Just another thought.

A few months ago, Consumers for Health Choice took a full page in The Guardian newspaper. It was an open letter to The Rt Hon. Gordon Brown, on the subject of the EU Directive and our supplements being under threat. It asked for his governments help in fighting for us- the consumer -to keep our valuable supplements, that we have been taking safely for many years and was signed by at least 25 celebrities.

I was stunned to find that shortly after it had appeared, at least half of them were sent, personally, a very persuasive letter from the which?organisation, warning them that supporting the CHC was dangerous and that they should support the EU Directive and explaining why. Astonishingly , however, some of their science was inaccurate and consequently some of their arguments were wrong and misleading.

I was shocked as I had always been led to believe that the which?organisation was on the side of the consumer. How can restricting consumer choice,  on the basis of flawed science, be good for us? (We know that safety is not the issue although they would have us think it is; it is the ultimate harmonisation of the  supplements market)  Who is advising them, that they got their facts so wrong?

When CHC wrote to the which? organisation regarding the letters they had sent out and challenging their facts, no answer came, which was equally puzzling. So I asked a few questions and found out that most people who subscribe to or advise which? have vested interests, and that there were an awful lot of GPs on their list. Now, GPs know very little, generally, about good nutrition and even less about supplements, and are often funded or influenced in some way or another by the Pharmas.

Just a few thoughts for you to dwell on.