The omega-3 debate is larger than the law suit between Möller’s Codliver oil and Superba Krill. What is the omega-3 debate about?
The market for dietary supplements with omega-3 looks confusing to anyone who is not an expert. It is often difficult for the average person to know what the various products contain and can in fact offer in terms of health advantages. Möller's wants to do something about this, so we are working in the long-term to improve the health of the Norwegian public through high-quality omega-3 products. We think that one gram of omega-3 from the sea (EPA or DHA) per day should be taken to achieve good health results.
Why is Superba Krill’s marketing campaign misleading?
On the 1st of September, Aker BioMarine launched the Superba Krill product for direct consumer sales. The product has been heavily marketed on television, in newspapers, weekly publications and on the Internet. Petter Northug Jr., Oddbjørn Hjelmeset and Ole Einar Bjørndalen are used as product spokesmen.
In the campaign, claims that Superba Krill is a more effective source of omega-3 than fish oil have been put forth in various ways. Furthermore, Aker BioMarine goes a long way to suggest that Möller’s Codliver oil is what they are comparing Superba Krill to in pointing out that it “doesn’t have to taste bad to work”. We consider this a direct reference to Möller’s Codliver oils ad campaign that says: “It tastes of cod liver oil, but that’s what works”.
Seen from our side, the challenge to Superba Krill’s marketing is as follows:
1. Although it is not in itself illegal to put low amounts of omega-3 in dietary supplements, Superba Krill has the Norwegian market’s stingiest omega-3 content, with only 0.055 grams per recommended daily dosage. For comparison, Norwegian health authorities recommend 1-2 grams omega-3 per day, and that everyone should take fish oil from the age of four weeks and for the rest of their lives. Möller’s Codliver oil contains 1.2 grams omega-3 from fish and we recommend taking at least 1 gram of omega-3 from the sea daily.
2. About 15 000 articles have been written about the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids. None of the studies were made with omega-3 doses as low as 0.055 grams - not even Aker BioMarine’s own studies. We believe therefore that Aker BioMarine has no basis to claim that Superba Krill is good for the heart, brain, skin and joints. For the average Norwegian with a Norwegian diet these effects on the heart, brain, skin and joints are quite simply not likely at such low omega-3 daily dosage.
3. They had not published documentation in support of the claim that krill is a more effective omega-3 source than fish oil when the campaign started, and as of today they still have not done so. We therefore believe that the health effect from omega-3 from the sea is just as good, regardless of whether the raw material is fish, krill or something else. The amount of omega-3 will therefore be the most important factor in distinguishing among various products.
4. In addition, Aker BioMarine made an omega-3 guarantee in their marketing: “Positive results or double your money back”. We believe the aim of the guarantee was to reinforce the impression of Superba Krill a a particularly effective omega-3 product. But we think that given the product’s low omega-3 level this is clearly misleading to consumers with limited knowledge.
5. There is a direct correlation between the amount of omega-3 one takes in and the health benefits to be expected. Comparing the product to Möller’s Codliver oil on the basis of taste, without considering how Möller’s Codliver oil works, is unrepresentative of the products’ respective advantages. Möller’s Codliver oil daily dosage is of 1.2 grams omega-3 from the sea, containing 22 times more omega-3 per day than Superba Krill.
Why was it important for Möller’s to react to the misleading marketing?
For over 150 years we have developed omega-3 products to improve the population’s health, and we know from comprehensive research that fish oil is a good source of omega-3. We also know that krill is an exciting newcomer as an omega-3 source, but there has been too little krill research for anyone to claim that it is a better omega-3 source than fish oil. When as large an actor as Aker BioMarine chooses to challenge such a well-documented fact without themselves providing any documentation for their claims, it is not only important to react, it is necessary.
On Friday the 11th of September we submitted a motion to the Oslo Municipal Court, requesting a temporary injunction. The case was refered to the Oslo Civil Court for the 24th and the 25th of September. Before the case came to trial, Aker BioMarine - as a result of our motion - had already withdrawn in writing some of the most significant claims in the Superba Krill marketing. During the course of the trial they chose to withdraw other claims from the campaign. There remained claims in the marketing that we believe to be misleading and which the court should rule upon. A decision is expected in the course of one or two weeks.
The way forward
Regardless of the outcome in this concrete case, we will continue to inform the public that there is a great difference in the amounts of omega-3 in dietary supplements, and that there is a direct connection between the amount and the effect. If one is concerned with health effects, one must be aware of the amount of omega-3. It is important for the sector’s viability that consumers themselves be able to understand how to choose among products with high and low omega-3 levels.
As a producer of dietary supplements promising better health, we have a great responsibility to make products that deliver what they promise. Our message has always been that one needs 1 gram of omega-3 from the sea every day. We still mean it.
|
|