Researchers at Michigan State University have established a link between the ingestion of fish oil and colon cancer in mice having inflammatory bowel disease:

The study, published in the journal Cancer Research, found an increase in the severity of the cancer and an aggressive progression of the cancer in not only the mice receiving the highest doses of DHA but those receiving lower doses as well.
 
Our findings support a growing body of literature implicating harmful effects of high doses of fish oil consumption in relation to certain diseases," Fenton said. "Currently, there is a call by academics and the food industry to establish dietary guidelines for omega-3 consumption.
 
However, Fenton cautioned people may not need to avoid fish oil -- with any nutrient, there is a "bell curve" effect, with those on the left deficient in a nutrient and those on the right in excess.
 

Tags: Cancer, Colon, Fish, Jubinsky, Oil

Views: 95

Replies to This Discussion

Researchers are such goons sometimes, they are surprised that having way too much of something ended up being a bad thing. Good job, now everyone is going to see the headline and not rtfa and stop consuming fish oil / omega-3 because it causes cancer.

Moderation where art thou...
I'll second all that Daniel.
However, Fenton cautioned people may not need to avoid fish oil --

This is made very clear not only in the article but in the abstract introducing it.

There are people who have colon cancer in their family histories or who have been discovered through cystoscopies to be prone to developing precancerous nodules in their colons who need to know this information in order to take preventive measures against developing colon cancer. They should not be sacrificed especially when the article and abstract introducing it are very clear about the nature of the findings.

Most people read more than just a headline.
Do you know what DHA is? It is a fatty acid that fish oil is naturally rich in. Per Wikipedia:

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid. Fish oils are rich in DHA.

There is nothing in the article that suggests the mice received fish oil that was unnaturally laced with it. Please read the article:

"We found that mice developed deadly, late-stage colon cancer when given high doses of fish oil -- more importantly, with the increased inflammation, it only took four weeks for the tumors to develop."

Per Wikipedia regarding colon cancer:

With 655,000 deaths worldwide per year, it is the fourth most common form of cancer in the United States and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world.

Is it your position that the findings presented in the article should be suppressed?

I think your emotions are getting the better of your rationality.
However, Fenton cautioned people may not need to avoid fish oil -- with any nutrient, there is a "bell curve" effect, with those on the left deficient in a nutrient and those on the right in excess.

The above statement is in the abstract. i.e., your concern was addressed in the abstract! Did you read it?

A scientific link has been established between DHA (which is abundant in fish oil) and colon cancer in mice and the finding was considered credible enough to have been published in a scientific journal. Credible scientists have decided that the finding is significant. Should your opinion take precedence over this?

By what authority do you decide that the link between DHA (which is abundant in fish oil) and colon cancer should be withheld from people who have family histories of colon cancer or whose cystoscopies have revealed precancerous polyps in their colons?

Per Wikipedia regarding colon cancer:

With 655,000 deaths worldwide per year, it is the fourth most common form of cancer in the United States and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world.

As you pointed out the word, enriched, probably means that DHA was added to the fish oil. It makes sense that it would have been in varying amounts so as to more easily determine results correlated with varying consumption quantities of non-enriched fish oil. However, the article is clear that the link between DHA and colon cancer existed even with lower doses of DHA.

The study, published in the journal Cancer Research, found an increase in the severity of the cancer and an aggressive progression of the cancer in not only the mice receiving the highest doses of DHA but those receiving lower doses as well.

Fish oil is rich in DHA and credible scientists have attested that there is a significant link between DHA and fish oil. By what authority do you refute this? Would you be willing to take responsibility for the unnecessary colon cancer deaths that might result from withholding knowledge of this link from the public?
Please correct the last paragraph above to read:

Fish oil is rich in DHA and credible scientists have attested that there is a significant link between DHA and colon cancer. By what authority do you refute this? Would you be willing to take responsibility for the unnecessary colon cancer deaths that might result from withholding knowledge of this link from the public?

A scientific study was conducted by qualified researchers. It established a link between DHA and colon cancer. Fish oil is rich in DHA so the researchers claimed a link between fish oil and colon cancer. This position was deemed worthy of publication by a credible scientific journal.

I reported the findings. In so doing I presented the following statement in the abstract:

However, Fenton cautioned people may not need to avoid fish oil -- with any nutrient, there is a "bell curve" effect, with those on the left deficient in a nutrient and those on the right in excess.

You may take the position that I should not have reported the findings. You are entitled to your opinion.
There are other fine sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Flaxseed oil and Borage oil are two. So very many people are taking fish oil these days that this info is important. As a vegan, I don't use fishes, nor do I want mice harmed on my behalf. And, yes, I DO love science.
What is your basis of argument other than the "scientific study was conducted by qualified researchers"

Now how do you define "This position was deemed worthy of publication by a credible scientific journal"


I am surprised that I am being asked to explain these comments. I thought the meaning of them would be clear especially to an MD.

"scientific study was conducted by qualified researchers" was meant to communicate that the the supposed facts independantly from interpretation could reasonably be believed. It had nothing to do with what I thought the facts meant.

"This position was deemed worthy of publication by a credible scientific journal" was meant to communicate that my belief (shared by the reseahers) that the study linked fish oil to colon cancer was also attested to by a credible scientific journal. This was in defense of your tendency to dismiss my position as naieve.

I have presented a clear case as to why I reported the findings. I do not wish to present the whole thing again. However, in your above remarks regarding it you said:

As an MD I cannot agree when some one takes some claims out of context and presents it.

For the third time allow me to remind you that in the abstract I presented the following statement:

However, Fenton cautioned people may not need to avoid fish oil -- with any nutrient, there is a "bell curve" effect, with those on the left deficient in a nutrient and those on the right in excess.

Call my presentation out of context if you want. I am tired of discussing this.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service