##### 



EXHIBIT 99.01
 CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE
SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
   
    
    our ability to generate future revenues;
    
    the commercialization of our products;
    
    the expansion and ongoing operation of facilities producing our products;
    
    our ability to produce adequate amounts of our products ourselves or through third-party manufacturers;
    
    the optimization of production costs; and
    
    our ability to enter into future business collaborations and marketing partnerships.
  A substantial portion of our nutritional oil products sales is made to four of our existing
customers under agreements with no minimum purchase requirements. If demand by these customers
for our nutritional oil products declines, our revenues may materially decline.
  We are aware of several products that are currently available, and products under development,
that may present a serious competitive threat to our products.
   
    
    the Ross Products Division of Abbott Laboratories, a significant Martek licensee and
customer, filed a Generally Recognized as Safe notification on January 2, 2002 seeking Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) concurrence that its fish oil source of DHA and its fungal
source of ARA are Generally Recognized as Safe when used as ingredients in infant formula.
At this time, the notification continues to be under consideration by the FDA;
    
    Reliant Pharmaceuticals has announced that it will launch Omacor, a DHA/ EPA ethyl
ester, in the second half of 2005 for treatment of hyperlipidemia;
    
    Suntory Limited and Cargill Inc, through a joint venture with a company in China, and a
second, independent Chinese manufacturer have announced the intent to begin producing and
distributing a fungal source of ARA. In addition, we are aware that there may be
manufacturers in China attempting to produce an algal source of DHA, but we are uncertain
as to the overall status and commercial potential of these development efforts;
 1




---



##### 




    
    some infant formulas now on the market outside the United States use DHA derived from other sources, such as fish or eggs;
    
    some baby food products now on the market in the United States use DHA derived from eggs;
    
    Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Celanese Corporation, is actively marketing a DHA-rich microalgal oil to
the food and beverage and dietary supplement markets in the United States, China and
Europe. We have filed a patent infringement suit against Nutrinova in both the United
States and Germany; and
    
    other companies, several with greater financial resources than ours, are developing
plant-based DHA and other companies are developing chemically synthesized DHA.
   Experts differ in their opinions on the importance of DHA and/or ARA in infant formula and the
levels of DHA and/or ARA required to achieve health benefits for babies. Some experts feel that
they are not necessary ingredients for infant development and that supplemented formulas will
remain a premium product and never gain widespread acceptance worldwide. If clinical trials do not continue to yield positive results and certain favorable regulatory guidelines are not enacted, our
future revenues in the infant formula market may be limited.
    If clinical trials do not continue to yield positive results on the benefits of DHA on
cardiovascular or other health problems, our future revenues may be limited in the food and beverage market and the nutritional supplement market.
  Our current patents may not be able to provide protection against competitive products and we
may be unable to protect our intellectual property portfolio in the future.
  
    
    Aventis S.A. and Nagase & Co. Ltd. are challenging our European patent covering our
DHA-containing oils. At a hearing in October 2000, the Opposition Division of the European
Patent Office (EPO) revoked our patent on the grounds that it was not novel. We
immediately appealed this ruling, and in July 2002 we received a positive ruling from an
Appeal Board of the EPO, setting aside the prior decision to revoke this patent. Consistent
with our request, the patent was returned to the Opposition Division for a determination as
to whether it has met the legal requirement of inventive step. A hearing in August 2005
resulted in a ruling by the Opposition Division that this requirement had been met and the
validity of the patent was upheld. It is expected that our opponents will appeal the
decision to an Appeal Board of the EPO. It is likely that the appeal will not be heard, and
the matter not finally decided, until 2007.
 2




---



##### 




    
    With respect to our ARA patent issued by the EPO, BASF AG, Friesland Brands B.V., and
Suntory Limited filed their grounds for opposing this patent with the Opposition Division
of the EPO. At a hearing at the Opposition Division in April 2005, the Opposition
Division of the EPO upheld the patent in a form containing modified claims which are
narrower than the claims originally granted. We believe it is likely that the opponents
will appeal the decision. In an effort to broaden the claims of the patent, Martek also
intends to appeal the decision. The patent in the form containing the claims that were
originally granted will remain in full force and effect throughout the appeal process. The
appeal process is not expected to be completed until some time in late 2006 or 2007.
Further, in order to broaden the scope of protection, Martek has pending patent applications and intends to pursue new
patent applications which would be based on the
existing patent. If the patent in the narrower
form approved by the Opposition Division is ultimately upheld and certain pending and  new related patent
applications are not granted with the desired claim scope, it is likely that Marteks European intellectual property
position with respect to ARA would not afford much competitive protection.
    
    With respect to our blended oil (blend of DHA and ARA oils for use in various
applications, including infant formula) patent issued by the EPO, BASF AG and Suntory
Limited have filed their grounds for opposing this patent with the Opposition Division of
the EPO. In November 2004, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked Marteks European
blended oil patent as a result of these challenges. The Company immediately filed an appeal
of this decision; as a consequence, the blended oil patent has been reinstated and will
remain in full force and effect during the appeal. The appeal process is not expected to be
completed until 2006.
    
    Prior to our purchase of OmegaTech, Aventis Research and Technologies GmbH & Co. KG, and
Nagase Limited challenged OmegaTechs European patent covering its DHAcontaining oils. At
a hearing in December 2000, the Opposition Division of the EPO upheld some of the claims
and revoked other claims. OmegaTech immediately appealed this ruling, as did Aventis. At an
appeal hearing in May 2005, Martek received a favorable decision from the Appeal Board of
the EPO, which overturns the decision of the Opposition Division and returns the case to
the Opposition Division for review on the merits of the patent claim. Any decision made by
the Opposition Division can be appealed. Assuming an appeal, the review process is
expected to take approximately three to four years to complete, during which time the
patent will remain in full force and effect.
    
    In September 2003, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in
Delaware against Nutrinova Inc., Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH,
Celanese Ventures GmbH, and Celanese AG alleging infringement of two of our U.S. patents.
Celanese Ventures GmbH and Celanese AG have been dropped from the lawsuit. We have added an
additional three patents to the suit, bringing the total number that Nutrinova is accused
of infringing to five patents. The lawsuit alleges that Nutrinova has been making, using,
offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the United States DHA that infringes the
patents. In October 2003, Nutrinova filed counterclaims alleging inequitable conduct and
invalidity, unenforceability and/or noninfringement of 19 of our U.S. patents. A scheduling
hearing in the case was held in January 2005, and the trial is scheduled for October 2006.
In July 2005, the court granted Marteks motion to add as a defendant in the case a company
that is a U.S. customer for Nutrinovas DHA. A hearing before the court on the meaning
and scope of the patent claims in dispute is scheduled to be held in late November 2005.
We also filed a patent infringement suit involving Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food
Ingredients GmbH and Celanese Ventures GmbH in Germany in January 2004. The complaint
alleges infringement of our European patent relating to DHA-containing oils. A hearing in
this case was held in a district court in Dusseldorf in April 2005 and the court delayed
its decision pending input from a court-appointed technical expert. The courts decision
is expected at some point in the second calendar quarter of 2006.
    
    Suntory has opposed our blended oil patent in Japan, where we believe there currently
are no sales of infant formula containing our blended oils. The patent was revoked by the
Japanese Patent Office and the revocation upheld by the Tokyo High Court in September 2004.
We appealed this decision to the Japanese Supreme Court and, as expected, that court has
declined to hear the matter. Thus, the revocation of this patent has become final. With
respect to our Japanese ARA patent, the same result has been reached.
    
    With respect to our ARA patent in South Korea, where we believe there are limited sales
of infant formula containing our ARA oil, Suntory has also filed an opposition. A hearing
on the matter has not been scheduled. Suntory has also initiated an invalidation case
against our blended oil patent in South Korea. Our response to Suntory was filed in
February 2005. No hearing date has been set. At this point, it is not possible to indicate
what the likely outcome of these two South Korean matters will be.
   We have a single third-party supplier of our ARA. If this supplier of our ARA is unable to
supply us with our required amounts of ARA, we are unable to find alternative supply sources of
our ARA or we are unable to cost- effectively manufacture ARA ourselves, our customers may not
be able to obtain a sufficient supply of ARA from us, and our future revenues may be limited.
  3




---



##### 



If we are unable to successfully expand, continuously utilize and adequately manage our
production capacity or enter into favorable agreements with third parties to produce our oils or
if our suppliers fail to produce and supply us with adequate amounts of oil, our customers may
not be able to obtain a sufficient supply of DHA and ARA from us and our future revenues from
these products may be limited.
  As we and our major suppliers increase production of our nutritional oils, we may experience
certain risks associated with commercial manufacturing that could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition, and/ or results of operations.
   
    
    we may experience problems processing, handling and shipping the higher quantities of oil produced from our expanded facilities;
    
    the costs of expanding, operating and maintaining our production facilities may exceed our expectations;
    
    product defects may result;
    
    lower than anticipated fermentation success rates may result;
    
    lower downstream processing yields may result;
    
    environmental and safety problems may result from our production process; and
    
    regulatory issues relating to the scale-up and operation regarding our production process may arise.
  We have significantly increased our manufacturing capacity and have incurred substantial costs
in doing so. If we are unable to increase our revenues from our nutritional oils produced at
these facilities, we may experience excess production capacity and we may be unable to recover
these plant expansion costs.
  4




---



##### 



Failure to effectively manage our growth could disrupt our operations and prevent us from
generating the revenues and gross profit margins we expect.
  Our oils are very sensitive to oxidation and not very compatible with many liquid or dry foods
that are currently on the market. If economical methods are not developed to successfully
incorporate our oils into various food and beverage applications, we may never be able to gain
large-scale entry into the food and beverage market.
  If it is determined that large amounts of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) must be added to DHA in
order to achieve optimal health benefits, we may never be able to gain large- scale entry into
the food and beverage market.
  Since infant formula pricing is very competitive, the premium that our oils adds to the cost of
the formula may never allow it to be priced at levels that will allow worldwide acceptance by
consumers.
  If market demand for our products continues to grow, we may need significant additional capital
to expand our production capability. We may also need additional capital in the future to
continue our research and development efforts, to conduct product testing, including preclinical
and clinical trials, and to market our products.
  5
        The market price of our common stock may experience a high level of volatility due to factors
such as the volatility in the market for biotechnology stocks generally, and the short-term
effect of a number of possible events.
  
    
    announcements of technical innovations, new commercial products and product launches by us or our competitors;
    
    arrangements or strategic partnerships by us or our competitors;
    
    announcements of license agreements, acquisitions or strategic alliances;
    
    patent or other intellectual property achievements or adverse developments;
    
    quarterly fluctuations in our revenues and results of operations;
    
    failure or delay in expansion and continuous operation regarding our commercial
manufacturing or failure or delay of our third-party manufacturers in expansion and
continuous operation regarding their commercial manufacturing;
    
    failure to enter into favorable third-party manufacturing agreements;
    
    regulatory decisions (approvals or disapprovals) or changes concerning our products and our competitors products;
    
    announcements related to threatened, new or existing litigation;
    
    changes in our estimates of financial performance or changes in recommendations by securities analysts; and
    
    general market conditions for growth companies and bioscience companies.
   If significant shares eligible for future sales are sold, the result may depress our stock price
by increasing the supply of our shares in the market at a time when demand may be limited.
   Our business would be harmed if we fail to comply with applicable good manufacturing practices
as required by the FDA.
  6




---



##### 



Our corporate compliance program cannot guarantee that we are in compliance with all potentially
applicable federal and state regulations.
  Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims and recalls, and our insurance may
not provide adequate coverage.
  Our opportunity in the U.S. infant formula market may be limited by the renewal rate of
supplemented formulas into the Women, Infants and Children program.
  Our manufacturing process involves the handling of hazardous materials and the mishandling of
these hazardous materials could result in substantial costs and harm to our business.
   Our adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Boards SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment, or alternative incentive compensation plans that we could adopt could
result in our recognition of significant additional compensation expense.
  7




---



##### 



Changes in foreign currency exchange rates or interest rates could result in losses.
  We are a defendant in putative class action lawsuits which, if determined adversely, could have
a material adverse affect on us.
   8