Omega-3 Margarines - Health Claims More Like Health Hopes

Marketing and advertising have always been at odds with science and sticking with just the facts.
Embellishment, selective omission, even claims that are unverified even as advertisements carrying them are published, do not come close to running the gamut of tactics used to convince people to buy products that almost always start as an overpromise and often end up underdelivering.

One particular example is the benefit of the essential fatty acid or good fat omega 3 supplemented from a variety of sources like fish, flax seeds, walnuts, or olive oil, or simply taken in pill form, having been long touted as heart-protecting by counteracting the effects of the bad fats in the diet. There are a lot of companies in the world today claiming/asserting/offering a significant possibility that their omega 3 enriched product will lower the risk of heart disease – long before it is actually proven. With more and more people gaining access to information via the internet, the number of so-called do-it-yourself doctors or those who try to address their own health concerns without consulting a doctor, is also growing every year. There is plenty of information available online, though nothing beats actual testing.

Consider the following report with the current finding that omega 3 enriched margarines developed by Unilever failed to prevent repeat heart attacks, taken from Reuters.com:

Omega-3 margarines fail to help in heart study

STOCKHOLM, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Giving patients with a history of heart attacks a margarine enriched with omega-3 oils in addition to standard drugs appears to make no difference to their chances of having a repeat attack.

A 40-month study of more than 4,800 patients showed taking low doses of omega-3 fatty acids in margarine did not significantly reduce rates of serious heart attacks and other cardiovascular events, Dutch researchers said on Sunday.

The finding raised questions about the benefits of omega-3, which has been shown in previous studies to make for healthier hearts. The margarines used in the study were developed for the researchers by food and consumer goods giant Unilever (ULVR.L).

Doctors, however, are unlikely to rush to change clinical practice. Many already prescribe omega-3 fish oil capsules, including GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK.L) Lovaza, to reduce triglycerides, a type of blood fat linked to clogged arteries.

"It will be viewed as a largely negative study and people who are enthusiasts for omega fatty acids will continue to be enthusiasts and people who are sceptics will continue to be sceptics," said Scott Wright of the Mayo Clinic in the United States, who was not involved in the research.

Daan Kromhout of Wageningen University, who led the study, told the European Society of Cardiology the lack of efficacy might reflect the good background drug treatment patients were receiving, with 85 percent on cholesterol-lowering statins, as well as blood pressure and blood-thinning tablets.

"We found the cardiovascular mortality rate in the study population was only half that expected, probably because of their excellent treatment," he said.

"This may also be why the rate of major cardiovascular events during follow-up was no lower in the fatty acid groups than in the placebo group."

All the men and women in the Dutch study were aged between 60 and 80 and had suffered a heart attack roughly four years previously.

They were randomly assigned use of one of four margarines on bread instead of their regular spread -- one containing no extra omega-3 fatty acids; one with 400 milligrams a day of extra eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA); one with 2 grams of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA); and one with a combination of EPA-DHA and ALA.

Fish like salmon, herring and sardine are a common source of EPA-DHA, while ALA is found in vegetables including soybeans, flax seeds and walnuts.

Despite the overall negative results, researchers did find there was a reduction in repeat heart attacks and other cardiovascular events in women who took ALA margarine, although this was not statistically significant. Diabetes patients also showed a possible benefit.

Unilever, whose margarine brands that contain omega-3 include Flora and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, said the lack of benefit seen with EPA and DHA was surprising, considering the weight of evidence published to date.

"The results indicate that more investigation is required into the efficacy of vegetable omega 3, but do not question the current authoritative dietary recommendations and advices for omega 3 intakes on which our products are based," the company said in a statement.

The results of the study, which was supported by the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Unilever, were also published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Instead of taking the report at face value, it is better that some key points or questions be raised.

Specifically, the study leader attributes to a supposedly high level of drug care the failure of the omega 3 enriched margarines to prevent subsequent heart attacks, which gives rise to a few questions:

Does it mean that supplemental omega 3 is worthless for preventing heart attacks unless drug care is suboptimal or sub par?

Are the observed and measured improvements from omega 3 intake from margarines so marginal compared to the effects of the drugs administered that it seems unnecessary to add the omega 3 enriched margarines in the diet in the first place?

Why conduct a study that does not isolate omega 3's supposed beneficial effects, i.e., why were the test subjects taking drugs that could skew the results and make the effects of the drugs indistinguishable from the effects of the omega 3?

This study design appears to have ensured success of at least one of the means to counter heart disease, because if the design were different, like say, there is no effective drug care given and the omega 3 enriched margarines still fail to make a statistically significant difference towards preventing future heart attacks, the failure would be definitive – a nightmare for the “healthy” brands involved. In the end, the recommendation of “more investigation needed” gives the brands involved in the study the chance to still ride on consumer preconceptions and continue selling.

Why I Don't Believe In Dove's Campaign For Real Beauty

If you're like me, tired of all the tricks companies play in trying to convince people to buy their product, you'll be able to relate to this post.

Years ago, Dove, a brand of topselling moisturizing soap, created an ad campaign that they say encourages women to be comfortable in their own skin and ran ads that had models who looked more average in body shape and facial features, i.e., more average-looking compared to the usual ultra-fit and gorgeous models we see in other commercials. It's called the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, a campaign that wanted to convince women to be confident and comfortable with themselves and the way they are. They even had what they called the Dove Self-Esteem Fund that downplays the Western concept of beauty of models with very little bodyfat and flawless skin in preference of being proud of however one might look, whatever shape she might be in.

Some have criticized Dove's marketing for being completely contradictory to the messages that other brands Lynx (Axe in the Philippines) and Fair and Lovely (skin whitening product marketed in different countries) send consumers. Lynx is criticized for consistently objectifying women, while Fair and Lovely is a product for women who want to do away with their dark complexion. All these three brands are owned by Unilever. While I also understand how inconsistent Unilever now appears having diametrically opposed positions depending on which kind of consumer is asking about it (be yourself for Dove target consumers, be thin and sexy for Lynx target consumers, don't be dark for Fair and Lovely target consumers ), something else became the deal-breaker for me. Actually, there are two deal-breakers.

It has become widely known, at least among more thinking circles, that despite all the confidence-building, patronizing and pandering the Dove brand has been able to do on a huge global budget, the immediate following years raised the problem that this campaign poses the following risks:

(1) the risk of completely removing the ASPIRATIONAL aspect that is important in making women spend more money on other beauty and personal care products; and

(2) the risk of turning the Dove brand into a soap brand for fat people.

How sincere was that, right?

Today Dove is back to focusing on moisturizing and price-offs, at least as far as commercials in the Philippines are concerned.

Well, now that that's out in the open, and we now know that the real beauty in Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty was actually photoshopped, I can't ask for a better nail in the coffin.

Beware of Double Standards

What does the word standard mean? One of the definitions according to Dictionary.com is

an accepted or approved example of something against which others are judged or measured;

or

something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.

Standards give us the bases of determining the safeness or unsafeness of an action, a decision, or a product. Standards give us markers that tell us what lines not to cross when doing so poses safety risks that might be unacceptable.

From this you could already deduce what double standard means, but let's take an actual definition anyway. Dictionary.com defines double standard in quite clear ways as

any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another

or

a set of principles that allows greater freedom to one person or group than to another

or

A set of principles establishing different provisions for one group than another

I brought up the subject of double standards on this post because I came across a document that factually tells of double standards practiced by a company that makes billions of dollars annually selling consumers fast-moving consumer goods. I think you'll agree that when you eat something or use a certain product in daily life you expect these products to be safe and of acceptable safety standards. Would you still believe in the safety standards applied by a manufacturing company if they have been found to practice double standards?

I found this document from Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations) that contains information on controversial business practices of Unilever, a company that happens to claim it adds vitality to life. As early as 2001 there has been an issue with mercury pollution at the former thermometer factory owned by Unilever located in Kodaikanal India. More than 7 tons of waste material generated by the factory's operations was contaminated with mercury which is highly toxic. The mercury pollution had severe spoiling effects on the environment nearby, and public protests demanded Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) to take full responsibility. With mercury safety standards lacking in India, the Dutch soil clean-up standard for residential areas of 10mg/kg mercury level was initially taken as the standard for HUL to meet. That standard would soon be dropped in preference of adopting 25mg/kg mercury level, a result of HUL having successfully lobbied to use a different standard for India. Unilever doesn't mind a high margin for mercury contamination in Indian soil, but would never accept such a low safety standard on Dutch soil; this clearly smacks of keeping double standards.

Read the brief report for yourself here.

2009 04 [Somo] Unilever Overview Of Controversial Business Practices In 2008

View more documents from guest60b07f7.

When a company profits heavily from selling consumers worldwide a large portfolio of products deemed perfectly safe and without risks associated with regular usage or consumption, I'd expect that it has no place for double standards anywhere in its practices. But seeing this casts doubts about how the same company could avoid applying double standards in other aspects of its operations. We can only cross our fingers that there are no double standards when it comes to the safety of their products we use everyday.