Eating fish is beneficial to health, but fish populations are dwindling

Fish or No Fish

Be glad you don’t have Dr. David Jenkins job.

Dr. Jenkins is a professor of nutrition at the University of Toronto, and he’s concerned that certain global fish stocks (such as yellowfin tuna) will very likely collapse by mid-century if we keep consuming them at our current rate.

But Dr. Jenkins has decided on a bizarre strategy to save the fish: He wants to convince us that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids might not be as beneficial as virtually every reputable nutritionist in the world claims they are.

How do you suppose THAT plan is going to work out?

The Globe and Mail (a Canadian newspaper) does its part to support Dr. Jenkins. For starters, the G&M report leads with this title: “Health Benefits of Fish Overblown, Researchers Say.” And in paragraph one, consumption of omega-3 fatty acids is called a “recent craze.”

Note to Globe and Mail: Justin Bieber is a recent craze. Omega-3 fatty acids have been giving humans health benefits for eons.

Tough sell

In a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, Dr. Jenkins and his colleagues actually undercut their basic argument with a long section detailing the benefits of omega-3 intake. Then they counter that with some highly suspect “evidence” that omega-3 may not be so hot.

For instance: One study shows that men with angina may be harmed by omega-3 intake. (Until we get a few more studies about this specific group of patients, we’ll file this one under “Jury Still Out.”)

Dr. Jenkins also notes that people who eat two or three servings of fish each week tend to follow other healthy habits, so if they stopped eating fish and taking fish oil supplements they would probably be just fine.

Well…no.

That’s like saying a quarterback doesn’t need a right guard because there are all those other linesmen who will protect him. He’ll probably be just fine. He’ll spend a lot of time on his back and won’t win any games, but he’ll be fine.

Toward the end of the G&M article, we find this note: “For those who want to have the benefits of fish oil and avoid the environmental harm, Dr. Jenkins suggests some alternatives.”

Wait…”benefits of fish oil”? I thought those benefits were just an “overblown” craze?

Well, never mind that. Let’s look at the alternatives. Dr. Jenkins notes that DHA omega-3 is currently produced from algae for use in infant formula. The problem there is that it’s DHA without EPA–fish oil provides both of these key fatty acids.

Here’s another suggestion from the CMAJ article: “Major corporations are also working on genetically modified yeast and plants that could serve as factories for the synthesis of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA].”

Sorry, Dr. J.–you lost me at “major corporations” and I ran for the hills at “genetically modified yeast and plants.”

You’ve got to give Team Jenkins points for trying, because they do mean well. They just want to save these very important fish species. I’m all for that. But fishermen are going to fish, and fish distributors are going to distribute, and fish eaters are going to eat. Try as Dr. Jenkins might, I can’t see how he’s going to halt a cycle that’s been turning for centuries.

But he should stop right now trying to convince us that omega-3s are nutritionally insignificant. That fish is never going to fly.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Are Dietary Recommendations For the Use of Fish Oils Sustainable?” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 180, No. 6, 3/17/09
“Health Benefits of Fish Overblown, Researchers Say” Martin Mittelstaedt, The Globe and Mail, 3/17/09, theglobeandmail.com