User:Msw258/sandboxannotatedbib

Marine OMEGA-3 fatty acids in the prevention of cardiovascular disease
This comprehensive review analyzed a number of population studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials to make a comprehensive analysis of the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on various physiological effects, such as cardiovascular disease and the factors that relate to that. These include factors such as HDL levels, cardiac function, and blood pressure, among others. The researchers who authored this study then conclude that based on their research that omega-3 fatty acids have a beneficial effect on many of these factors, with the strongest evidence arising from a dietary intake of fish. They also saw that high doses of these compounds didn't have any adverse effects. The strength of this study was that they reviewed many strong studies (including randomized controlled trials and even other meta-analyses and reviews) to get these findings. Weaknesses however include that certain factors only had one or two studies cited for them, meaning that more research on the effects of these compounds such as plaque stabilization is probably needed to make more definite conclusions. This article definitely supports consuming omega-3 fatty acids

Fish consumption and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for prevention or treatment of cognitive decline, dementia or Alzheimer's disease in older adults - any news?
This review looked at a number of studies in an effort to find any work on omega-3 fatty acids and its effects on attenuating Alzheimer's Disease (it analyzed studies from 2015 - November 2016). In their discussion, the researchers note that the debate is still ongoing and that work is still needed to be done, but what they found from 12 observational and intervention studies that they analyzed was that RCTs were hard to perform (because if no cognitive deterioration occurs in any of the subjects, then no effect can be found), and there was conflicting evidence. Overall, they recommended more testing on the subject. The strength of this study was that it was a review, but the weakness was that the RCT they analyzed found no differences, because there was no cognitive deterioration in any of the subjects (thus there was no potential effect to find). It seems that this study is optimistic for finding an effect of omega-3 fatty acid (since it said that existing knowledge indicates that the compound could have an effect), but is relatively neutral, as it calls for more testing and admits conflicting information.

Metabolism and functional effects of plant-derived omega-3 fatty acids in humans
This study, in an effort to find another source of omega-3 fatty acids (as fish, the main source, is as of yet not a very sustainable source of food), looked at plants and their alpha-linoleic acid, which can potentially convert itself into EPA and DHA, the main omega-3 fatty acid compounds. After analyzing some studies (this was another review), they found some potential for ALA to convert itself into EPA and DHA, which was promising. However, this effect was seen more for the conversion into EPA, and not DHA. In general though, most ALA doesn't convert into either, but is lost through oxidation. ALA though does have additional potential health effects in itself (one study found an effect on lowering LDL-cholesterol and cholesterol in the blood), so it also may be promising in and of itself. The strength of this study was that it was a review (reviewing multiple studies to find new conclusions), but the weaknesses were also identified by the authors as well — in the studies they analyzed, not all groups were tested (including non-healthy individuals, children, and the elderly), and they realized that the effect of sex on conversion of ALA into EPA and DHA should be researched further (one study found that young women had more a conversion rate than young men). Also, more work needed to be done on SDA, or stearidonic acid, another compound that is heavily found in plants. This study seems to support the notion that omega-3 fatty acids are good for you, since the main argument of this article was to find compounds that convert to those substances.

Human health risk associated with brominated flame-retardants (BFRs)
This review aimed to find the potential drawbacks of consuming seafood, as pollutants known as brominated flame-retardants have a high concentration in seafood (although they are found in many other sources, such as house dust, meat, and dairy products). Furthermore, the researchers noted that toddlers and infants consuming high levels of fish and even crude fish oil may be exceeding the daily amount for these substances, which may pose potential health problems. They concluded that in animal studies, they faced effects to their neurological, endocrine, and behavioral functions at exposure levels similar to what humans get exposed to, and said that recent epidemiological human studies found potentially similar effects. The strength of this study was that it was a review, but the weaknesses of this study included the fact that multiple other sources had high amounts of this compound (in the US especially, BFR exposure was mostly due to meat, then seafood in terms of diet alone), so it was hard to see the effect of consuming fish and crude fish oil alone. This means that more research was needed. This study seems to warn against potentially consuming large amounts of fish and fish oil in toddlers and infants due to potential deleterious effects.

= The papers below will deal with potential political / psychosocial implications of what I am researching... =

Fish Oils, Coronary Heart Disease, and the Environment
This article brings to the light the fact that certain trials (as of 2013, when the article was published) have suggested that consuming fish oil actually may not have a strong link to the primary or even the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. In addition, the authors bring up the fact if everyone followed the standard for fish oil consumption (or standards that have been seen to have beneficial effects in various studies), the effect on already strained fish populations would be staggering. This is even when considering fish farming, as the authors say that fish farming so far has not compensated for the depletion of wild fish stocks, and the fact that the fish with the highest amount of EPA / DHA (the beneficial parts of fish oil) in terms of farming would be salmon, fed with marine feed, which is composed of other fish. Thus, fish farming as it seems just further exacerbates the problem (as the amount of small fish needed is much more in terms of amount of fish than the fish that is produced).

In terms of strengths and weaknesses, the authors analyze the various studies used in the American Heart Association's Guidelines for example (and point out flaws in the studies that support the guidelines). In addition, they review a large amount of studies, some composed of thousands of participants, and go in relative depth about the findings of those studies and the significance of those findings. Thus, it would seem that the authors are comprehensive and thorough in their studies. In terms of weaknesses however, I would say that one would be that the authors could have been potentially cherry picking studies to examine for example (as there are a ton of papers that are examining this topic).

Letters Replying to the Article Above (3 separate letters / articles)
In these responses to the articles above, three groups participate: 1. Jillian P. Fry and David C. Love (researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), 2. Giovanni M. Turchini (a professor), and 3. The authors of the paper above. In these articles, the first group first backs up the original authors, highlighting the point that wild fish is often used as feed for farmed fish, and describing additional environmental impacts, such as the pollution that is caused by aquaculture, and how that could impact wild fish populations. It would seem that they are erring on the side of caution as well, citing needs for public health research on the topic to create more sustainable farming methods for example.

Dr. Turchini however argues against the authors, citing articles that suggest that aquaculture is in fact sustainable and was able to sustain the demand for fish, and that wild fish catches have been relatively stable for the past few decades, suggesting that fisheries are being conducted in a relatively sustainable matter (especially ones that are used to feed farmed fish for example). Essentially, he argues that environmental concerns should not be a major factor in the fish oil controversy.

Finally, the original authors discuss the fact that if fish oil is debatable as a health item, that it shouldn't be used if its effects are questionable in the first place when considering the environment. In addition, they also discuss the fact that the effects of aquaculture expansion are largely unknown, given that it is a relatively recent industry (especially in terms of the scale it is now used in). They also repeat the Fry group when looking at potential pollution issues.

Reading these articles has shown me that Turchini's argument doesn't really look at pollution for example, or the impact of farmed, drug-resistant fish escaping and interacting with wild populations, when analyzing the environmental impact of fish oil production. Thus, I could see why it is hard to say that fish oil production is not a problem when using an environmental perspective. It would seem that the original argument is still held up — fish oil production may have serious consequences.

== Reviews of Science for Science Librarians: Eating Small Pelagic Fish vs. Using Them to Produce Fishmeal and Fish Oil for Aquaculture and Livestock Feed: A Controversy of Interest to Librarians Serving the Marine and Food Sciences == This article analyzed the impact of continuing to fish small pelagic fish for use in fish feed in aquaculture operations, in particular looking at the idea that over fishing these stocks leads to food insecurities in communities that depend on these fish for subsistence and a living. The article is interesting in that it concludes that the harvesting of these types of fish wouldn't end anytime soon, due to its nutritional (giving people and animals who don't eat fish omega-3s) and appearance benefits (making farmed fish fillets look better for example). In addition, it argues that except for a few coastal communities in Asia and Africa, people are actually getting jobs in the aquaculture industry, and don't really eat these kinds of fish anyway. Finally, it argues that these individuals who could be vulnerable to the harvest are actually benefiting, due to getting steady jobs and income, when compared to the "hit-or-miss" income that comes with subsistence fishing. The article also points out however that there is overfishing going on (and will likely continue, due to financial incentives and the growth in cat ownership, for example), that aquaculture can lead to environmental disaster, and the fact that stocks will be further threatened by global warming. Overall however, the article seems to be on the side of aquaculture and fish oil production (saying that is "common sense" to fish them, instead of letting "millions of tonnes of fish to just naturally die". Strengths of this article include the massive amount of papers cited, and weaknesses include the fact that almost no data or statistics were cited to support the author's arguments (one would have to find the articles that the author cited to analyze the validity / strength of his arguments).