Trendsurfing: The nutrigenomic diet (The Times)
By David Rowan
George Fleming sees little point in diets like the Atkins. Our individual genes, he explains, determine the nutrients each of us needs to stay fit and disease-free, so it makes far more sense to customise diets according to a person's DNA. Send Fleming a swab of your saliva, and his company will analyse which foods to avoid, and which supplements to take, according to your body's genetic secrets. This year his Canadian company, One Person Genetics, has been issuing £185 tailor-made prescriptions by the hundred. For £500 more, it will even send a year's supply of "custom-made" food supplements, designed to offset your personal genetic risks.
Since mapping the human genome three years ago, biotechnologists have raced to understand how genes react with diet to determine why some people develop osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, even cancer. This fast-growing field - called nutritional genomics, or nutrigenomics - is attracting serious research funding, and dieticians are predicting a "revolution" in preventative health. It will be a while before nutrigenomic foods hit the supermarkets, but there is already a booming market in tailor-made nutrigenomic diets.
"We test for your antioxidant activity, genes that control detoxification, factors affecting bone health, and aspects of cardiovascular diseases," Fleming explains. "If your genes show a raised risk of developing heart disease, say, we'll recommend a specific nutritional programme. We also provide a customised formulation of supplements with personalised dosage levels." His web and mail-order clients, who also receive "lifestyle advice", are mainly baby-boomers - "people who are already spending money on their health, maybe using personal trainers, going to spas and taking supplements". Demand is growing rapidly.
Still, at this early stage of genomic investigation, are such tests scientifically valid? Not everyone in the field is convinced. "Companies out there are testing for a few genes and giving dietary advice that's not credible yet," insists Jim Kaput, a biochemist whose own company, NutraGenomics [CORRECT:NutraGenomics], is investigating genetic linkages between diet and diabetes. "They might show that you have a gene variable that reacts badly with vitamin E, but we don’t yet know what to do with it." We must wait another decade before scientists know enough, Kaput believes - although eventually babies will be tested at birth to determine their optimum diet.
Consumer watchdogs are also raising objections. The Body Shop dropped a nutritional testing kit made by Sciona, a Hampshire-based biotech firm, after facing protests that an unhealthy lifestyle and a poor overall diet mattered more than genes in determining health. There are also ethical concerns. If these linkages are proven, could the state compel us to alter our diets? Could health insurers demand our test results? And would you really want to know that you have an increased risk of developing a terminal illness?
"Who controls this data will be the big story," George Fleming accepts. "But our approach is to put consumers in control of their own genetic information. By providing tests, we're helping them take control of their health. It's hard to see why wanting to understand your health and risks is unjustified." Over the next five years, he adds, research will confirm dietary linkages with a growing number of genes. "And as that number rises," he continues, "so does the validity of these tests."
But as Jim Kaput sees it, although we now have the tools to create the personalised nutrigenomic diet, we are still some way from understanding how to use all the raw data. It's a little soon, then, to ask your GP to prescribe a customised diet. "In the meantime," Kaput suggests, "eat less, exercise more, and chose your grandparents wisely."
(The Times, London, September 11 2004)
George Fleming sees little point in diets like the Atkins. Our individual genes, he explains, determine the nutrients each of us needs to stay fit and disease-free, so it makes far more sense to customise diets according to a person's DNA. Send Fleming a swab of your saliva, and his company will analyse which foods to avoid, and which supplements to take, according to your body's genetic secrets. This year his Canadian company, One Person Genetics, has been issuing £185 tailor-made prescriptions by the hundred. For £500 more, it will even send a year's supply of "custom-made" food supplements, designed to offset your personal genetic risks.
Since mapping the human genome three years ago, biotechnologists have raced to understand how genes react with diet to determine why some people develop osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, even cancer. This fast-growing field - called nutritional genomics, or nutrigenomics - is attracting serious research funding, and dieticians are predicting a "revolution" in preventative health. It will be a while before nutrigenomic foods hit the supermarkets, but there is already a booming market in tailor-made nutrigenomic diets.
"We test for your antioxidant activity, genes that control detoxification, factors affecting bone health, and aspects of cardiovascular diseases," Fleming explains. "If your genes show a raised risk of developing heart disease, say, we'll recommend a specific nutritional programme. We also provide a customised formulation of supplements with personalised dosage levels." His web and mail-order clients, who also receive "lifestyle advice", are mainly baby-boomers - "people who are already spending money on their health, maybe using personal trainers, going to spas and taking supplements". Demand is growing rapidly.
Still, at this early stage of genomic investigation, are such tests scientifically valid? Not everyone in the field is convinced. "Companies out there are testing for a few genes and giving dietary advice that's not credible yet," insists Jim Kaput, a biochemist whose own company, NutraGenomics [CORRECT:NutraGenomics], is investigating genetic linkages between diet and diabetes. "They might show that you have a gene variable that reacts badly with vitamin E, but we don’t yet know what to do with it." We must wait another decade before scientists know enough, Kaput believes - although eventually babies will be tested at birth to determine their optimum diet.
Consumer watchdogs are also raising objections. The Body Shop dropped a nutritional testing kit made by Sciona, a Hampshire-based biotech firm, after facing protests that an unhealthy lifestyle and a poor overall diet mattered more than genes in determining health. There are also ethical concerns. If these linkages are proven, could the state compel us to alter our diets? Could health insurers demand our test results? And would you really want to know that you have an increased risk of developing a terminal illness?
"Who controls this data will be the big story," George Fleming accepts. "But our approach is to put consumers in control of their own genetic information. By providing tests, we're helping them take control of their health. It's hard to see why wanting to understand your health and risks is unjustified." Over the next five years, he adds, research will confirm dietary linkages with a growing number of genes. "And as that number rises," he continues, "so does the validity of these tests."
But as Jim Kaput sees it, although we now have the tools to create the personalised nutrigenomic diet, we are still some way from understanding how to use all the raw data. It's a little soon, then, to ask your GP to prescribe a customised diet. "In the meantime," Kaput suggests, "eat less, exercise more, and chose your grandparents wisely."
(The Times, London, September 11 2004)
posted by David Rowan at Saturday, September 11, 2004
<< Home