A recent omega 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had significant limitations that prevent broad conclusions that would change scientific opinion on the benefits of omega 3s, said the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega 3 (GOED).

The study found that margarine spreads delivering 376 mg of EPA+DHA per day did not reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events in a specific population. Despite the specificity of the population studied, media outlets worldwide have carried broad, generic headlines like “Study Casts Doubts on Omega 3 Benefits,” GOED noted.

The study’s limitations included:

• A relatively low dose for secondary prevention of heart disease

• All patients were receiving state-of-the-art combination drug therapies already

• The average heart attack of the patients at the time of enrollment was already more than four years prior

• The age of the patients was significantly older than previous studies

The coverage the study has received has been broad and somewhat negative, GOED says. Thirty-six hours after the original paper was published, GOED tracked more than 354 different news outlets around the world carrying the story. In GOED’s opinion, a factual headline would highlight the low dose, that the patients were already four-year survivors of heart attacks, and that they were all on aggressive combination pharmaceutical therapies. None of the 354 headlines highlighted all three of these factors.