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

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.
Nutrients 2016, 8(11), 703; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu8110703
Received: 22 September 2016 / Revised: 28 October 2016 / Accepted: 1 November 2016 / Published: 5 November 2016
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
Show Figures

Figure 1

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.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop