Genes & Nutrition

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 373–381 | Cite as

Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition

  • Ulf Görman
  • John C. Mathers
  • Keith A. Grimaldi
  • Jennie Ahlgren
  • Karin Nordström
Review

Abstract

This article discusses the prospects and limitations of the scientific basis for offering personalized nutrition advice based upon individual genetic information. Two divergent scientific positions are presented, with an ethical comment. The crucial question is whether the current knowledge base is sufficiently strong for taking an ethically responsible decision to offer personalized nutrition advice based upon gene–diet–health interaction. According to the first position, the evidence base for translating the outcomes of nutrigenomics research into personalized nutritional advice is as yet immature. There is also limited evidence that genotype-based dietary advice will motivate appropriate behavior changes. Filling the gaps in our knowledge will require larger and better randomized controlled trials. According to the second position, personalized nutrition must be evaluated in relation to generally accepted standard dietary advice—partly derived from epidemiological observations and usually not proven by clinical trials. With personalized nutrition, we cannot demand stronger evidence. In several specific cases of gene–diet interaction, it may be more beneficial for individuals with specific genotypes to follow personalized advice rather than general dietary recommendations. The ethical comment, finally, considers the ethical aspects of deciding how to proceed in the face of such uncertainty. Two approaches for an ethically responsible way forward are proposed. Arguing from a precautionary approach, it is suggested that personalized dietary advice should be offered only when there is strong scientific evidence for health effects, followed by stepwise evaluation of unforeseen behavioral and psychological effects. Arguing from theoretical and applied ethics as well as psychology, it is also suggested that personalized advice should avoid paternalism and instead focus on supporting the autonomous choice of each person.

Keywords

Ethics Personalized nutrition Nutrigenetics Evidence Paternalism Autonomy 

References

  1. Alderman MH (2010) Reducing dietary sodium: the case for caution. JAMA 303(5):448–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkadianos I, Valdes AM, Marinos E et al (2007) Improved weight management using genetic information to personalize a calorie controlled diet. Nutr J 6:29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2008 [1985]) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994) The precautionary principle in Germany – enabling government. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouwman L (2009) Personalised nutrition advice. An everyday-life perspective. PhD thesis, University of Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan P, Hsu CC, Moullan N et al (2005) Effect of cruciferous vegetables on lung cancer in patients stratified by genetic status: a mendelian randomisation approach. Lancet 366(9496):1558–1560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caslake MJ, Miles EA, Kofler BM et al (2008) Effect of sex and genotype on cardiovascular biomarker responses to fish oils: the FINGEN Study. Am J Clin Nutr 88:618–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM et al (2008) Health behaviour changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the REVEAL Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Discord 22:94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherkas LF, Harris JM, Levinson E et al (2010) A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE 5(10):e13473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comest (World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge) (2005) The precautionary principle. UNESCO, Paris. Available http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2012
  11. Cooper M, Watson JC, Hölldampf D (2010) Person-centered and experiential therapies work: A review of the research on counseling, psychotherapy and related practices. PCCS Books, Ross-on-WyeGoogle Scholar
  12. Council of Europe (1997) Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine (ETS 164)Google Scholar
  13. Dana DA (2003) A behavioral economic defence of the precautionary principle. Northwest Univ Law Rev 97(3):1315–1345Google Scholar
  14. Fanshawe TR, Prevost AT, Roberts JS et al (2008) Explaining behaviour changes after genetic testing: the problem of collinearity between test results and risk estimates. Genet Test 12:381–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FSA (2007) Nutrient and food based guidelines for UK institutions. Revised October 2007. Available http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutrientinstitution.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2012
  16. Furberg CD (2012) Public health policies: no place for surrogates. Am J Hypertens 25(1):21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Görman U (2006) Ethical issues raised by personalized nutrition based on genetic information. Genes Nutr 1(1):13–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimaldi KA (2010) What’s wrong with GWAS? Available http://eurogene.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-wrong-with-gwas.html. Accessed 23 July 2012
  19. Haga SB, Khoury MJ, Burke W (2003) Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time. Nat Genet 34(4):347–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall WD, Mathews R, Morley KI (2010) Being more realistic about the public health impact of genomic medicine. PLoS Med 7(10):e1000347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Homocysteine Lowering Trialists’ Collaboration (2005) Dose-dependent effects of folic acid on blood concentrations of homocysteine: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Am J Clin Nutr 82(4):806–812Google Scholar
  22. Joost H-G, Gibney MJ, Cashman KD et al (2007) Personalised nutrition: status and perspectives. Br J Nutr 98:26–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kant I (2003 [1785]) Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. In: Hill TE Jr, Zweig A (eds) Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaput J, Raymond LR (2006) Nutritional genomics: discovering the path to personalized nutrition. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khoury M (2010) CDC podcast on personal genomic tests. Available http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/resources/video/MKhoury/2010-08_transcript.htm. Accessed 23 July 2012
  26. Lam TK, Gallicchio L, Lindsley K et al (2009) Cruciferous vegetable consumption and lung cancer risk: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18(1):184–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lampe JW, Chen C, Li S et al (2000) Modulation of human glutathione S-transferases by botanically defined vegetable diets. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9(8):787–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lonn E, Yusuf S, Arnold MJ et al (2006) Homocysteine lowering with folic acid and B vitamins in vascular disease. N Engl J Med 354(15):1567–1577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madden J, Williams CM, Calder PC et al (2011) The impact of common gene variants on the response of biomarkers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to increased fish oil fatty acids intakes. Ann Rev Nutr 31:203–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marteau T, Senior V, Humphries SE et al (2004) Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomised controlled trial. Am J Med Genet 128A:285–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marteau T, French DP, Griffin SJ et al (2010) Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Oct 6 (10):CD007275Google Scholar
  32. Mathers JC (2002) Pulses and carcinogenesis: potential for the prevention of colon, breast and other cancers. Br J Nutr 88(3):S273–S279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathers JC, Strathdee G, Relton CL (2010) Induction of epigenetic alterations by dietary and other environmental factors. Adv Genet 7:3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC et al (2010) The behavioural response to personalised genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 31:89–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCann SE, Roberts MR, Platek ME et al (2010) Nutrigenetics: the relevance of polymorphisms. In: Milner JA, Romagnolo DF (eds) Bioactive compounds and cancer. Humana Press, Springer, New York, pp 71–99Google Scholar
  36. Mitka M (2012) Researchers still seek clinical benefit in raising levels of good cholesterol. JAMA 307(1):21–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A (2012) A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr. doi:10.1007/s12263-012-0290-x. Accessed 23 July 2012
  38. Palli D, Masala G, Peluso M et al (2004) The effects of diet on DNA bulky adduct levels are strongly modified by GSTM1 genotype: a study on 634 subjects. Carcinogenesis 25(4):577–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paynter NP, Chasman DI, Parè G et al (2010) Association between a literature-based genetic risk score and cardiovascular events in women. JAMA 303(7):631–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perreault L, Pan Q, Mather KJ et al (2012) Effect of regression from prediabetes to normal glucose regulation on long-term reduction in diabetes risk: results from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 379(9833):2243–2251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogers C (1951) Client-centered therapy: its current practice, implications and theory. Constable, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneewind JB (1998) The invention of autonomy: a history of modern moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Sciona (2001) Consumer gene testing service is coming from UK’s Sciona Ltd. Available http://web.archive.org/web/20020627122104/;http://www.sciona.com/public/news/150801_sc.htm. Accessed 23 July 2012
  44. Steinbrecher A, Rohrmann S, Timofeeva M et al (2010) Dietary glucosinolate intake, polymorphisms in selected biotransformation enzymes, and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19(1):135–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tice JA (2010) The vital amines: too much of a good thing? Comment on “Effects of lowering homocysteine levels with B vitamins on cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cause-specific mortality”. Arch Int Med 170(18):1631–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wald DS, Wald NJ, Morris JK et al (2006) Folic acid, homocysteine, and cardiovascular disease: judging causality in the face of inconclusive trial evidence. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 333(7578):1114–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ (2011) Reconciling the evidence on serum homocysteine and ischaemic heart disease: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wildavsky A (1988) Searching for safety. Transaction Books, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  49. Wood PA (2008) Potential of nutrigenetics in the treatment of metabolic disorders. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 3(6):705–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulf Görman
    • 1
    • 4
  • John C. Mathers
    • 2
  • Keith A. Grimaldi
    • 3
  • Jennie Ahlgren
    • 1
  • Karin Nordström
    • 4
  1. 1.Ethics Unit, Centre for Theology and Religious StudiesLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Human Nutrition Research CentreInstitute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Eurogenetica LtdBurnham-on-SeaUK
  4. 4.School of Education and CommunicationJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations