CRN, GOED dispute omega-3 meta-analysis conclusions

CRN, GOED dispute omega-3 meta-analysis conclusions

An omega-3 meta-analysis saying supplementation isn't helpful is flawed, says GOED and CRN, and consumers should continue to consume omega-3 fatty acids.

A new meta-analysis on omega-3s, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is making waves in mainstream media with articles spouting titles such as, "More Evidence That Omega-3 Supplements Don't Work."

But two top nutrition associations dispute the findings.

"Our main concern is that the results of this meta-analysis will be taken out of context," said Duffy MacKay, N.D., vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs, Council of Responsible Nutrition (CRN). 

Researchers from the University Hospital of Ioannina in Greece reviewed 20 studies that included nearly 70,000 patients and found no statistical significance to support the claim that omega-3 supplementation leads to a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The study was published Sept. 11.

However, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA (GOED) calls the study flawed. "Given the flawed design of this meta-analysis, bypassing the advice of the American Heart Association or the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans by stating that omega-3s are not cardioprotective could be harmful to public health," said Adam Ismail, GOED executive director. 

Among the study's other flaws, CRN's Duffy stated, "This meta-analysis combined studies that were not comparable in their design (e.g., studies on healthy individuals were combined with those targeting diseased individuals), which makes the results more skew." will have an in-depth report on the issue this week. Click the company names to read the full comments from CRN and GOED.

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.