The wider lipid scientific community were surprised and highly disappointed by the original early 2015 Nature Science Reports (NSR) paper by the University of Auckland. The Therapeutic Goods Authority of Australia (TGA) performed follow up analyses, and all Australasian (ANZ) oils were not oxidised, and Omega-3 content met label claims. Earlier ANZ studies had reported similar findings but were not cited by the NZ authors. These results have been communicated to NSR, and journal feedback is still being waited on. The TGA took no actions against ANZ manufacturers, once again in keeping with the wider view that the fish oil products were meeting their omega-3 claims and were not heavily oxidised.
The justification for the new paper appears to be driven / justified by the NSR paper, which we refer to above. This NSR paper remains in the strongest doubt/dispute. The new paper uses heavily oxidised oil that the NZ authors prepare. As ANZ fish oils are NOT oxidised, the study is seen as not relevant. This is the view of many scientists who have seen the new paper. The peroxide value (PV) result of the oil, indicating primary oxidation, is exceptionally high, further indicating that the use of such an oil is not relevant. The dose used is equated to 40 mL per day for a human consumer. This dose is seen as exceptionally excessive. Few consumers would be taking more than 1-3 g per day. Nutritionists would advise increasing the level of Vitamin E if high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids are used for feeding any mammal.
The unoxidised oil actually and interestingly shows improvement in the new paper versus the control treatment, although little is stated by the NZ authors on this aspect. Also the unoxidised oil had improved survival rates in the studied rats, and so whilst we totally agree that women who are pregnant should not consume rancid oils, they do need omega-3.