A recent metanalysis of thirty-eight nutrigenomics genes has shown that there is no clear link between the genes normally investigated in nutrigenomics tests and many diet-related diseases, although in some cases there are a limited number of studies linking them to this (Pavlidis et al. A non-exhaustive list of uncertainties that must be considered when ethically evaluating the dynamics of nutrigenomics services and products includes at least five types, the first three being primarily cognitive and the last two primarily social and normative. This led to the increasing popularity of nutrigenomics, the field of research into how environmental factors such as food intake and lifestyle influence gene expression. One implication is that there is a high probability of false claims and unrealistic expectations, of which consumers must be sensitized (made) by critical nutrigenomics researchers
.
Despite the existing controversy, solid evidence shows that genetic testing for personalized nutrition is an effective tool for making dietary recommendations to improve health and performance and produce positive behavioral changes. The present review aims to provide an overview of the current controversy in the field of nutrigenomics and to highlight recent research findings on the potential impact of implementing genetic testing for personalized nutrition in practice. Third, governments should ensure that public health research and care remains the most important part of the nutrigenomics research agenda. Admittedly that a personalized, health-oriented diet actually plays a role, there are particular ethical questions associated with the scientific characteristics of nutrigenomics
.
Other health professionals are concerned that the use of a nutrigenomic approach will not produce better results than current methods of nutritional counseling. We start with a non-exhaustive list of five different types of uncertainties that end users of nutrigenomics must deal with without being able to perceive them as risks and subject them to a risk analysis. Health should be a secondary goal when it comes to eating (Korthals 200), and consumer groups should be strengthened as stakeholders and given a voice not only in the downstream area of nutrigenomics (in terms of end products) but also ahead of the nutrigenomics research agenda. An ethic of participation in continuous discussion of the intricacies of nutrigenomics is more appropriate
.Nutrigenomics was born out of the need to move from epidemiology and physiology to molecular biology and genetics. However, this potential is overshadowed by the enormous complexity of the genome and the potential applications of genomics or, on the subject of this work, nutrigenomics. Second, the publication of research results on a tiny detail without context outside scientific circles should be prevented. The inherent complexity of nutrigenomics research implies that research findings of minute details should only be published in the context of the larger context
.
References:
- Nutrigenomics: Future or Fad? | Food & Nutrition | From the Magazine
- https://medium.com/a-microbiome-scientist-at-large/nutrigenomics-is-it-bullshit-a1913faac503