They advise against using “expensive” fish oil supplements, stating in their magazine that eating a meal of oily fish twice a week is a much better way to obtain the recommended levels of the beneficial fish oils.

These people clearly have no perspective on this issue, have they actually looked into how much it costs to buy a fresh meal of oily fish for a family of five?

Obviously not because then they would have figured out, as I have, that the cost of supplements for around two months costs about the same as only two meals of fresh oily fish for my family.

Furthermore, who did the reviewing of these products and the scientific evidence?

Choice lacks transparency when it comes to letting readers know who conducts these reviews so that we can know if they are members of organisations known to have an agenda either for or against whatever it is they are reviewing.

A case in point is the water fluoridation issue, where they refused to reveal if the review panel members were members of the pro-fluoridation lobby group, the ADA.

And anybody with a scientific background knows that the term “not enough evidence” or “no credible evidence” simply means that there have not been enough studies conducted yet and translates to “we don’t know”.

— JACQUELINE HANCOX,

Beechworth