Next Article in Journal
Correction: Ramírez-Vélez, R.; et al. Performance of Two Bioelectrical Impedance Analyses in the Diagnosis of Overweight and Obesity in Children and Adolescents: The FUPRECOL Study. Nutrients 2016, 8, 575
Previous Article in Journal
Reply to C. Ferreira-Pêgo’s Letter to the Editor Re: Nissensohn M. et al.; Nutrients 2016, 8, 232
Article Menu

Export Article

Comment published on 14 February 2017, see Nutrients 2017, 9(2), 137.

Open AccessArticle
Nutrients 2016, 8(11), 703; doi:10.3390/nu8110703

Australian and New Zealand Fish Oil Products in 2016 Meet Label Omega-3 Claims and Are Not Oxidized

1
CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, GPO Box 1538, Hobart TAS 7000, Australia
2
DSM Nutritional Products Asia Pacific, 30 Pasir Panjang Road, Mapletree Business City, #13-31, Singapore 117440, Singapore
3
School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
4
Department of Nutrition & Dietetics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 22 September 2016 / Revised: 28 October 2016 / Accepted: 1 November 2016 / Published: 5 November 2016
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [552 KB, uploaded 5 November 2016]   |  

Abstract

We provide new fish oil product results to assist industry in Australia and New Zealand and, ultimately, consumers in understanding the high product quality assurance protocols in place, together with the high product quality that has been determined by both industry and independent laboratories. Fish oil capsule products common to Australia and New Zealand were purchased in May 2016 in Richmond, Victoria, Australia. Products were from two groups; five standard fish oil products and five fish oil concentrates. Noting Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) requirement for use of standard methods, for all analyses undertaken a laboratory was selected that met the TGA criteria, including with accreditation. Total n-3 content exceeded the label-claimed content for all 10 products, with supplements containing on average 124% of the claimed content (range 115%–136%); eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid (EPA + DHA) content averaged 109% of the label claim (range 99%–119%). All 10 products (100%) similarly met the international recommended peroxide value (PV) level. Anisidine value (pAV) met the international recommended level for eight of the 10 products, with two products known to contain flavorings that interfere with the pAV test. When accredited laboratories and standard protocols are used, Australian and New Zealand fish oil products have been shown to clearly meet their label claims for EPA + DHA content, and are not oxidized. View Full-Text
Keywords: n-3 LC-PUFA; EPA; DHA; peroxide value; Australian and New Zealand fish oils n-3 LC-PUFA; EPA; DHA; peroxide value; Australian and New Zealand fish oils
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Nichols, P.D.; Dogan, L.; Sinclair, A. Australian and New Zealand Fish Oil Products in 2016 Meet Label Omega-3 Claims and Are Not Oxidized. Nutrients 2016, 8, 703.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top