Posted by Larry Hoover on August 24, 2003, at 11:43:51
In reply to Re: fish oil, arthritis, and mercury, posted by tealady on August 22, 2003, at 21:03:24
> > > I was reading about a fish oil preparation advertised by a physician who said that his preparation was more expensive because he used an expensive filtering device to eliminate almost all of the mercury. From what you are saying, it sounds like he was being less than honest. I can't remember the guy's name right now.
> >
> I was reading yesterday about this too...http://www.iherb.com/fishoil1.html I think the Rx Omega 3 by Dr Murray. It certainly implies that some other fish oils contain mercury by the statement "only fish product in the market that has the wording " Pharmaceutical Grade" on the label.That is meaningless, in this context. Advertising hype.
> > If the phrase "molecularly distilled" rings a bell, then he was being less than honest. That phrase comes from the website of the wholesaler which produces the vast majority of all fish oil products in North America. Frankly, the very term molecularly distilled is bad science. As a chemist, I cringe every time I see it.
>
> Yep,saw that too on iherb, couldn't figure out what it meant.
>
> I was told yesterday by a company selling fish oil here that they purchase the top grade of 5 grades of fish oil.As do *all* other firms marketing fish oil for human consumption.
> Also they don't remove the mercury from fish oil as(according to this guy) chlorine is used to remove the mercury and then people have "green urine", so it's better to leave the mercury in.....on the lesser evil argument
That is so bizarre, I don't know where to begin.
> I did find the "green urine" bit hard to believe!
See, you know more than you realize. More than that idiot you spoke to, fer sure.
> Lar thank you for explaning it,
>
> I have just been told today that the Australian standards are .05? for fish oil in mercury and it is all tested..05 what? Units are essential here.
The risk of mercury contamination wouldn't come from fish oil, per se. It would arise from greedy morons trying to sell crude fish oils (cheap) in place of the more expensive products.
One of the issues with fish oils is that they retain fat-soluble contaminants. Things like DDT, PCBs, dioxins. That happens to be my area of expertise. I'm an environmental toxicologist, an applied specialty within chemistry as a whole. There is nothing unique about finding fat-soluble toxicants in fish oils. They're everywhere. You can't avoid them. You breathe them in, every day. They're in your cookies. Your pork. Your olive oil.
If you want to get some idea of the contamination of foodstuffs, do a websearch using "MAFF food surveillance".
Fish oil is tested for these toxicants, as well as for mercury. The levels permitted are sort of the scientific equivalent of "we can't block it all, but this much is unlikely to hurt anyone". I have no concern whatsoever in recommending fish oils for general health. The benefits far, far, exceed any increased risk.
> I have ordered some MaxEpa which apparently is sourced from deep water fish, and the fish oil is sourced from England, then tested for mercury levels in Australia..according to a naturopath I have just been speaking to. Guess there must be traces of mercury still in the oil?
Only if there are traces of protein present, and you'd know that right away. Your nose is finely tuned to the smell of protein breakdown products (stuff with suggestive names like cadaverine, putrescine, and so forth). Even if you swallowed some, by capsule, your eructation (burping) of dead fish tasting vapours, would alert you to the impurity of the oil.
Even the issue of mercury in fresh fish may be totally overblown, because fish also have high levels of selenium, which detoxifies the mercury in finned creatures just as well as it does in us. The laboratory process whereby mercury in fish is measured measures total mercury, not just free mercury (i.e. mercury not associated with selenium). Only the latter could do you any harm. And they don't measure the ratio, or the separate bits.
> You'd think the Australian southern waters would be ideal to set up a "clean fish" oil industry from, instead of sourcing from o/seas,sigh.
Should be, actually. Green-lipped mussels are a good source of oemga-threes, and selenium and zinc, if I recall correctly. It's more a case of the cost of start-up vs. existing producers of fish oils. Fish oil is used in aquaculture (fish farming), so fish oil extraction and processing seems to be most commonly found in places that farm fish. I'd have to guess Aussies done't do much fish farming.
> The doc who I got the idea of mercury in fish from is http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/25/mercury_fish.htm but that is fish, not fish oil.
That's an excellent reference to the species-dependent mercury exposure. The lower down the food chain you eat is probably better, but even tuna and swordfish may be safe, if the selenium content is there.
> Thanks for explaining all of this..just spent a day trying to figure it out, lol.Knowledge is a journey, not a destination, eh? Glad you're along for the trip.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:252197
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030823/msgs/253577.html