20 replies to this topic

[nameless]

I was reading up on krill oil today, and read some comments about recent Consumer Labs testing on fish and two brands of krill oil.

http://www.healthyfe...l-oil-research/

(You'll need to scroll way down, or do a search for consumer lab testing)

According to the readers there, Now's Neptune krill failed for both EPA/DHA content and for spoilage, with a 57.4 totox (<26 normal).

If true, it not only makes me question Neptune's quality, but how good a company Now actually is. I believe they also had that problem with some of their salmon & cod liver oils a while back, with that PCB lawsuit thing.

If anyone here subscribes to CL and can post a followup, I'd be grateful.

Edited by nameless, 13 October 2010 - 08:44 PM.

[Rich D]

I was reading up on krill oil today, and read some comments about recent Consumer Labs testing on fish and two brands of krill oil.

http://www.healthyfe...l-oil-research/

(You'll need to scroll way down, or do a search for consumer lab testing)

According to the readers there, Now's Neptune krill failed for both EPA/DHA content and for spoilage, with a 57.4 totox (<26 normal).

If true, it not only makes me question Neptune's quality, but how good a company Now actually is. I believe they also had that problem with some of their salmon & cod liver oils a while back, with that PCB lawsuit thing.

If anyone here subscribes to CL and can post a followup, I'd be grateful.

I am a subscriber, and it is true.

[nameless]

Thanks for the confirmation.

I'm curious what Now will respond with.

I've read that Neptune has already responded with the standard 'lab tests were flawed' response -- although even if true, it would only seem to apply to the method of epa/dha testing. I see no good response in regard to spoilage markers, as they should be standard for both krill and fish oil.

The fact that Now failed means they don't do proper in-house testing. Not so good...

Edited by nameless, 14 October 2010 - 04:10 PM.

[Recortes]

nameless,

thanks for the information, very helpful. No more Now Foods Krill Oil (and the rest of their stuff probably) in my basket.

[rwac]

I am a subscriber, and it is true.

It's probably an issue with Neptune Krill Oil. I tried 2 different brands of NKO, and both of them didn't agree with me.

Sources Naturals has 2 different Krill Oil products. Not sure which one they tested.

Rich, what other brands did they test ?

This doesn't reflect well on NOW either.

Edited by rwac, 14 October 2010 - 04:30 PM.

[Recortes]

It's probably an issue with Neptune Krill Oil. I tried 2 different brands of NKO, and both of them didn't agree with me.

Sources Naturals has 2 different Krill Oil products. Not sure which one they tested.

Rich, what other brands did they test ?

This doesn't reflect well on NOW either.

From the link above:


JP Says:
September 28th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Adam,
Only two brands were tested by CL: Now Foods Neptune Krill Oil (NKO) and Source Naturals’ Arctic Krill Oil (AKO).
Now Foods NKO – failed the test.
Source Naturals’ AKO – passed the test.
The primary difference between the two products is that AKO is made of from the Azantis/Enzymetic krill oil. The NKO product contains krill oil manufactured by Neptune Technologies and Bioressources Inc.
Be well!
JP

[Rich D]

I am a subscriber, and it is true.

It's probably an issue with Neptune Krill Oil. I tried 2 different brands of NKO, and both of them didn't agree with me.

Sources Naturals has 2 different Krill Oil products. Not sure which one they tested.

Rich, what other brands did they test ?

This doesn't reflect well on NOW either.

As already mentioned, the only other pure krill oil supplement tested was the Source Naturals Arctic Pure Krill Oil.


They also tested a fish oil distributed by Walgreen's that has some krill oil. It goes by the name Finest Natural Omega-3 Krill Oil and it did pass. But, ConsumerLab also had this to say about it: "be aware that term "krill oil" in the name of Finest Natural Omega-3 Krill Oil (Walgreens store brand), is misleading: The side-label on the product shows it to contain twice as much fish oil (300 mg) as krill oil (150 mg). Of the EPA + DHA found in testing only about 12% apparently came from krill oil."

[ajnast4r]

a lot of times these branded things are bought encapsulated from the supplier... if the issue was with the krill oil itself, then its likely NKO's problem not now.

[Evolve]

I also subscribe to CL, and I was concerned when I saw that report, as I've been taking Now Krill for 2-1/2 years, usually four caps daily. And I had been taking eight caps the previous two weeks as an experiment.

I bit into one, which I don't remember doing before, and it really did taste nasty. It took 30 minutes to get the taste out of my mouth, and I'm used to taking some nasty powders. I ordered Source Naturals Arctic Pure for next day delivery to find out if maybe Krill was really supposed to taste that bad. It wasn't close.

I might give Now a pass on the spoilage, since that could be temporary and beyond their control. But under-filling the capsules by over 20% is something they do control.

I still have an unopened 120-count bottle, which I'm returning, the first time I've returned anything to Iherb in 42 orders.

Now I don't trust anything from Now, and it appears to be Iherb's biggest selling brand. And it accounts for about half the drawer-full of supplements I take, but not for long.

I don't care much for CL's business model, and they usually don't test any brand I'm using, but they've occasionally been really useful. About three years ago, they identified an NSI turmeric as containing the highest levels of lead they'd ever tested. I had been taking NSI's curcumin for two years, along with a lot of other stuff, and they didn't answer my emailed inquiry. I switched to Iherb after seeing it frequently mentioned on this board.

[Zaul]

I also subscribe to CL, and I was concerned when I saw that report, as I've been taking Now Krill for 2-1/2 years, usually four caps daily. And I had been taking eight caps the previous two weeks as an experiment.

I bit into one, which I don't remember doing before, and it really did taste nasty. It took 30 minutes to get the taste out of my mouth, and I'm used to taking some nasty powders. I ordered Source Naturals Arctic Pure for next day delivery to find out if maybe Krill was really supposed to taste that bad. It wasn't close.

I might give Now a pass on the spoilage, since that could be temporary and beyond their control. But under-filling the capsules by over 20% is something they do control.

I still have an unopened 120-count bottle, which I'm returning, the first time I've returned anything to Iherb in 42 orders.

Now I don't trust anything from Now, and it appears to be Iherb's biggest selling brand. And it accounts for about half the drawer-full of supplements I take, but not for long.

I don't care much for CL's business model, and they usually don't test any brand I'm using, but they've occasionally been really useful. About three years ago, they identified an NSI turmeric as containing the highest levels of lead they'd ever tested. I had been taking NSI's curcumin for two years, along with a lot of other stuff, and they didn't answer my emailed inquiry. I switched to Iherb after seeing it frequently mentioned on this board.

Arctic Pures Krill oil contains 1% of saturated fats



(Jump to 09:08)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq_Vg88aSs&feature=youtube_gdata

Edited by Master, 18 October 2010 - 06:51 AM.

[nameless]

I assume the tiny bit of saturated fats is due to the inclusion of fish oil, which is also listed in the product's ingredient list. Azantis, which I think is what Source Natural uses, makes a krill oil blend which includes a little fish oil in it, so the saturated fat thing makes sense.

I too am very skeptical of Now because of this report. I also agree that the fault probably lies with Neptune, and it also could be a partial reason why Jarrow, Schiff, etc., all switched from Neptune (besides what I expect was simply cheaper competition). But Now should be responsible for testing the supplements they sell. I don't really see any excuse for selling spoiled krill oil -- it just means they didn't test it properly before offering it to the consumer.

[Benedictus]

I was reading up on krill oil today, and read some comments about recent Consumer Labs testing on fish and two brands of krill oil.
http://www.healthyfe...l-oil-research/
(You'll need to scroll way down, or do a search for consumer lab testing)

So where is it? Why are you not posting an actual link that proves what you're assuming here?
Can you post valid scientific research results from that hearsay story you refer to?

I always test the supplements I take in our own labs at the Uni, and in this case (I use the NOW Foods Neptune Krill Oil 60 Sgels 500 mg, ordered from Swanson) they were all perfectly fine, what it stated on the label is abundantly in them. In fact, there was way more Astaxanthin than it said on the label. (I measured 1.2 mg per softgel capsule, about double what they sell it for..)
I'm really doubting everybody's testing strategy for EPA DHA when it comes to krill oil supplements. It's not easy to determin the actual amount of polyunsaturated EPA DHA, because they contain 6 and 5 double bonds on their long structural chain. Maybe even the alegedly 'tested' supply used for the test you refer to was way past its expiration date? I can do tests on supplements and make any brand fail, just by using old expired oxidized content for the brand I don't like.

[nameless]

I was reading up on krill oil today, and read some comments about recent Consumer Labs testing on fish and two brands of krill oil.
http://www.healthyfe...l-oil-research/
(You'll need to scroll way down, or do a search for consumer lab testing)

So where is it? Why are you not posting an actual link that proves what you're assuming here?
Can you post valid scientific research results from that hearsay story you refer to?

I'm really doubting everybody's testing strategy for EPA DHA when it comes to krill oil supplements. It's not easy to determin the actual amount of polyunsaturated EPA DHA, because they contain 6 and 5 double bonds on their long structural chain. Maybe even the alegedly 'tested' supply used for the test you refer to was way past its expiration date? I can do tests on supplements and make any brand fail, just by using old expired oxidized content for the brand I don't like.

Although I'd normally agree that i should post the actual Consumer Labs link -- I can't.

Consumer Labs requires a paid subscription to read its reports. You can question their business model (and I do somewhat too), but I do not have access to the actual link. That's why I asked here for confirmation in my original post.

It's possible that Now simply stored the krill oil incorrectly, and it spoiled somewhat for that batch. Or it's possible you just happened to get a good batch. And if the testing is inaccurate, why did the Source Naturals krill oil product test correctly, while the Now product didn't?

And I'm really doubtful CL used expired krill oil to produce a negative result.

Edited by nameless, 19 October 2010 - 05:02 PM.

[Zaul]

On the other fin, NOW Neptune Krill Oil did not do as well. Consumer Lab found it was rancid and contained just 80 percent of its claimed total omega-3 fatty acids in two separate laboratory tests.

http://www.rodale.co..._30-_-Top5-_-NA

[nameless]

I emailed Now and was given this response from them:

The Consumerlab report rated NOW Neptune Krill Oil ”not approved” based on Omega-3 levels and a “freshness test” marker. NOW Foods appreciates your concern and wants you to know that we have been doing considerable investigation into this matter. The whole situation surrounding the testing of the NOW Neptune Krill Oil is quite complex as the NOW Krill Oil was the only pure krill oil in the Consumerlab test. The other krill oil tested is actually not pure krill oil, but is in fact a blend of fish oils and krill.

I then called one of their nutritionists and was told they feel the failed krill was due to the testing was geared for fish oils only. And the other krill oil passed because it has a mix of some fish oil in it.

As for spoilage, he claimed that the astaxanthin in the product interfered with the spoilage values... although I'm not sure if that makes sense really. Anyway, Now said they'll do some followups and find out more within several weeks.

[e Volution]

I emailed Now and was given this response from them:

The Consumerlab report rated NOW Neptune Krill Oil ”not approved” based on Omega-3 levels and a “freshness test” marker. NOW Foods appreciates your concern and wants you to know that we have been doing considerable investigation into this matter. The whole situation surrounding the testing of the NOW Neptune Krill Oil is quite complex as the NOW Krill Oil was the only pure krill oil in the Consumerlab test. The other krill oil tested is actually not pure krill oil, but is in fact a blend of fish oils and krill.

I then called one of their nutritionists and was told they feel the failed krill was due to the testing was geared for fish oils only. And the other krill oil passed because it has a mix of some fish oil in it.

As for spoilage, he claimed that the astaxanthin in the product interfered with the spoilage values... although I'm not sure if that makes sense really. Anyway, Now said they'll do some followups and find out more within several weeks.

Considering a company is never just going to say "Yeh our product failed, we've been selling you poison" I would consider the above response almost an omission of guilt. I just bought some unfortunately; now they going in the bin!

[Benedictus]

Considering a company is never just going to say "Yeh our product failed, we've been selling you poison" I would consider the above response almost an omission of guilt. I just bought some unfortunately; now they going in the bin!

You people seem to behave insanely stupid. You base your intake and evaluations of a product on some vague claims by an even more vague lab-test that isn't even done properly? Without even having *seen* any actual scientific paper on it, and while knowing krill oil is not fish oil.
I must say I'm surprised NOW or Neptune have not filed complaints at ConsumerLabs, but it's probably because it's not clear which of the two should take CL to court for this that it has not (yet) happened.

I happen to put more value into tests done in Europe on those US-marketed products and the neptune krill oil softgels come out perfectly fine with their score in all other tests than that unpublished CL-test. The fact alone that we have to pay to see the results says it is supposed to be available to the rich few on the planet that are 'members'? Don't make me laugh. That's not science, that's making money on a product marketing scheme and weeding out the competition.

[Benedictus]

[nameless]

Considering a company is never just going to say "Yeh our product failed, we've been selling you poison" I would consider the above response almost an omission of guilt. I just bought some unfortunately; now they going in the bin!

You people seem to behave insanely stupid. You base your intake and evaluations of a product on some vague claims by an even more vague lab-test that isn't even done properly? Without even having *seen* any actual scientific paper on it, and while knowing krill oil is not fish oil.

Although I question CL's business model too, why would you seem to dismiss their results entirely? Yes, it's possible CL used a flawed testing method. On the other hand, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution, so why use a product that failed a CL test, when there are other alternatives? If Now responds with further testing/proof of flawed tests, to back up their claim, easy enough for people to then take it again if they so wish to.

The aspects of their claim which I find a little suspect:

If the test is geared towards fish oil, not krill, wouldn't a krill + fish oil product (which I think was mostly krill), still give a flawed test result? Yet the Source Naturals product passed.

Why would astaxanthin in a product result in higher than normal spoilage values?

[MachineGhostX]

Although I question CL's business model too, why would you seem to dismiss their results entirely? Yes, it's possible CL used a flawed testing method. On the other hand, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution, so why use a product that failed a CL test, when there are other alternatives? If Now responds with further testing/proof of flawed tests, to back up their claim, easy enough for people to then take it again if they so wish to.

Considering that CL doesn't actually do any of the testing itself and just contracts it out to labs, I find NOW's explanation to be feasible as run-of-the-mill labs are not specialized experts compared to top quality supplements companies in testing all indosyncracies of supplements. So for now, NOW deserves the benefit of doubt.

MG

[Benedictus]

So how is the patent that Neptune holds on the extraction of krill-oil relevant on the competition's product? Does this mean NKO is the best source of krill oil or not?