Nutritional Sciences Research Unit

R. A. Gibbs | D. I. Givens

Current intakes of EPA+DHA are sub-optimal in UK adults across both genders and all age groups

Major public health concern

Different strategies, tailored to suit the needs of population sub-groups, are needed to improve VLC n-3 PUFA status across the UK population

EPA and DHA Intakes in UK Adults According to Age, Gender and Income

3. Results – National Population

Mean EPA + DHA intake for males is 259mg/d and 226 mg/d for females

Figure 1 shows % numbers of consumers of oil-rich fish. Excluding canned tuna from the oil-rich fish category results in decreased numbers of oil-rich fish consumers; both males and females across all groups. The greatest reduction (25%) is seen in 19-24 year old females. 19-24 years males category has the fewest consumers (4%)

Figure 2 shows that EPA +DHA intakes increase with age in both males and females. Intakes in males appear to be slightly higher than for females particularly in 25-34 and 35-49 years olds

4. Results – Low Income Subgroup

Mean EPA + DHA intake for males is 206mg/d and 200mg/d for females. Percentage consumers of oil-rich fish increase across age groups in LIDNS, overall 13% of males and 16% of females consume oil-rich fish

Figure 3 indicates intakes of EPA and DHA between males and females and across age groups are more variable than those in the main population

To investigate trends in intakes of EPA+DHA in UK males and females across:

Different age groups within the main population

Different age groups within a low income sub-group

1.BackgroundA recent study estimated total mean intakes of EPA + DHA in UK adults who do not eat oil-rich fish (~70%) to be approx 100mg/d, 46mg/d of which is from animal-derived foods (Givens and Gibbs, 2006). This is clearly sub-optimal relative to UK target intakes of 450 mg/d (SACN/COT, 2004)

Currently there is no indication of potential variation in intakes due to age, gender and socioeconomic differences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

19-24 25-34 35-49 50-64

Males

Females

Males (exc.canned tuna)

Females (exc.canned tuna)

References1. Givens & Gibbs (2006). Nutrition Bulletin, 31, pp 104-110. 2. SACN/COT. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition/Committee on Toxicity (2004).

Advice on Fish Consumption. UK.3. National Diet and Nutrition Survey, Vol 2. Gregory et al. (2002). UK.4. Low Income Diet Nutrition Survey, Vol 2. Nelson et al.(2007). UK.

Acknowledgements• We gratefully acknowledge ‘Lipgene’, a European Union Sixth Framework Project for

funding this work

• ISSFAL New Investigator Award

Key Points

Contact information• Nutritional Sciences Research Unit, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, RG6 6AR

• Email Rachael Gibbs: r.a.gibbs@reading.ac.uk• http://www.apd.reading.ac.uk/Agriculture/ASRG/index.htm

2. Materials and MethodsThe key sources of food intake data were the UK 2002 National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS, males n=766 females n=958) and the UK 2007 Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey (LIDNS, males n=946, females n=1850)

Raw diet diary data from NDNS were used to calculate oil-rich fish intakes by age and gender excluding the contribution from cannedtuna (as identified by SACN/COT, 2004). The LIDNS already accounted for this.

Mean intakes of fish and animal-derived foods (g/week) were coupled with known EPA and DHA concentrations in the foods (see Table 1)

Contributions of each food type and total EPA and DHA intake formain population and low income sub-group were estimated

Objectives

Age group

% c

onsu

mer

s of

oil-

rich

fish

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

19-24 25-34 35-49 50-64

MalesFemales

Figure 1. Percentage consumers of oil-rich fish, including and excluding canned tuna, for NDNS males and females across different age groups

EPA + DHA intakes

Figure 2. Intakes of EPA and DHA from animal-derived foods and fish according to gender and age group

% consumers of oil-rich fish

Inta

ke (m

g/d)

Age group

5. ConclusionsDiffering survey methods for NDNS and LIDNS do not allow full comparison of intakes in each group, but there is a trend towards slightly lower intakes in the lower income group. This is related to lower mean oil-rich fish consumption in LIDNS

In the national population and low income sub-group, mean intakes of EPA+DHA are sub-optimal in both males and females across all age groups

A trend towards higher intakes in older adults is apparent particularly in the national population

If young adults in the UK do not change their eating habits and increase intakes of VLC n-3 PUFA through oil-rich fish consumption or by other means , EPA + DHA intakes are likely to remain low in later life thus compromising potential health benefits derived from optimal intakes of these fatty acids

0.0150.012Sausages0.350.15Poultry

0.08330.0651Pork0.0720.21Sheep meat

0.01630.0995Beef and veal2.00.7Other fish

10.67.8Oil-rich fish2.71.0Shellfish

1.940.68White fishDHA concentration (mg/g)EPA concentration (mg/g)Food

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Inta

ke (m

g/d)

19-34 35-49 50-64 65+Age group

Males

Females

EPA + DHA intakes

Figure 3. Intakes of EPA and DHA from animal-derived foods and fish according to age group and gender in the Low Income sub-group

Table 1. EPA and DHA concentrations in fish and selected animal-derived foods

Males have slightly higher intakes than females except in the 35-49 years age group where intakes in females are higher – this appears to be a reflection of higher intakes of oil-rich fish in females of this age (males 14g/week, females 63 g/week)