Who says scientists don't have game? They played matchmaker between nutrition and genetics well enough! Thanks to high-throughput technology unraveling the human genome, scientists are learning exactly how nutrients interact and modulate molecular mechanisms underlying physiological functions. This promising field is called Nutrigenomics.Its practical application lies in giving a consumer a genetic test, and analyzing his DNA to find any SNPs (gene variants) that could predispose him to illnesses. Following that, personalized dietary advice is doled out to promote optimal health. But these "DNA diets" are based on research findings still in their infancy. And challenges are inherent in deciding when and how to incorporate reliable findings into the health profession, or otherwise deliver them to the buying public. As the field evolves, we're sure to see economic, social, and political implications.
Economic Implications
Despite knowing that prevention is cheaper than treatment, "our current healthcare system is primarily a disease-care system," reports Newsweek. "Last year, $2.1 trillion was spent in this country on medical care, or 16.5 percent of the gross national product." By taking a preventative stance against chronic disease, Nutrigenomics would lessen the burden of healthcare costs. There are three caveats that could muffle the beneficial economic impact of Nutrigenomics. First, will the science deliver on its promises? Researchers have yet to show consistently reproducible results. And second, will the public change their behavior? If our obesity epidemic is any indication, we don't do well with adhering to nutritional advice. And third, will the science be accessible to those who need it most? Lower socio-economic populations most at risk for obesity and poor nutrition are at once less informed and more price sensitive to the cost of genetic tests, dietary change, and supplements.
Social Implications
Nutrigenomics will require international alliances and collaboration. The value derived from studying genomic and nutritional patterns in different populations and ethnic groups cannot be overstated. From this we can derive nutrigenomic profiles specific for those sharing ancestral origins (and hence similar DNA). The dietary recommendations for Native Americans, for example, could conceivably differ from those for Northern Europeans.
Political Implications
Current commercial companies marketing their genetic tests online have been accused of misleading consumers. Critics question the validity and predictive power of tests. They also slam companies for dishing out broad dietary advice (ie: eat more veggies and less saturated fat), under the mantle of "personalized nutrition." Furthermore, it's not uncommon for companies to conveniently recommend supplements they themselves sell. But despite the controversy, the online marketing of genetic tests continues. Companies find loopholes in current policy to escape regulation. They frame their business models as non-medical "lifestyle" tests that are "low-risk." New regulatory paradigms are needed that will at once protect consumers while allowing legitimate commercial development. Of critical focus will be separating bogus direct-to-consumer tests from genuine applications of Nutrigenomics science.
Time will tell whether the scientific community, policy-makers, and healthcare professionals will be able to properly steward Nutrigenomics to actualize its potential to help alleviate chronic disease.
