Latest / Origin Matters / What's Actually In Your Omega-3 Supplements?
Transcript
- Spencer Macintyre: Hey everyone, and welcome back to Origin Matters. Today's episode is called What's Actually in Your Omega 3 Supplement? And we're looking at some of the market screenings that ORIVO has conducted over the years. We'll talk about what a market screening involves, what we've found across past screenings, and why it matters for both human and pet supplement users. Today I'm joined by Synnøve Hagen, who is the Customer Success Director here at ORIVO and has been with us for over six and a half years. So she's been with the company across all of the different screenings that we've done, and I thought it should be perfect to discuss some of the screenings with us today. Thanks for joining me, Synnøve Synnøve: thanks for having me, Spencer. Spencer Macintyre: Awesome. So before we get into discussing some of the results and findings, I thought what might be good is maybe for you to share a little bit about what a market screening actually is, what what the process involves for anyone that might not be aware with what a market screening even even really means. Synnøve: Sure. So what we call a market screening is when we purchase products through retail channels such as online marketplaces or through brick and mortar shops. All of these are consumer-ready products within a certain category. Then we analyze the products to determine if the product's origin and species conform with what's on the label. We can compare the chemical fingerprints against our reference database, which includes over 20,000 samples. When we say a result is non-compliant, what we have found is that there are significant deviations from the reference database, which would indicate that the product has been significantly adulterated. or that it doesn't contain any of the raw materials on the label. Spencer Macintyre: Thanks, Synnøve. Yeah, and I I just thought that for anyone who might be interested in learning more about the types of technologies that we're using here at ORVIO there's a previous episode that I recorded with Eric Fuglseth who's our CTO, where we discuss the different analytical methods that we use. Thanks Synnøve, and I was wondering, could you run through some of the different screenings that we've completed? I've brought up a summary of these screenings on the screen here, but for people who might be interested in receiving the full report, I'll include links to the to our website where you can download the full report for each one of these screenings. Synnøve: Yes, please download the market screenings for more information, but I will briefly go through the ones we have performed. The first market screening we ran was back in 2016, where we focused on Omega-3 for human based on krill and salmon raw materials in the US and European market. We found that 37 % were non-compliant. In 2021, we also focused on Omega 3 for humans, this time based on krill, salmon and cod raw materials in China and the Southeast Asia market. In this screening, found that 47 % were non-compliant. In 2023, we ran a market screening in the pet supplement space in the US, focusing on wild Alaskan salmon oils. And I have to say we were shocked to see that over 80 % of these products were non-compliant. In 2024, we ran a new one focusing on the human supplement based on krill, salmon, seal and cod in both US, Europe and China. We found 36 % non-compliant products in this screening. Spencer Macintyre: So looking back at some of the screenings that we've done, what have been some of the most surprising findings for you, Synnøve? I know that when I first joined ORIVO I was pretty shocked by just the general high number and I guess the consistency across the board, but I'm I'm interested to know from your point of view, what are some of the sort of standout ones that have shocked you over the time? Synnøve: There have been several results that have really surprised us, I have to say. But for my personal opinion is that the pet supplement WASO a case in 2023 where we found over 80 % of the products being non-compliant were the most surprising. We were informed by industry members who are connected with that fishery. who did some rough maths and found out if you simply compare the actual volume of production from that fishery versus retail sales, there was much more volume being sold than what had been harvested. But still, I have to say that over 80 % non-compliant is a huge number. But in general, We seem to find an average high level of adulteration across all of the screenings we have conducted, which is surprising in itself. These numbers are high regardless of whether you look at the human or pet space, the various raw materials or the different markets. Maybe not a surprise, but we have also noticed that there appears to be a correlation of an increase in adulteration when the raw material prices increases sharply and in general with more expensive raw materials. Spencer Macintyre: Yeah, well that makes sense that when these categories they might get popular on Amazon or something like that and lots of consumers start buying more of it. But I guess with the the way that these fisheries work, it's not as if you can easily double or triple their output just because they're they're trending on on Amazon, right? So then it increases that economic incentive for a bad player somewhere throughout the supply chain to water down to introduce other adulterants or something like that to make that product stretch further and unfortunately make an economic gain that is really the thing that's driving it. but I was thinking could we dig a little bit deeper into the adulteration piece? Do you know do we know what the sort of common adulterants are and have we ever found anything that's dangerous, something say on a on a pet supplement, something that might harm a dog or Something that genuinely wouldn't be good for a human. Synnøve: So it's not accurate to say there is one common adulterant across all these cases. It varies a lot. Also, sometimes we know exactly what it is. Sometimes it is a mixture of fish oil and other oils and we can't accurately say exactly what it is. In the cases where we know what it is, a common example would be that the label claim is pure wild Alaskan salmon oil. But when we analyze it, the chemical fingerprint is 100 % matched with a different species or origin. And just to get back to your other point about dangerous ingredients in this type of adulteration, it isn't dangerous for a human or a pet. However, our opinion is that if a brand is selling a product at a premium to a consumer or a pet parent based on the species or origin of that product, they should be getting what they're paying for. One consistent thing is we have noticed is that adulteration is almost always where the adulterant is a cheaper base raw material. It is feasible that during the supply chain a mistake can happen and the wrong barrel of oil is mixed in. But it is interesting that we haven't really found any cases where the adulterant or mistake was accidentally putting in a more expensive raw material. We have also found some cases where the argument of a mistake is less likely. For example, in krill oil screening, we found the product was mainly vegetable oil mixed with the red food coloring. which made it resemble the red krill colour. I presume it's unlikely that this was a mistake. Spencer Macintyre: Yeah, I can fully understand that 'cause you're right, mistakes do happen especially I'm sure at a at a busy warehouse where people have got lots of different barrels of things, it's possible that someone could put the wrong barrel of something into a into a product at some point. But then you're right that if we if you analyse something that's supposed to be a krill oil and it's got vegetable oil and red food colouring and then has been put made into a soft gel, the chance that multiple errors were made across that supply chain seems very unlikely. Synnøve: Mm. Spencer Macintyre: So another question then on the adulteration. So if we at ORIVO if we analyse one of these products, does it mean that the brand themselves know that they're adulterating or is it at a different point throughout the the supply chain or is there a a point in the supply chain that you think the bad actors might be? Synnøve: No, there are a few points to clarify. First, with the market screening we are analyzing one sample from one batch. Most brands produce many batches throughout the year and when we test just one, all it means is that one batch had this challenge. It's possible it was simply a mistake in the supply chain on that particular batch. This is why ORIVO has our ongoing verification program for brands who want a high continuous level of analysis. Second, from our experience, the brand can actually be fully unaware that their product isn't what they think it is. A lot of these products have complex supply chains that go from producers to traders to manufacturers that create soft gels or other delivery methods, then to packaging facilities, etc. So lastly, where are the bad actors? It's impossible to pinpoint exactly. The world is a big place with many honest companies and unfortunately, some bad actors. Our opinion is that certifying through paper trail is vulnerable as you can adulterate paperwork that goes along with a barrel of oil at any stage. But what you can't beat is chemically analyzing the finished product. We have a saying here at ORIVO trust but verify. Spencer Macintyre: Awesome. And so can you tell me what are some of the screenings that we've got planned in the in the future, Synnøve? Synnøve: I guess you will have to wait and see, Spencer. we have some exciting things in the pipeline. and of course we will update our website and social channels when we have new screenings to reveal. but of course, if anyone have any good ideas for us, you are more than welcome to reach out through our website. Spencer Macintyre: Awesome. Well thanks for joining me on the the session today, Synnøve. It's been great having you and I'll see you on the next one. Synnøve: Thanks for having me. Spencer Macintyre: Thanks a lot. Bye. Synnøve: Bye.