Citation:
Sioen I, De Henauw S, Verbeke W, Verdonck F, Willems JL, Van Camp J. Fish consumption is a safe solution to increase the intake of long-chain n-3 fatty acids. Public Health Nutr. 2008 Nov;11(11):1107-16.
PubMed ID: 18167167
Study Design:
Quantitative Assessment / Meta-Analysis
Class:
M -
Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Research Design and Implementation Rating:

NEUTRAL: See Research Design and Implementation Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:
- To evaluate if the recommendation for long chain n-3 PUFA can be obtained by fish consumption without exceeding the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of MeHg and the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of dioxin like compounds.
- To analyze the health risk of consuming the recommended amount of fish based on the Belgian standards.
Inclusion Criteria:
- Used the data from the Pan-European SEAFOODplus consumer survey, analyzed the seven most consumed fish.
- Contaminant data was taken from 2 new databases which contained published data on nutrient and contaminant concentrations for various fish for Belgian.
Exclusion Criteria:
Description of Study Protocol:
Recruitment
This was a hypothetical scenario. A hypothetical population was used including a sample of 600 individuals (n=300 men n= 300 women). Each group was evenly distributed into four age classes (30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years). Normal gender, age and body weight distributions were used and based on the Belgian population (BIRNHI study). It was believed by the investigators that N=600 was sufficient for to allow for good convergence of the intake results (data not reported).
Design: Quantitative assessment / meta-analysis
A simulation model that combined species-specific fish consumption patterns with nutrient and contaminant concentration data was used to intake assessment.
Blinding used (if applicable) not applicable
Intervention (if applicable) not applicable
Statistical Analysis
- Means and distribution data provided.
- Hypothetical groups were established to include three consumption patterns and three sub-scenarios for each consumption patterns including the frequency of consuming fish per week (1x, 2x or 3x/ week).
- Average daily intake of an individual per kg of body weight was calculated using consumption and contaminant concentration data.

Data Collection Summary:
Timing of Measurements
Hypothetical groups were established to include three consumption patterns and three sub-scenarios for each consumption patterns including the frequency of consuming fish per week (1x, 2x or 3x/ week).
Flow for scheme for the study analysis-
Pan-European SEAFOODplus consumer survey ⇒ selected 7 most consumed fish ⇒ Evaluated for three consumption scenarios (observed consumption patterns, altered pattern 50% lean and 50% fatty fish, altered pattern 100% fatty fish)⇔Three sub scenarios for each scenario (1x,or 2x or 3x a portion of 150g fish per week) probabilistic intake assessment of nutrients and contaminants⇒re-analysis with addition of daily portion of long chain n-3 enriched margarine.
Dependent Variables
- Contaminants- MeHg (in ng/g fish); dioxin-like PCB (dlPCB expressed in pg WHO-TEQ/g fish; dioxins plus furans (PCDD/F); total dioxin-like compounds referred to as total TEQ (totTEQ)
Independent Variables
- Fish consumption of 7 types of fish: Cod, Tuna, Alaska pollock, Plaice, Atlantic salmon, Herring, Mackerel; and Total lean fish and Total fatty fish
- Nutrients: EPA+DHA was considered as one nutrient, long chain n-3 PUFA
Control Variables
Investigators attempted to control for age and gender by developing a hypothetical population equal for gender and divided into four different age classes.

Description of Actual Data Sample:
Initial N: 600 (300 males, 300 females)
Attrition (final N): not applicable, as above
Age: age classes 30-39 years; 40-49 years; 50-59 years; 60-69 years
Other relevant demographics: none
Anthropometrics
Normal body weight distributions were used per gender and age interval. This was based on the available data from the Belgian population (BIRNH study).
Weight (kg±SD)
Men Women
30-39 years 77.2±11.2 62.7±10.9
40-49 years 78.9±11.5 66.7±11.7
50-59 years 77.4±11.4 69.5±11.2
60-69 years 75.3±12.3 69.5±11.9
Location:
Belgium- hypothetical location
Summary of Results:
Key Findings:
- The Belgian recommendation for EPA + DHA (0.3% of total energy intake) can be reached by consuming fatty fish a minimum of twice a week, or by varying between lean and fatty fish a minimum of three times a week
- At this fish consumption level, MeHg intake is not an issue of toxicological concern.
- Increased fatty fish consumption would reduce the intake of MeHg.
- totTEQ increases when lean fish consumption is replaced by fatty fish sources.
- Increased consumption of fatty fish increases the intake of EPA+DHA
- Some fish including Cod and Pollock contain a high EPA+DHA to totTEQ ratio. But due to its low EPA+DHA absolute concentration it would be difficult to obtain the dietary recommendations.
- The results indicated that the consumption pattern of 50% lean fish and 50% fatty fish consumed a minimum of 3 x week or only fatty fish consumed 2x times a week would achieve adequate consumption of EPA+DHA 48% of the population for 3x week 50/50 and 92.5% of the population for 2x week for fatty fish consumption only.
- None of the scenarios would cause an MeHg intake that would cause a health concern.
- Consuming enriched margarine would increase the EPA+DHA mean daily intake to 159 mg, or 23.3% of the Belgian recommendation.

Author Conclusion:
The Belgian recommendation for EPA+DHA can be obtained by regular consumption of fish especially if consuming lean and fatty fish 50% each a minimum of three times per week or fatty fish a minimum of two times per week. However, consuming fatty fish three times a week leads to an intake of totTEQ of potential toxicological concern. Therefore other food sources for consuming EPA+DHA should be considered. Clear dietary advice about the consumption of fish and ways to increase the intake of LC n-3 PUFA without increasing the toxicological concerns needs to be considered.
Reviewer Comments:
The investigators provided sound hypothetical schematic for evaluating the relationship of fish consumption and health and toxicological risks. Article inclusion/exclusion criteria not described.
|
Research Design and Implementation Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|
Relevance Questions
|
| |
1.
|
Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? |
Yes
|
| |
2.
|
Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? |
Yes
|
| |
3.
|
Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to nutrition or dietetics practice? |
Yes
|
| |
4.
|
Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? |
Yes
|
| |
|
Validity Questions
|
| |
1.
|
Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? |
Yes
|
| |
2.
|
Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? |
No
|
| |
3.
|
Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified and appropriate? Were selection methods unbiased? |
No
|
| |
4.
|
Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methods specified, appropriate, and reproducible? |
No
|
| |
5.
|
Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? |
Yes
|
| |
6.
|
Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? |
Yes
|
| |
7.
|
Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently across studies and groups? Was there appropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? |
No
|
| |
8.
|
Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels of significance and/or confidence intervals included? |
Yes
|
| |
9.
|
Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations of the review identified and discussed? |
Yes
|
| |
10.
|
Was bias due to the review’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? |
Yes
|
| |
| |
Copyright American Dietetic Association (ADA).