Talk:Fish oil/Archive 1

Archive 1

IFOS inactive

The International Fish Oil Standards website has been inactive for some time now. Are there other independent fish oil testing services the article could list?

The IFOS website is not inactive. Check out the consumer reports section. They are constantly adding new fish oil tests. There is no other independent fish oil testing organization! 68.202.40.162 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the process used to extract fish oil from fish. Is the fish oil that goes into supplements a byproduct of another process? --LostLeviathan 06:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This link is Broken 01:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quality fish oil supplements start with raw fish (sardines especially, since they are abundant and cheap), extract the oils then refine them to remove cholesterol and heavy metals. The remainder mostly goes into cat food or cattle supplements. Perhaps some are a byproduct of other processes, but in quality products the EPA/DHA comes first, not second. JohnSankey 12:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is written as a "how to", not an encyclopedia article. It needs work. --Macrakis 20:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia needs work! Join in instead of just knocking things. JohnSankey 12:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article contains a number of unsourced assertions:

• "It is beneficial to eat fish once a week (or more) ...": says who?
• "Many experts recommend...": which experts? Cites? Done by amy van Vlaanderen

-- The Anome 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"The list of fish includes:" - what list is this referring to, the species that are prone to contain contaminants? --Awcga 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

The article uses the term "fishy reflux". It also has some grammar issues in the very first problem, although I'm not sure if it really is incorrect grammar.

SPAMMING Wikipedia

fishoilblog.com is clearly a commercial site selling fish oil that the owner keeps editing into Wikipedia related articles to promote his website

This is not spam

fishoilblog.com does clearly have advertising for fish oil, but the content of the site is very informative and non-commercial. There is nothing wrong with an educational site having advertising as long as there is a clear distinction, and in my opinion, this site is primarily educational with clear distinctions about what is advertising. I have in fact clicked the ads requesting a free fish oil report and have received nothing, so I'm not sure if that part of the site is even still in use. You are welcome to try it yourself.

Furthermore, All of the IPs that keep removing this link are from Boulder, Colorado. This is the same person that added fishoilreview.com to the fish oil entry, while simultaneously removing fishoilblog.com. Fishoilreview.com is clearly primarily a commerical site aimed at selling Dr. Sears fish oil for Zone Net. I'm guessing they have an ax to grind because their fishoilreview.com site was removed. I would also watch the other site they added, cellmedicine.com.

I am going to restore the fishoilblog.com link as I see absolutely no reason that it would be classified as commercial. If this person from Boulder continues, I would strongly advise contacting Zone Net to see if they condone this kind of crass behavior for their sales reps.

Proof this is SPAM

According to the WHOIS the owner of fishoilblog dot com and the owner of the website seachangenutraceuticals dot com advertising fish oil for sale on the website are one and the same in Orlando, Florida. It is clearly a commercial website selling See Yourself Well fish oil and is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Ditto

Yeah, I also fail to see how this site is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. 65.33.198.86 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cautions

Hi. I'm never written in wikipedia before. I just want to mention that taking large quantities of fish oil can cause internal bleeding. See this article at NIH Medline Plus: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-fishoil.html. I am not disputing that fish oil has health benefits. I'm just think that a caution should be included in the article. -Scott

Scott's cite is a good one and I've added some discussion and quotes from there to the Benefits section. I also moved Scott's query to the bottom of this history page. David.Throop 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an NIH statement not backed up by studies. On what level is that good? It seems like no more than conjecture to me, personally. Not everyone agrees with the bleeding risk conjecture either... see [1]Dabuek (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Page Blanking

24.8.174.128 has edited the Talk:Fish oil page to remove all references to fishoilblog. Although I haven't made up my mind about fishoilblog, removing the history of the discussion from the Talk page is not good. I note that this same user has made similar vandalism against the talk pages for EPA, DHA and Cod liver oil. I also note that the only non-page-blanking contribution from this IP address was the addition of a link to cellmedicine.com (which one of the blanked comments on this page mentions.)

68.202.40.162 has edited the Talk:Fish oil page to remove references to fishoilblog and the attending discussion. Pushing the discussion out to an archive page seems warrented. But fishoilblog has been a repeated bone of contention here. Blanking out the Talk discussioni is not the way. I'm restoring the record. David.Throop 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC

Reason for removing commercial website

fishoilblog dot com has a large color picture of fish oil for sale on the home page. One click and you are on a page where you can put fish oil in your shopping cart. The website is clearly commerical and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. According to the WHOIS the owner of the website fishoilblog dot com and the owner of the website seachangenutraceuticals dot com which is supposedly an advertiser are one and the same in Orlando, Florida. So this person is claiming vandalism about removing his listing when he is using Wikipedia to sell products?

OK, I'll leave the link off. I've looked at fishoilblog and it's marginal - there were some decent links there but the overall style of the site is relentlessly commercial and boosterish. (Being a commerical site per se isn't inappropriate – all the science publishers like ELsiver are commercial and the first thing you see when you look at an abstract is an offer to sell you the full text. But we link anyways.)

But don't go removing discussions about fishoilblog from the Talk pages. They are a record of how the issue was handled.

In place of fishoilblog, I'll put in a link to the PUFA Newsletter at fatsoflife. It is industry sponsored, but they maintain an excellent NPOV and the writing is at a good level. David.Throop 13:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

David, I understand you might be one of the minimalist-types that wants to remove links that you consider marginal, but I think in this particular case you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia users. As a personal training and nutritional consultant, I frequent the fishoilblog.com website to stay abreast of new uses for fish oil that I can recommend to my clients. This is the most thorough and frequently-updated fish oil site that I have come across and I even link to it from my own website. The site you substituted now gives a 404 error. Furthermore, I don't have the same kind of complaints that you do about the site being "relentlessly commercial and boorish." With all that said, I am going to add the link back as I believe this site is essential to Wikipedia readers for understanding fish oil and its many benefits. Drewbaye 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch on FatsOfLife. They added a second newsletter and they changed their link some; I've fixed it. As for FishOilBlog: as I said, I think it's marginal. I wasn't the one who removed it - somebody else removed it and all the talk pages that had discussed removing it. I restored the talk pages but left the link off. IIRR; it's been a few months. BTW, I said it was 'boosterish' not 'boorish.' FishOilBlog also shows no sign of any skepticism towards any fish oil claims, near as I could tell.David.Throop 06:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Un-cyclopedic section

The last section on 'pharmaceutical grade fish oil' is not encyclopedic (it's written in the second person), and it's also ambivalent. It seems to contain some useful information though, I'd rewrite it, but I'm not quite sure what it says. Should the oil come from the skin or not? 81.104.214.224 10:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I removed the skin part (which needs to be rewritten well if accurate, and with sources please!). My Time Magazine here discusses what I left behind, but I don't know how to cite properly, so if you'd like to: TIME, January 16, 2006, subtitle of magazine: How To Sharpen Your Mind, article title: "YOU (AND YOUR BRAIN) ARE WHAT YOU EAT", by Andrew Weil, M.D. (clinical professor at University of Arizona). It talks about fish oils positively. Paragraph 3: "But for some people it may be easier and safer to rely on fish-oil supplements. The best are distilled and certified to be free of mercury and other toxins." It's a good article. Rashad9607 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

There is not much information (especially regarding health benefits) on this article that is not discussed more thoroughly on the page for Omega-3 fatty acids. I'm not going to raise the flag without other opinions- is there currently enough reason to have a separate Fish Oil article? If not, can we improve the article so that it is worthy of remaining independent? Or perhaps, should it be merged with Oily fish? --Rashad9607 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fish oil 'calms children better than Ritalin' is doubtful

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD. Some were given the capsules, while others took a placebo or dummy capsule. Within three months, the behaviour of those on the fish oils had dramatically improved and, by seven months, many of the children were less restless and doing better at school.

That was from the link that alleges that fish oil is an effective remedy for ADHD. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=30929 expands on the poorly designed study, noting that:

The parents of children who spent 15 weeks on a course of capsules containing a combination of fish oil and primrose oil reported increased attention and reduced hyperactivity, restlessness and impulsivity," says Natalie Sinn from the University of South Australia and CSIRO Nutrition.

...

The study didn't compare methylphenidate to fish oil, it compared primrose oil and fish oil to placebo. I'm removing the link and the claim unless someone can support it with a reputable American journal. --Substantiate 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...

You mean "reputable journal" don't you Substantiate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.38.59 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to German Wikipedia

The article is linked to the German article on "Lebertran", which is cod liver oil, not fish oil, and thus not really the corresponding entry in German. Done by Amy van Vlaanderen

"Fish oil plus exercise may banish body fat"

Perhaps this study could be mentioned in the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/hl_nm/fish_oil_dc;_ylt=AmEfm29pfpKngsMHSgEx9HDMWM0F Colinsweet 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Using primary sources (peer reviewed journal articles) are much preferred to using news reports. Track down the original journal article, then read it critically to see if it is of general and lasting interest. Janopus (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I think we need real sources (ie peer reviewed journals) for the health claims - not things such as ABC News. We need to know whether this is accepted, a press release doesn't give us that. Secretlondon 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fish Oil and Schizophrenia

I have not edited pages before, and I don't have a scientific journal to cite to, but this is a recent press release, in case anyone has more substantial information and would like to update the article:

A study from the Orygen Research Centre in Melbourne suggests that omega-3 fatty acids could also help delay or prevent the onset of severe mental illness, specifically schizophrenia.

URL: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Fish-oil-might-stop-schizophrenia-study/2007/11/29/1196036990650.html

128.164.132.33 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added this, as it looks very significant, but have added the caution that it does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal (at least not as reported in the link). I personally am concerned about the very short one-year delay as some of the trial subjects might have been on the verge of being diagnosed at the start. It would be interesting to see a full follow-up over a long period, which may of course come later. --Memestream (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2008

(UTC)

Fish Oil vs. Omega 3

In as much as this article is about "Fish Oil," I don't believe it is an appropriate place to discuss the benefits of Omega 3s. Rather, that discussion should occur in the article on Omeg"melatonin 2"a 3s. Any thoughts? If not, I'll make the changes by the end of September 2008. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

omega 3s is the main reason why people rave about fish oil though, isn't it? So you can't discuss this without it. Sticky Parkin 22:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Granted many people rave about fish oil IS omega 3s. But there's a substantial discussion going on over at the article on Omega 3s, and if the discussion is about omega 3, then it ought to be labeled Omega 3, no? Rick lightburn (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fish Oil and Constipation

Is there any real evidence about Fish Oil helping constipation? wesgarner (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fish Oil and Acne

There is no citation to prove that fish oil "cures" acne and keeps it from coming back as declared in the "Benefits" section. I'd remove that until someone could come up with legitimate citation for that find. What experts exactly? On pubmed.gov they say there might be some benefit but controlled trials need to be done. Here is a journal article that might help: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18851733?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Deleted "Experts have currently found that there may be a connection between fish oil and acne. Studies have found that fish oil can cure acne and keep it from coming back."

Ponsau (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!

That capsule is HUGE!

A typical fish oil softgel

I'd need a gallon of water to swallow that! --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fish oil or omega-3 benefits

Please see the Talk:Omega-3_fatty_acid page. I am considering moving all the health studies from Omega-3_fatty_acid to this page. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad references and a totally unsupported lead section

The first reference, which is used to support "It is recommended for a healthy diet" is "Advances in Dietary Enrichment with N-3 Fatty Acids" (doi:10.1080/10408390701424303). The statement should say who recommends it to avoid weasel words — in this case, just a single research paper (which might be a review of other papers - I'm not sure). This is also a research study into animals, so might not be representative of human health; the abstract says "evidence for the effectiveness of the enrichment of food products with n-3 fatty acids ... in the diets of chickens, turkeys, ostriches, cows, pigs, and goats has been reviewed."

There are other problems too, such as claiming that "Some experts believe that taking fish oil (in any form) can help regulate cholesterol" when the reference is one specific doctor. This is wrong, but the "expert" should have been named from the start to avoid weasel words again.

Basically it needs a read-through by someone knowledgeable to make sure everything's supported by appropriate references. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking to a "Blog"

I see a link to Fishoilblog.com [http:// www.fishoilblog.com] has been removed due to not fitting within the external link policy. I'm assuming this is because links to blogs are discouraged. However, in this case, the word "blog" is misleading since this isn't some person's blog about life, or whatever. This is a news and research site that's updated on a regular basis. Every post links to clinical studies, and I've used this site to find research for the fish oil and omega-3 entries. However, the breadth of the information is far too much to be contained in Wikipedia, so I think for the sake of helping people to thoroughly and exhaustively understand the benefits of fish oil, an external link is in order. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. NutrisaurusRex (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No thanks; it's clearly a commercial product site and as such doesn't come close to meeting guidelines. If you or other accounts continue to attempt to link it, it will be blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

production methods and composition

Could we have a brief mention of production methods, eg coproduction with fishmeal The Production Process , and Detailed description of wet pressing, with images & diagrams, Danish production from sandeels,

and some typical compositions in terms of % of different fatty acids, toxins etc. Rod57 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

I was thinking the same thing; I am also surprised that there is no reference to garum on this page. Some production information is available at http://www.iffo.net/system/files/67_0.pdf (which also substantiates the claim about Peru's market share). -- jiHymas

Fish's body includes liver

"The preferred source of omega-3 should be from the fish's body, not the liver."

Since the liver is part of the body, this sentence doesn't make sense. Bayle Shanks (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes it preferred source? If it is the danger one is concerned about, the nutrients found in fish oil are derived from algal sources and can be obtained without the use of fish.

MBC2011 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation

The statement from the lead that reads "Countries with the highest intake of fish in their diets are correlated with the lowest rates of depression among citizens" is potentially misleading. There should be link somewhere on this page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. 60.242.98.209 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

CALAMARINE is supposed to have more DHA than Fish Oil

What is CALAMARINE and where does it come from? Please someone write a Wikipedia article on this subject. 108.81.134.236 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias against use for depression

Hello. I have made the point twice that "1981" is the earliest date for which we have a reference for investigation of fish oil's use as an antidepressant. Just because an editor thinks all the studies are done doesn't mean they are. I added the Cochrane review which specifically asks for more randomised controlled trials. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I am the offending editor you so distantly and obliquely allude to. I added the Yale review, which is subsequent to the Cochrane review added by you, and suggests that any evidence about fish oil relieving depression is wanting. I removed your additions twice in the interest of removing extraneous material, things for which there may be little value in the reader knowing. The weight of current research is clearly in a direction which indicates fish oil is not particularly useful for people with depressive issues. To draw attention to and reinforce what is very likely faulty historical research seems counterproductive to me, and certainly not helpful for people who may have depression. If the research changes, and move in a direction that suggests that fish oil is indeed helpful to people with depressive issues then I would agree the researcher who started this whole thing off should be highlighted. But that is not currently the case.

You accuse me of "bias", indeed you headline it. I don't see the bias in my position. I would be delighted if the research showed fish oil had the effects your pioneer claims. You might examine whether you have a bias yourself, wanting to believe in this effect even if it is not there. I also reversed your entries because they failed to reference this supposed pioneering research, but just mentioned someone commenting on it. Anyway, the matter is too minor to edit war over. I have sourced the matter more fully and we can leave it as you want. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not as I want. Did you read the Cochrane review from 2008? Covering everything three years before Yale, which strikes me as unusual enough to wonder about. But there have been US v. UK differences in science before. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Isolated cases of mania?

This source: [2] is currently used to source the following statement: "There are isolated case reports of development of mania in persons with bipolar disorder who took fish oil."

WP:MEDRS says: "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." The cited source is not even an article, it is simply a comment on another article.

Also, statement itself seems to communicate something insignificant and its inclusion seems to be potentially misleading. Bipolar disorder is characterized in many cases by intermittent episodes of mania; it seems normal to expect a substantial portion of bipolar patients (taking fish oil or not) to experience mania. At a glance, people might just look at the table of contents and see the association between fish oil and mania, when there is not currently enough evidence to justify any such association.

On these grounds, I am removing this statement and the source. Cazort (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ConsumerLab.com

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs) appears to be embarked on a campaign to remove all references to ConsumerLab.com on this and other articles. I addressed the matter on his talk page. However, his practice seems to be to delete comments, rather than respond to them. Since the notability of ConsumerLab.com is currently under discussion, it is not appropriate to delete this material before that discussion has concluded. Accordingly, I have reinstated the material, and ask Cantaloupe2 to express any concerns here, rather than continuing to edit war. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits were made in snippets and reasons are clearly explained in edit comments. Notability of the source for its appropriateness in having its own article and referencing to them as what constitutes WP:RS and free of WP:NPOVWP:COI are two separate things. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So you have reverted yet again. You know very well it is not appropriate to proceed on this matter until the status of ConsumerLab.com as a reliable source is more settled. It is very unpleasant editing in the vicinity of the aggression you are expressing Cantaloupe2, and you might examine whether going out of your way to aggravate other editors is really such a good idea. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To repeat myself again, the Afd isn't about the site's appropriateness as authoritative source of information. It is whether or not it merits existence on on Wikipedia. Anything you're not clear on? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, even just reading that recent edit history is a little stressful. Considering Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:BRD, I think the next step here is to discuss evidence for and against ConsumerLab.com as an appropriate source for material in this article. First, I've noticed that it's used in a lot of other Wikipedia articles, mostly added by editors who have reasonable reputations with broad editing patterns (not just editors who focus on ConsumerLab.com material). Second, in the sources I've been looking at related to the ConsumerLab.com article, I haven't found complaints about the accuracy of its results. Here are notes I posted on Talk:ConsumerLab.com about other supplement tests:

References 7, 8, and 9 indicate that ConsumerLab.com's coconut water study is moderately notable - mentioned in a NYT blog post and cited in a suit. Searching for materials related to the suit, this WSJ article discusses ConsumerLab.com's study. Reference 11 indicates that ConsumerLab.com's caffeine drink study is moderately notable, mentioned in a CNN article. Looking this up, the study was also mentioned in a ConsumerReports article, a Forbes article, and a Today article. And reference 17 shows coverage of its red yeast rice study in a medical journal. Looking that up, it was also covered in a CNN article.

In the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConsumerLab.com, Epipelagic noted that a lot of books mention ConsumerLab.com as a useful website, and a lot of scholarly articles reference it. Overall, it seems reasonable to use it as a reference for articles about supplements, especially if used in combination with other independent sources. I think it's distracting to mention it by name repeatedly though, and it's probably not solid enough to support entire sections without additional sources.

I also googled this specific topic and found news and magazine articles citing ConsumerLab.com in their reports on fish oil supplements: a mention in the NYT, coverage in USA Today, coverage in Men's Health, a mention in Prevention, coverage in Women's Health, and a mention in Reader's Digest. If it's good enough for all of them, it's probably good enough for this article. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the way it is written and inserted by Absander as it stands now shows its a pretty obvious advertisement use and his editing pattern establishes it. Deletion is justified per WP:NOPAY which states advertisement use is prohibited. However, if there is a doubt if his usage has been promotional or not, you can RfC it. It is also important to note that "pass fail" criteria invented by some private body is arbitrary scale that is based on their opinion as opposed to standards accepted by established regulatory agencies or world respected trade organization, so to allow inclusion of their pass/fail is advocating for some system they invented. What they do maybe notable, which can likely establish that company to have its wikipedia entry, but there is a doubt as its validity in use as a reference. For example, TheOnion is notable enough, but its almost always unacceptable as a serious reference. Get it? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Absander's additions weren't suitable to keep in the article without edits, but they're fine as starting points for building stronger material. My research shows that it's valid to use ConsumerLab.com's test results as a source; I'm not sure which pass/fail judgments you're discussing, but they don't sound as useful or relevant as the test results. Looking at these contested edits for example, they use the test results, not the pass/fail judgments - would you have a problem with me putting that material back?

I understand that the notability of ConsumerLab.com is separate from its validity as a source; my comment was entirely about its validity. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The only issue here is whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source for independent lab reports. If it is, then they have produced some highly relevant test findings on fish oil products which need to be incorporated in the article. Whether or not Absander previously added ConsumerLab.com results in a questionable and promoting way is irrelevant. Cantaloupe2 is throwing up flurries of dust, obscuring the issue and creating unnecessary drama. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith as much as I possibly can. In any case, I believe that the materials I've found so far indicate that it's a reliable source for this - do you agree? Looking at some publicly-available journal articles found via searching Google Scholar for "ConsumerLab.com" (since at the moment I don't have access to medical journals that require subscriptions), I found more evidence: this article by ConsumerLab.com includes some details about their methods, this article cites ConsumerLab.com as a source for a limited claim, [www.academicjournals.org/JMPR/PDF/pdf2008/July/Palu%20et%20al.pdf this article also cites ConsumerLab.com], this book lists ConsumerLab.com, NSF International, and US Pharmacopoeia as "Organizations Providing Independent Certification for Dietary Supplements", etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

nonetheless, entire section that only consumerlab.com is referenced and uses their self published press releases is POV FORK and entirely inappropriate. <-- unsigned comment by Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs) 10:45, 11 December 2012>

I agree that we shouldn't rely on it as the sole source for a section, but I don't quite understand adding warning tags about it being a self-published source. Since it's a source that other reliable sources trust, as we've seen in the links I've presented here, then it seems OK to use it as a source. I believe that citing ConsumerLab.com results reported by a third party (such as a newspaper or magazine) instead of citing results self-reported by ConsumerLab.com is actually more likely to increase errors than decrease errors in some cases, since journalists reporting on ConsumerLab.com results are basically summarizing them and contextualizing them, not doing independent laboratory testing of the results. It's best if we can cite ConsumerLab.com publishing their results in a peer-reviewed medical journal (as they do sometimes), but using relevant self-reported results seems OK to me. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No one here has claimed the way Absander initially wrote those sections is appropriate, so why do you keep going on about it Cantaloupe2? This is another example of you continuing to throw up dust. Had you read the very first post I placed on your talk page, before you deleted it, you would have found it said

...you do not seem to have taken on board my assessment that ConsumerLab.com is a notable source. The editor who initially added that material wrote it badly, and it needs rewriting. But the substance is relevant for the article on fish oil.

Please focus on the relevant issue. The material you keep deleting from the fish oil article should not have been deleted, it should have been rewritten. I too, Dreamyshade, am trying to assume good faith as much as possible. I agree with you that ConsumerLab.com is widely used as a reliable source for independent lab reports, both in academic circles and in mainstream publications such as the New York Times (138 mentions, not 1 as you said above) and a wide spectrum of established book publishers. Even QuackWatch recommends ConsumerLab (scroll down to "Links to Recommended Vendors" at the bottom), and that is as skeptical an organisation as you are likely to find anywhere. I have found nothing suggesting that their reports are not accurate, and I see no reason why relevant reports from them should not be cited in fish oil. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"138 mentions, not 1 as you said above" WP:GOOGLEHITSCantaloupe2 (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS addresses Google results, not NYT search results. NYT search results are significantly likelier to indicate usefulness than normal Google results, since most NYT articles can be used as reliable sources, and most normal Google results can't. That specific search reveals: non-trivial coverage related to multivitamins, "Where, then, can you look for reliable, unbiased information? One place to start is ConsumerLab.com, an independent research organization that tests supplements.", "In the meantime, tests by ConsumerLab.com and others are a useful effort to fill the information gap, said senior researchers at the United States Pharmacopeia and the institutes.", non-trivial coverage of ConsumerLab.com, an article on ConsumerLab.com's testing of garlic tablets, an article about one of ConsumerLab.com's books, an article on ConsumerLab.com's testing of health bars, an article on their testing of arthritis remedies, an article on their testing of valerian supplements, an article on their testing of cholesterol-related supplements, and another article with non-trivial coverage. I'm not sure why it estimates 100+ results, since I can only see less than 20 unique articles in those results, but these links still show that the NYT has considered a bunch of ConsumerLab.com results to be reliable and significant. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of causes for concern

There is a need for reliable secondary sources that validate that mercury, dioxins pcbs, spoilage, epa and dha and fomulations are relevant causes of concerns surrounding fish oil supplements. Currently, it is a list of things one test result publisher consumerlab.com chose to order tests for and publish. It can even order tests on the coloration consistency of the gelcap and report findings about it. The question here is whether these claims are of notable relevant concerns to fish oil. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First Sentence

Doesn't the first sentence seem a bit redundant? I mean, the sentence "Fish oil is oil derived from fish," seems a bit cluttered.

68.114.250.75 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) A guy

Not really; baby oil isn't derived from babies, and motor oil isn't derived from motors. An adjective preceding "oil" can refer to the predominant use, rather than the source. --208.87.234.180 (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mental health and depression are separate

Seems like they ought to be incorporated in some way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.137.140 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

COI tag

Tzjones, an editor who works for Saving Seafood (see the editor's user page), a fishing industry trade organization, recently joined WP and has been directly editing this and other articles. I have placed a COI tag on this article. Once an independent editor has reviewed changes made by Tzjones for NPOV and sourcing, the tag can be removed. Please make a note here when you do that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Please see Talk:Omega-3_fatty_acid#Merger_proposal Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Various recommendations

This needs information on government positions other than U.S. For example, the European Food Safety Authority has published four Scientific Opinions on the health benefits and safety of EPA and DHA, the benefits documents listing which claims are supported and which not. See EFSA: 2012;10(7):2815 2011;9(6):2224 2010;8(10):1796 2009;7(9):1263. EFSA and the World Health Organization recommend adults consume more than 250 mg/day of EPA + DHA. However, no country has set DRIs (either AIs or EARs and RDAs) for EPA + DHA. Japan has set an AI (Adequate Intake) for omega-3 fatty acids, but that pools ALA + EPA + DHA. EFSA disagrees with U.S. FDA on how much is safe. None of these recommendations are for how much fish oil to consume. Instead, recommendations are for servings of fish per week or EPA + DHA per day. David notMD (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Consumption of fish oil is said to have a big environmental impact, mainly because up to 100 kg of fish is needed to extract a liter of fish oil. This I got from a researcher in a Dutch Greenpeace video. This claim needs to be supported by good, citable sources, but assuming the statement is true, I thought it relevant enough to already mention it on this talk page. —Hulten (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing Content

I was reading through the page trying to find information on Fish Oil, and instead feel like I was handed an article on Omega 3. I feel information such as the health pros/cons listed in the article that are focused on Omega3 Oils rather than fish should be kept in the Omega3 article. (Things like the Mercury content could easily stay, given the relevancy to fish)

I'm new to Wikipedia and not familiar with making edits, so I don't want to overstep myself by making changes like this myself.

Perhaps the article could be split into Fish Oil, and Fish based Omega 3(or just merge this latter part with the Omega3 article). Additional information such as how Fish Oil is obtained from fish could be added to this Fish Oil article.(there's already a photo showing a processing plant, but no information to go with it) Anntari (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is a mess around this topic (there are many different oils/acids and there is a lot of overlapping and even contradictory content about them). Some of the information you want is in Fish processing, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Potential Article Additions

Hey guys! My final project for a class involves making edits to a Wikipedia article related to some nutritional controversy / question. I've written up a few potential paragraphs to add to this page, but I wanted to know if you guys had any ideas regarding their validity / any edits that I could make before I add them to the live space. Below is a link to my sandbox for this article:

[[3]]

Thank you for the feedback and I hope I can make some good contributions!

Msw258 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I replied at the talk page of your sandbox, User_talk:Msw258/sandboxFishOilEdits. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mercury

The section on mercury doesn't seem to make any sense. Firstly, it confuses parts per million with parts per billion - mercury levels in fish are around 0.1 parts per million (100 parts per billion) while the tested levels in supplements were measured in parts per billion (ie. there was much less mercury found in supplements than typically found in fish - even less than the nominal values suggest once you adjust for the fact that a much lower mass of supplement needs to be consumed compared to fish in order to obtain the same amount of fish oil). Secondly the comparisons to tolerable weekly intake don't take into account the relative weight of the supplement being consumed compared to the body weight of the person consuming it. Essentially it's saying that if you eat your own body weight in fish oil supplements then you'll be slightly exceeding your tolerable weekly intake of mercury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.64.253 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)