Despite the sluggish economy, the market for foods fortified with long-chain omega-3s continues to advance at a good pace. The reality is, however, that regulatory uncertainty has the potential to slow the market.
For the past few years, nutrient-content claims have been used to declare a product is a “good source” of or “rich in” EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) omega-3s. The regulatory framework for nutrient-content claims is rigid: The claims must be based on an authoritative statement of a recognized scientific body of the U.S. government stating a daily intake recommendation, and products must contain 10% of that intake to use a “good source” claim, and 20% to use a “rich in” claim. The EPA and DHA nutrient-content claims were based on a statement by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that 1.6 grams of ALA (alpha-linolenic acid) omega-3s was an adequate intake (AI) for a healthy population, and that EPA and DHA can contribute up to 10% (160 mg) of the AI for ALA. Recently, however, FDA has proposed to ban such claims on EPA and DHA products, because it feels the unusual wording from the IOM does not qualify as an authoritative statement.
Some believe the food industry is using the claims to take a “fairy dust” approach to EPA and DHA fortification in foods, since many scientific organizations, such as the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada, are recommending 500 mg of daily combined EPA and DHA intake or more. Using the nutrient-content claims allows companies to put only 32 mg per serving into a product and claim it is high in omega-3 content.
However, regulators and others should consider that no meaningful way of communicating omega-3 content higher than 32 mg to consumers exists in the food space, because research shows that consumers are unaware of the amount of EPA and DHA they should be taking. In fact, according to research from Leatherhead Food International, Surrey, England, only 4% of U.S. consumers could say that 500mg was a recommended intake level. Companies can state the amount of EPA and DHA a product contains, but without the point of reference nutrient content claims provide (“good source of EPA and DHA”), such claims are not meaningful. Omega-3s for foods are not inexpensive ingredients, so adding higher levels without getting extra return on the investment is a losing proposition for food manufacturers.
For this market to continue to grow, and for consumers to have greater access to these vital nutrients, there needs to be a means for the food industry to communicate the value of higher levels of EPA and DHA content.
Adam Ismail is executive director of Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s (GOED Omega-3), an association of processors, refiners, manufacturers, distributors, marketers, retailers and supporters of products containing omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. For more information, log on to goedomega3.com.
