[adrian_b]

I am not sure what you mean by organic and non-organic.

The chemical synthesis of the omega-3 acids is too expensive, so all commercial products claiming to contain omega-3 acids contain such acids that have been extracted from living beings. Therefore all commercial omega-3 acids are organic.

Because the omega-3 acids are expensive, they frequently are sold diluted in some other kind of oil.

The oil used for dilution should be some good quality vegetable oil. Unfortunately there are cases when some junk oil is used for dilution, possibly including various garbage, e.g. colorants or flavors.

Therefore, when choosing an omega-3 supplement, it is good to check the list of ingredients to see whether the good omega-oil is not mixed with a bunch of undesirable, possibly non-organic, substances.

The main component, i.e. the omega-3 acids, can be found in one of 3 sources:

1. A few vegetable sources with short-chain omega-3 acids, e.g. walnut cores, flax seed or hemp seed

2. Fish oil, e.g. cod liver oil or salmon oil

3. "Algae" omega-3 oil

The first group of omega-3 sources does no harm and people who eat enough animal food might not need anything else.

On the other hand, people who eat little or no animal food must eat some omega-3 supplements belonging either to the second or to the third group.

There is no efficiency difference between fish oil and "algae" oil. The only difference is that the "algae" oil is more expensive, but it is available for those who do not want fish oil.

Like I have said, it is imperious to check the composition of any supplement, to see which is the real content in EPA and DHA and whether they are not mixed with some junk.

Many omega-3 supplements appear to be cheaper, but they are diluted and their real cost per EPA+DHA may be higher than of other non-diluted supplements.

[adrian_b]

If by "organic" and "non-organic", you have meant omega-3 acids included in meat or animal organs versus omega-3 in oil extracts, then the answer is that there is no difference.

During digestion, the fatty acids are separated from the food and they are absorbed as such by your intestine.

So unlike for some vitamins or minerals, which might behave differently in the form included in dietary supplements versus the form included in natural food, for fatty acids there are no such concerns.

The only thing is that many omega-3 supplements are sold as ingestible capsules, for the benefit of those who do not like to eat oil.

In my opinion eating capsules is a bad choice. I believe that it is better to buy bottled oil containing omega-3 acids. Both fish oil, e.g. cod liver oil, and "algae" oil are available in bottles.

Then you can mix a little omega-3 oil with olive oil or another kind of oil that you use at cooking (by mixing it to the food after cooking and cooling, otherwise the omega-3 oil would be degraded by heating).

If you do like this, then really there exists no difference between the omega-3 from a supplement and the omega-3 from meat, because they would be digested and absorbed in identical environments.

Otherwise, when the oil is released from capsules, the local concentration might be too high overloading the absorption system in the intestine, so some of the oil could be wasted compared to the case when the oil is mixed with other food.

[armedpacifist]

I realized what I wrote and edited before you could finish your reply. Indeed, they're all organic, I meant to say the difference between vegan and non-vegan. Either way, wasn't aware about the junk oil they sometimes use. Interesting. The supplement I'm currently using (Minami veganDHA) only contains only DHA which you said isn't enough and would need to be suplemented with EPA. The world of supplements is so complicated with a lot of FUD out there. For some reason it's difficult for me to find an authority on supplements that gives a nuanced and explanatory view on things and isn't just pushing affiliate links. So, thanks for the insightful response, super helpful!

[_0w8t]

Fish oil may also contain heavy metals due to accumulation of those through food chain. Some companies claim to filter those, but with algae there is no such risk at all.

[adrian_b]

The risk is much lower for "algae" but as long as you do not know how exactly the vendor cultivates the "algae", the risk is not zero.

These "algae" are cultivated in sea water. They might use synthetic sea water, but they might just take water from the sea, which contains mercury.

Some "algae" concentrate the mercury from sea water, others do not.

The only completely risk-free supplement would be if you could afford a chemical analysis for it.

As long as you do not analyze it and you do not inspect the production facilities, there is a non-zero risk of toxic substances included in your food.

[fredophile]

Even if the algae comes from sea water containing mercury the resulting oil should have a lower concentration of mercury than similar fish oil would have. Heavy metals accumulate up the food chain as larger predators eat smaller ones. Algae is about as low on the food chain as you can get for sealife that humans consume.

[Sabinus]

Governments can enforce food standards with product testing.

[adrian_b]

That is what we all hope, whenever we buy any kind of food, regardless if it is fish or algae.

But of course it is good to also verify whatever you can, because food standards may be too lax or not enforced well enough.

So I agree with the other poster that mentioned the risk of mercury content for fish products, which however exists for all marine products, including algae products, even if it is lower than for small fish and even lower than for large fish.

Nevertheless, I hope that any fish product or algae product that is sold would be sampled and analyzed from time to time to verify that it does not contain harmful substances.

[chrisweekly]

"imperious": arrogant, domineering

Did you mean "important"?

(My aim is to be helpful given the many non-native English speakers on HN.)

[gnrlst]

I think OP meant: imperative

[adrian_b]

Yes, indeed, you are right.

However, I have encountered a lot of uses of "imperious" instead of "imperative", coming from native speakers, which is why I happened to make this choice of words, which is not the right one.