful fortification program. “Like adding iodine to salt,” he said.
Commercial soy-derived SDA on its way
Right now, the only sources of EPA and DHA are marine micro-algae and the fish that move these algal fats up the food chain. “As the availability of fish decreases, we’ve got to think of other sources for omega-3 fatty acids,” says Richard Deckelbaum, director of Columbia University’s Institute of Human Nutrition in New York City.
That’s yet another reason why Kennedy says of SDA: “I hope it’s on the market soon.”
And it will be, probably by 2012, says nutritionist Ratna Mukherjea with Solae in St. Louis. Her company plans to market foods fortified with SDA.
The commercial ag giant Monsanto inserted genes for two enzymes – one derived from a flower (Primula juliae), the other from a red bread mold (Neurospora crassa) – into a line of soybeans. Although some people object to the biotech manipulation of genes in food crops, this is far from the first genetic manipulation of soy, Deckelbaum observes. Already, he points out, some 70 percent of ordinary U.S. soybeans are genetically modified for some trait or another.
The two enzymes Monsanto has just added to soy effectively turn the legume’s oil into a proto fish oil.
Many plants make alpha linolenic acid (or ALA), a botanical omega-3. The human body possesses enzymes to elongate ALA into the useful EPA, but the process isn’t efficient, Harris explains. Only about a tenth to one percent of any ingested ALA molecules will chemically morph over time into an EPA.
Monsanto’s genetically engineered soybeans can turn their ALA into SDA. Human enzymes can lengthen SDA into EPA fairly readily. There are efficiency losses in making that conversion, he acknowledges. His team has showed that it takes about four to five times more SDA to get the same EPA values in the blood as would develop if people took in EPA directly from fish or fish-oil capsules.
Two years ago, Monsanto petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to have their SDA-enriched soy oil granted generally recognized as safe – or GRAS – status. That petition noted the company’s intent “to market SDA soybean oil as a food ingredient in the United States in a variety of food products including baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products, milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes.”
Oily fish already supply SDA to the diet, and conventional fish-oil supplements contain roughly 1 to 3 percent of this fatty acid, Monsanto noted. Certain boutique oils from edible plant seeds, notably black current and “noxious weed” Echium, also contain substantial amounts of SDA. Monsanto said it planned to fortify foods with enough of its soy product to provide 375 milligrams of SDA per serving.
Last year, FDA granted GRAS status to SDA-enriched soy, so Solae now can legally incorporate the oil into foods. But there remains a wrinkle. FDA has not yet granted Monsanto permission to grow this genetically modified line of soybeans in open fields. That’s expected next year.
If the company succeeds in gaining that anticipated approval, Harris says, each acre planted with the new line of legumes could yield omega-3 quantities equal to that provided by some 10,000 3-ounce servings of salmon.
By the way, I asked some of the speakers about potential conflicts of interest. Harris has consulted to developers of SDA-enriched soy oil but no stock in the enterprises. Kennedy is on a Solae scientific advisory panel, but has no financial ties. And Deckelbaum said he had no ties.

Articles and issues of interest

11 October 2010 - Omega3 Comment
The concern regarding conversion of plant based omega3 (EPA-DHA) has long been an issue we have addressed in our work, and a reason why we have not endorsed the soy and canola based "plant sterol" products.  This quote from Dr. Newport is very much the same as we have written many times.  It is a reason too why I am a firm supporter of spirulina.
"While flax oil, walnuts and other vegetable sources of omega-3 are beneficial, they may not be converted efficiently in the body, especially in older people, to DHA and EPA, the two forms of omega-3 that are extremely important to brain function. It is therefore important to take a marine source of omega-3; for most of us this is fish oil. This would be a problem for vegans. I have recently learned that there is a high DHA oil available that is from algae rather than fish or other animal marine life. The supplements suggested for pregnant women are often made from this. Specifically, schizochytrium oil, is available over the counter at health food stores and pharmacies."

Original post date April 2006

Well the media spin of course will now tell you that Omega3s are unhealthy. This comment might make you more interested in having skepticism about mass media reports, at least I hope so,
herbalYODA

24th March: Fish oil may not be so healthy after all says the British Medical Journal

According to a study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), researchers analysed 89 studies to assess the effects of Omega-3 fats on death rates, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Their findings (which we vigorously contest): no strong evidence that Omega-3 fats had any benefits! It's important to realise that this is not a new study, but rather a study of studies (a meta-analysis). The conclusions drawn by the authors are, in our view, deeply misleading. They ignore the very large body of evidence that shows great benefits of Omega-3 (especially marine-derived, long chain Omega-3 fatty acids [EPA and DHA] that are known to be free of mercury and PCB contamination) with respect to reduced risk of heart disease and stroke, as well as for proper immune system function. Lee Hooper (lead author) and colleagues omitted numerous important studies, they selected studies mainly involving diseased subjects (whose conditions were likely to have been triggered well before they started supplementing in the trials), they included great ranges in dosages (meaning that direct comparisons between studies are of little value) and they masked the benefits of marine oils by diluting the high quality studies in with weaker studies assessing affects of non-marine sources of short-chain Omega-3 fatty acids (e.g., as found in some margarines).

Of interest is the recent release by Norwegian scientists (30th March), who are developing a chewable Omega-3 candy, stating that Omega-3-containing products have experienced massive growth in recent years backed up by scientific research that has linked the fish oils to a range of health benefits.