INFORM October 2024

INTERPRETING DATA

inform October 2024, Vol. 35 (9) • 15

Assessing

health risks when faced with contradictory research George Hale

A new study showing increased risk of atrial fibrillation among people taking omega-3 supplements has drawn attention from researchers and shows the importance of viewing new findings with a critical eye when assessing health risks. The past few decades have seen the rise and fall of heroes and villains in the world of health and wellness. One such hero is omega-3 fatty acids, which have been found to improve health outcomes ranging from cardiovascular disease to diabetes to various types of cancer to perhaps even mental health. Could the findings from a controversial new study tarnish omega-3’s heroic reputation? Along with critics’ questions about the study and its findings, it also raises an important question: How should experts and non-experts assess health risks? FATTY FRIEND OR FOE? As AOCS members know, the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapen taenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) carry the ‘essential’ designation since they are required for normal metabolism, but the body cannot produce them on its own.

• Despite an existing body of research, recent media coverage shined a spotlight on one negative aspect of an omega-3 study. • Experts and non-experts alike can routinely use a refresher on how to report or understand health risks from the scientific literature. • For scientists, integrating the data from an ever-growing pool gets complicated and requires a healthy understanding of statistics to properly weigh new evidence. • For the general public, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has established a training program for how to evaluate health risks.