Nutritional Genetics = Nutritional Genomics = Nutrigenomics
Time Magazine has a lengthy write-up about nutritional genetics, nutritional genomics, nutrigenomics, or whatever you want to call designing diets using information on your genetic make-up.
That’s the tricky thing about this new, more individualized exploration of genetics. The effect of a polymorphism may vary depending on where in a gene it is found and the influence of other genes. And a particular alteration can have varying effects in different populations. For instance, a variant gene called apolipoprotein E4 seems to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease if you are Caucasian or Japanese but not if you are a black African. It’s important to know not only the SNPs but also their context to understand “who will respond and who will not respond,” says [Jose Ordovas, a geneticist at the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts].
And, of course, Sciona–a leading DNA testing company in nutrigenomics–is mentioned at length. I’m working on getting Dr. Keith Grimaldi, Sciona’s Director of Science - Europe, to do a genetics interview for us.
Technorati Tags: keith grimaldi, sciona, nutritional genetics, nutritional genomics, nutrigenomics, genomics, genetics, genes, dna, diet, health, disease
Related Stories
POSTED IN: General Genetics and Health, Genetic Testing, Nutrigenomics
.gif)
14 opinions for Nutritional Genetics = Nutritional Genomics = Nutrigenomics
Marie Godfrey
Jun 5, 2006 at 8:38 am
In your research about Sciona, you might want to check GeneWatch UK about Sciona being pulled off the market there. You may also want to ask where they send their samples. DNAdirect, another company that promotes nutrigenomics, sends their samples to outside labs for testing. Actually, I think that’s a good idea. There are few qualified testing labs in the U.S., even though there are many companies selling genetics tests online.
If you can’t reach Dr. Grimaldi, try Ryan Phelan of DNAdirect. She was very helpful to a class on genetic testing held recently at Portland State University.
Marie Godfrey
Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
Jun 5, 2006 at 8:42 am
Thanks, Marie. I’ve been in touch with Keith Grimaldi before via this blog and have interviews lined up with the writers of the DNAdirect blog. Maybe I’ll ask Ryan Phelan for an interview too.
Lisa Lee
Jun 5, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Hi, just a clarification. DNA Direct doesn’t offer or endorse nutrigenomic testing. We do provide testing for health and medical issues that has been scientifically validated. Examples of tests that we offer are cystic fibrosis (CF), blood clotting disorders, and iron overload disorder (hemochromatosis). As Marie mentions, we work with CLIA-certified labs, which is important to the quality of test results.
Marie Godfrey
Jun 5, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Thank you so much, Lisa, for the correction. For some time I’ve been thinking that DNA Direct did do nutrigenomics. I just confirmed on the website that I was wrong. My apologies to all for misinformation. Aren’t blogs great? Within a short time, errors can be challenged and corrected.
Trisha
Jun 5, 2006 at 10:11 pm
On the second page of the Time articles it quotes Andrew Greenberg as saying ‘A gene has millions of bases’.
A gene with millions of bases? That doesn’t sound right!
Don’t most genes just have several hundred to several thousand bases? If he was including introns and exons or a region regulating expression of a gene that would increase the number of bp in a gene, but not by that much.
Do you think that quote was taken out of context? Or he just wasn’t thinking when he said it? Or maybe he really doesn’t know?
Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
Jun 6, 2006 at 6:03 am
Sharp eye, Trisha. Hard to say exactly what he means unless we know the specific gene(s).
From the Human Genome Project:
Trisha
Jun 6, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I didn’t realize there were any genes quite that long, but to say ‘A gene has millions of bases’ seems a little exaggerated since most aren’t that big.
Genetics and Health » Meeting with DNA Direct
Aug 21, 2006 at 1:04 pm
[…] There may be plenty of doubt about the usefulness of genetic tests, but keep in mind that the use of DNA testing varies from genealogy to paternity to personalized nutrition (nutrigenomics) to medical conditions. If consumers are informed, they should be able to make their own choice about which tests they need or would be curious to learn more about. They would have to do the same even when face-to-face with a genetic counselor (Elissa Levin is a board-certified genetic counselor and Clinical Director of DNA Direct). I don’t think anyone is daft enough to think that information from a DNA test alone is enough to cure a disease or improve their health. It is through everyone’s joint efforts that we’ll make any headway. […]
Genetics and Health » GATA2 Gene and Coronary Artery Disease
Aug 29, 2006 at 2:45 pm
[…] Researchers are already talking about using this type of genetic information to create “a profile of risk for developing cardiovascular disease.” But, the ability to predict who will develop heart disease is already fairly straightforward. Family history, high cholesterol, obesity, smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle are all contributory factors. Don’t be surprised to see the GATA2 gene listed on the back of a direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic DNA test sometime soon. […]
Genetics and Health » DNA Diets
Nov 8, 2006 at 11:59 pm
[…] Biljana Mihailovic has lost 18 pounds on the “DNA diet,” a diet developed for her after a nutritional genetic test. She learned that her “optimal foods” are spinach, broccoli, citrus fruits, and whole grains. […]
Melinda Stees
Nov 9, 2006 at 9:21 pm
This may be too obvious…but wouldn’t most people lose weight and be healthier if a large portion of their diets consisted of spinach, broccoli, citrus fruits and whole grains?
Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
Nov 9, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Melinda: Heck, yeah. You got that right!! I agree with you 100%. :)
Rachel Dechenne
Nov 27, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Putting Nutrigenomics on the map
What might appear like just another fad has much more implications than you might think. Most of us can’t exactly explain what functional food stands for, let alone nutrigenomics! In thousands of laboratories around the world, however, scientists are busy whispering the “N” word with respect and devotion. All that hard work to gratify us with a new generation of allegedly called “functional foods” this time based on our genetic make-up. Currently nutrigenomics proponents argue that, if made available to everybody, it will reduce and ultimately eliminate racial and ethnic disparities resulting from environment-gene interactions, particularly those involving dietary, economic and cultural factors (Center of Excellence in Nutritional Genomics at UC Davis, USA).
“Lets don’t bother about putting too much effort into changing our lifestyle and support organic, locally produced, well-balanced food, exercising and rethinking our food habits. That doesn’t work anyway.” Very soon a deluge of adverts will say that: “It’s the genes fault if we put on weight or get depression etc. All we all have to do is to take a quick blood test and go to the supermarket to buy the corresponding techno-food/drink”. Of course, cheap version will also be available in newly built supermarket owned by Tesco, Wal-Mart and consorts in India, Thailand, China, etc. » This could sound as a pretty good idea, just like the promises to alleviate world starvation with genetically modified crops ten years ago! However, just like the latter, nutrigenomics’ honorable goal is far from having any beginning of proof to substantiate it. I am not implying that nutrigenomics is good or bad. As a science it has no other pretension than to push our knowledge of food and diet interactions a little bit further.
My concern is that the appetite for control and greed of a few might eventually prevail over a “boring” balanced and precautionary approach that would benefit all. What’s important, I believe, is that a full assessment of the risk/benefit of the technology, including consumers participation, is conducted before deciding of the trajectories of development. As a trained food policy analyst and lawyer, I’ve made my homework and started to document that research examining the social impacts and the balance of risks/benefits of the commercialization of these future products on a global scale are largely overlooked. If the political process is not opened up to take into account alternatives views, including consumers opinions, it may lead to confusing further more public perceptions regarding an healthy diet. It might contribute to further transforming our societies into big hospitals filled with hypochondriacs. Despite this, Governments around the world, lured by this easy way out of the health care nightmare, are investing in food industry to produce the miracle product instead of insuring a sound and fair supply chain. Of course the alternative offered is not an easy one. Moderation is not as sexy as a wonder science, but it is certainly a more realistic approach for consumers. Of science can help but it can’t tackle the roots of MAL-NUTRITION raging in both hemispheres (obesity, anorexia, etc). The inequalities and consumerism illusions caused by government disengagement, bad governance and the triumph of unfettered free trade dogma are certainly not just a matter of finding a new wonder science.
In short, what really concern me is that the current development of this niche science is kept behind closed doors without an appropriate risk assessment of the technology to determine which developments to prioritize based on the necessary evidence-based information.
The current private and public sector research in nutrigenomics, at the EU and the US levels, is heavily aimed at commercial rather than “public health” ends. Where a commercial approach is pursuit, there is very little public research serving to inform about the ethical challenges of future genetically-tailored functional food. Consequently not much is done in term of regulatory benchmarking to protect from misleading health claims and avoid pushing through unneeded commercial applications. It is, therefore, crucial to inform all the stakeholders (regulators, scientists, social scientists and especially the consumers) of the importance of integrating a broad socio-cultural dimension in the technology assessment of nutrigenomics. But as underlined before, the moderation path doesn’t stand a chance while facing the prospect of an ever growing billion $ market in functional food. At the end of the day, it’s all down to us: the consumers. If we don’t use our critical judgment to stop being force fed with illusions that get us fat and ill while starve the rest of the world, than a few billionaires at the top of intangible fortresses “multinational companies” will keep on draining the biosphere of all its blood.
What I am personally planning to do is to extend my investigation started at City University, London, under the supervision of Professor Tim Lang and inspired by my work with Vandana Shiva in India. I am currently putting together a proposal to rise funding with the help of professional fundraiser (pro-bono) here in London. It is, as you might imagine, not the easiest task but as I try to demonstrate here, such work is urgently needed. I will put the information gathered in a format accessible to a wide audience and not only the so-called experts. The work I am intending to do will supply people with enough information to develop their own opinion on what the development of the science behind nutritional genomics will entail for their everyday life. It will also show how our support for functional food (buying power) reverberates in the population of the South. It will, among other, explain how these poor countries are currently graciously providing the human guinea pigs necessary to get the precious genetic data, the core material upon which nutrigenomics knowledge is built, and cheap scientists to develop premium techno food for a handful of “worried-well”.
As stated earlier, my message will revolve around the fact that unhealthy nutrition is a complex problem rooted in inequalities and delusions caused by government disengagement, bad governance and the triumph of unfettered free trade dogma. It is not just a matter of finding a new wonder science. Let’s not be fooled and concentrate our precious resources on what really works!
All the best,
Rachel Dechenne
Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
Nov 27, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Rachel: Thank you for your in-depth comment! It’s always nice to have an expert opinion. Let us know when your publications are available.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: