A Nutritional-Toxicological Assessment of Antarctic Krill Oil versus Fish Oil Dietary Supplements

Fish oil dietary supplements and complementary medicines are pitched to play a role of increasing strategic importance in meeting daily requirements of essential nutrients, such as long-chain (≥C(20), LC) omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin D. Recently a new product category, derived from Antarctic krill, has been launched on the omega-3 nutriceutical market. Antarctic krill oil is marketed as demonstrating a greater ease of absorption due to higher phospholipid content, as being sourced through sustainable fisheries and being free of toxins and pollutants; however, limited data is available on the latter component. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) encompass a range of toxic, man-made contaminants that accumulate preferentially in marine ecosystems and in the lipid reserves of organisms. Extraction and concentration of fish oils therefore represents an inherent nutritional-toxicological conflict. This study aimed to provide the first quantitative comparison of the nutritional (EPA and DHA) versus the toxicological profiles of Antarctic krill oil products, relative to various fish oil categories available on the Australian market. Krill oil products were found to adhere closely to EPA and DHA manufacturer specifications and overall were ranked as containing intermediate levels of POP contaminants when compared to the other products analysed. Monitoring of the pollutant content of fish and krill oil products will become increasingly important with expanding regulatory specifications for chemical thresholds.