6 February 2008 - Fish Oil Initiative

Questions

(asked by Mr P Thompson of Great Lumley, Chester le Street)

1. Regarding the County Council’s much publicised “Fish Oil” initiative, (originally referred to as a “Trial”) involving large numbers of Year 11 (GCSE) students in the authority’s secondary schools: has the planned evaluation of the initiative been carried out and if so, what was the broad result of that evaluation?

2. Given that the evaluation approach was to have focused upon, “....uptake, teachers’ perceptions and outcomes compared with predictions,” and that there were no control groups because the authority did not wish to deny those students the putative benefits of the fish oil, which they had obviously not yet demonstrated, what is the point of undertaking such an evaluation, that has demonstrably no validity, on an initiative subject to so many obvious confounding variables and upon what information did the County Council approve it?

3. This so-called “initiative” is seen by some as a completely wasted opportunity by the County Council to carry out objective, meaningful and badly- needed research on the possible effects of Omega 3 supplements on the academic performance of mainstream students. The County Council has however jointly funded, with Middlesbrough Council, the “Middlesbrough Study” completed two years ago, with products supplied by Equazen, which appears to be a randomised, controlled trial involving fish oil supplements with only 250 mainstream schoolchildren, compared with the claimed “thousands” of the Year 11 “initiative.” Does the County Council plan to fully publish all the research they have conducted in collaboration with Equazen, be it positive, negative or indifferent in a peer-reviewed journal and using all of the Council’s publicity facilities and if not, why not?

Answers

1. Our evaluation of levels of take up and perceptions of staff, pupils and parents is in preparation and will be made public once all of the relevant information from participating schools has been properly collated and analysed. This information will come from the 37 settings involved and will, in particular, help us to understand the contributory factors in those settings, where a high number of pupils completed the programme of supplements.

2. The evaluation referred to in answer to question 1 is (and always was) intended to provide feedback about the process of the initiative for our schools, pupils and parents and information to assist future researchers in designing similar studies in partnership with schools. In particular the size of this study and the difference between the settings will help to identify the essential factors within settings needed to support any clinically controlled study. As we have said previously it was never intended, and the County Council never suggested, that it would use this initiative to draw conclusions about the effectiveness or otherwise of using Fish Oil to boost exam results.

As we said in answer to Mr Thompson’s question in 2007, this initiative was planned by officers of the Authority as an opportunity for our autonomous schools and as such did not require formal council approval. County Council Officers simply brokered opportunities for schools and parents to take up free fish oil supplements offered by the company involved. It was a matter for schools and parents whether or not they took up that opportunity.

3. The Council has a consistent record of publishing the outcomes of its work, including that undertaken in partnership with other bodies, in the most appropriate and accessible media. This will continue to be our policy which will be applied to all of the matters considered in these questions.

The Middlesbrough study referred to in this question is in the process of submission for peer review.