Francesca's comment is a common misunderstanding. The important difference between plant (e.g. flax) and fish oils is the length of the hydrocarbon fatty acid chain. Flax omega-3 oils are only 18 carbons in length and EPA and DHA are 20C and 22C, respectively, and these long chain omega-3 oils are especially important in human metabolism.

James, Canberra, Australia

I think it's quite well known from everybody that flaxseed oil or linseed oil, which are vegetable oil, and of course suitable also for vegetarian, are a high source of Omega3...so how is it possible that an "expert" says the only source of Omega3 is animal?
Cheers

Francesca, London/Verona, UK/IT

I've never heard anything as ridiculously biased as this from a 'scientist' before. Scaremongering about a ficticious lack of Omega-3 sources in order to pretend GM science is essential?? I doubt anyone will see this as anything other than ridiculous propaganda and I'm surprised at The Times for not putting this in some sort of perspective. "No alternative"? - rubbish!!
There is no shortage of Herring or Mackrel in the UK - it's a vastly underexploited resource and it would be far better to encourage people to eat more of it, which would help our beleagured local fishing industry too, rather than mess about with the basic building blocks of our food-chain, with no real idea of where it will lead us.

John Willis, Edinburgh, Scotland

Are the experts saying that we are having a food shortage? Or a vitamin/mineral etc. shortage in our food, because the two are different. If there is a shortage of vitamin/mineral etc. in the food, then perhaps it may be an idea to find out why? For example, if farmed salmon is deficient in nutrients, why farm it? The whole subject of food needs more research, and not just from the standpoint of profit, but from the standpoint of "is it fit to eat?' and does it's product effect the environment in a detrimental way. This includes what cattle and pigs eat and are innoculated with; it includes what level of pollution are in our seas for fish to absorb and so on. Better late than never!

Tarni, London, UK

ALL GM FOOD IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. No one – scientist, or citizen - will know for certain if GM food will cause long term damage to the fauna and flora of this world – especially children who seem to be vulnerable to the food additives which are present in today’s food – for as long as one, or two generations. By then it will be too late and no amount of apology will get the genie back in the bottle. It is very influential corporations who seem to be able to con governments, who are the real villains here.

Richard, Oxford, Oxfordshire

The problem with this article, as is so often the case with reporting on genetic engineering (GE), is what is left unsaid by Prof. Napier. There are many excellent vegetable sources of the omega3 fatty acid ALA (especially good ones are flax seed and several tree nuts), which the body may then convert to the needed types of omega3. The problem is that we sometimes consume too much of omega6 fatty acids, which slow the conversion process. This may be remedied by simple dietary changes. But I suppose common sense is more difficult for GE corporations to sell.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., Washington, DC

I cannot believe this. What's wrong with just eating fish? And if you can't do that as you're vegetarian or whatever, why not just supplement with fish or krill oil?!

Organic food is far richer in nutrients, lacks the revolting chemicals inundating us through food, cleaning products, cosmetics, skin 'care', teflon, etc etc, and is grown how it's meant to be, the way nature intended.

GM crops are NEVER the solution; they're proven in a number of independent (ie not industry funded) studies to be dangerous, harmful, and pollute conventional and organic crops with their synthetic material. They are insidious, dangerous, and downright scary.

Organic is the only way we can sustain our foodstuffs.

And re-education on eating properly is the only way to solve Britons' diet failings.

Follow the money trail.

Erin, Chichester, UK,

"Common Sense?" This discussion shows that is a rarer commodity than the omega 3 fatty acids we need. Seems to me, that the people who never give up are the ones who keep their heads in the sand and believe that if they stay in that position they are doing something useful: rejecting anything new, especially if it is the product of science or horrors, a corporation. This is a nice idea if you want to live in a cave eating berries. Common sense tells me to try and judge ideas on their merit, not their provenance. Not all corporate ideas are any good, not all are bad. Not all of the ideas that come from Prince Charles are any good either.
By the way, if we want to throw the "Frankenfood" label around, better include much of the organic produce as well: the majority of rice and wheat, organic as well as "conventional" is derived from radiation and chemical mutagenesis bombardments started in the 50s and 60s. Whoops.

Elliot Entis, Boston,

force feed gm concentrates to these fools for two years and if there is no reaction i may just and i mean
just consider eating a tiny amount

ps and i farm 1020 acres

p w johnstone, aberdeenshire, uk

So what about the generations of humans who didn't live near the sea or whose communities didn't do fishing? What did they do for Omega3

Inge Jones, London, UK

I can't help but think you need to know the science before you can see the potential for catastrophe, or lack thereof. Why is it that people comment without seeming to have understood what the article is about? The oily fish are not enough because catching the amount needed to satisfy everyones recommended dose of omega 3 would see them rapidly decline.

Nicholas Lee - Do you really believe taking money away from R&D and putting it into farms in this country (why just this country?) would make the whole world happier and better-fed?

I am not sold on the need for omega 3 crops as the majority of the UK population who don't get the recommended dose seem to be doing OK. However I do believe that they would achieve what the scientists are claiming: a reduction in the need to catch oily fish to meet peoples recommended dietary requirements.

Believe it or not the experts are exactly that and know what they are talking about. You do not.

I Moss, Edinburgh, UK

Surely anyone with any common sense can see the potential catastrophe in this?
Even Hollywood can understand...
God creates man, man creates dinosaurs, man destroys God, dinosaurs eat man.

W Smith, Oldham,

How about the alternative of " oily fish " for omega 3 oils ? There are several oily fish suggested as a source in your article , why is this not enough ?

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

They never give up, do they? I would have more time for the opinion of so-called 'experts' if so many of them did not depend on corporate funding their research. We do not need GM foods, and if governments spent a third of the money on supporting their own farmers that they spend on promoting these Frankenstein foodstuffs, the world would be a happier and better-fed place. Organic is the route to go.

Nicholas Lee, Windsor,, UK