NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

Gene Smart health test rates omega-3 fatty acid levels


3 Star

Gene Smart health test rates omega-3 fatty acid levels

Our Review Summary

This usually-excellent Healthy Skeptic column in the Los Angeles Times missed the mark on a number of fronts on this story about testing for omega-3 fatty acid levels and supplementation that could be used if levels are low.

First, it focused on only one company offering these tests and conveniently hyperlinked to that company’s website.  

But it also waffled on the clearly unclear benefits of such testing.

The selection of quotes often dictate the final take-home of a story. There were quotes of enthusiastic claims from the company and from a scientist/author with a vested interest – “Given the protective power of omega-3s, everyone should know their levels.” And from an independent cardiologist, who said, “"I don’t have any problem with anyone who wants to spend $149 to check their levels out.”

But health care reform discussions need to start somewhere, and perhaps starting with $149 per person charges for tests of unclear benefit is one of many places to start.  The story could have said that.

But such quotes were balanced by more evidence-based comments from several sources who emphasized what has NOT been proven about the benefits of testing for omega-3 fatty acid levels or about supplementing to boost such levels if found to be low.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?


The story included the cost of the test and the cost of the supplement.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


One nutritionist warned, "If you have high cholesterol and high blood pressure, you can’t just pop fish oil pills and say, ‘I’m protected.’ "

And, as noted, the story concluded with caveats: "No studies have ever proven that people with low omega-3 levels can reduce their risk of heart trouble by taking supplements or eating more fish…There’s also no strong evidence that some people may need more omega-3s than they’d get by sticking to current recommendation."



Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no mention of possible harms that might be associated with obtaining blood samples at home; there was no discussion about whether or not there were possible harms associated with implementing fish oil treatment based on the results obtained.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The story could have done a better job scrutinizing the evidence.

It cited company claims.  And it cited "suggestive evidence" from one study.  

It did conclude:  "No studies have ever proven that people with low omega-3 levels can reduce their risk of heart trouble by taking supplements or eating more fish" and " There’s also no strong evidence that some people may need more omega-3s than they’d get by sticking to current recommendations."  

So we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.  

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


No overt disease-mongering of the risk of heart disease.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


Several scientists interviewed for this story did not appear to have direct connections with the company marketing the test reported on.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story discusses the use of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation as a means of reducing the chance of having a heart attack. But these potential benefits are not placed into the context of other clearly effective ways of reducing risk.  These could have at least been briefly mentioned.



Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

This story provides the website for one commercial entity selling the test reported on, but it doesn’t tell readers that there are several entities that run this test. 


Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story made it seem as though only the Gene Smart company – to which it provided a link – was capable of assessing  circulating levels of omega-3 fatty acids. It is not the sole domain of that one company.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Given the number of sources interviewed, it’s clear that the story didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 6 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.