top | item 46938436

(no title)

KempyKolibri | 21 days ago

Sure, because both are true (although that 0.08% is only over 8 years of known omega 3 consumption - as timescales increase the absolute risk moves towards the relative risk).

That 0.08% reduction would mean approximately 28,000 fewer EOD cases - not to be sniffed at!

discuss

order

AlecSchueler|20 days ago

> That 0.08% reduction would mean approximately 28,000 fewer EOD cases - not to be sniffed at!

What would it mean for salmon stocks and increased environmental damage?

KempyKolibri|20 days ago

Depending on where you source your omegas from, potentially zero impact!

To be clear my preference would be to source n3s from algal supplements and, once food safety testing for humans is complete, n3s from GM rapeseed.

In time I hope we end up with lab meat/plant-based meat alternatives that use these n3s so we can get the benefits of fish without the environmental and ethical concerns of getting n3s from fish.