Nutrigenomics

For my free choice blog post, I chose to read "Nutrigenomics: Personalized Nutrition or Pie in the Sky" by Janice Thompson and Melinda Manore. These authors describe the term nutrigenomics as a scientific discipline studying the interactions between the genes, the environment and nutrition. The article explains the theory believes that DNA can be altered through our diets. Experiments have been performed on lab rats to confirm researchers' hypothesis of the nutrigenomics validity. The debate continues with writing about the evidence and indications for nutrigenomics in humans. It finally concludes with the future promise of nutrigenomics and possible challenges.

I found the topic of Nutrigenomics to be extremely interesting. While Nutrigenomics promotes obvious benefits, there appear to be some very dangerous, undiscovered drawbacks. This is the case with most cutting edge discoveries in the medical field. Although I find Nutrigenomics to be fascinating, I'm afraid my skepticism outweighs my trust.

Imagine planet earth's inhabitants being able to be free of disease simply by changing the food they eat. Nutrigenomics claims to prevent heart disease, certain cancers and diabetes type 2. Is Nutrigenomics the answer? Too good to be true is what pops into my mind when I think about this scenario. Even though the concept of Nutrigenomics is favorable, the research is still lacking in many areas. For example, Nutrigenomics has yet to be tested with humans. According to a review by dietspotlight.com, Nutrigenomics has only been tested with animals (mostly mice and lab rats), not humans due to ethical reasons. It is common knowledge that people and rodents are composed differently. What might be medically helpful to a rat could be severally harmful to a human. Further experimentation must be conducted before any conclusive predictions of how Nutrigenomics could be any sort of asset.

The other critical drawback is how costly Nutrigenomics would be if it became available to the public. The debate article states that genetic make-up of a person is individualistic and most likely Nutrigenomics would require a personalized assessment in order to work. This is possible for people with abundant resources but a challenge for those on the low-income spectrum. On Nutritional Genomics website, it gives the statistic that 80% of all deaths due to cardiovascular disease happened in lower income countries. Thus, even if Nutrigenomics became a success, could the majority of the people who need it be helped?

The dreamer/optimistic side of myself wants to believe that Nutrigenomics could be a viable cure for major medical problems. But it could take many, many years for scientists to discover the proper use of Nutrigenomics. I think it is spectacular that nutrition specialists are continuing to do groundbreaking research on improving the quality of human lives. I just believe Nutrigenomics shouldn't be regarded as truth quite yet.