Are research papers reporting results from nutrigenetics clinical research a potential source of biohype?

Forgetting how we ate: personalised nutrition and the strategic uses of history

Personalised nutrition (PN) has emerged over the past twenty years as a promising area of research in the postgenomic era and has been popularized as the new big thing out of molecular biology. Advocates of PN claim that previous approaches to nutrition sought general and universal guidance that applied to all people. In contrast, they contend that PN operates with the principle that "one size does not fit all" when it comes to dietary guidance. While the molecular mechanisms studied within PN are new, the notion of a personal dietary regime guided by medical advice has a much longer history that can be traced back to Galen's "On Food and Diet" or Ibn Sina's (westernized as Avicenna) "Canon of Medicine". Yet this history is either wholly ignored or misleadingly appropriated by PN proponents. This (mis)use of history, we argue helps to sustain the hype of the novelty of the proposed field and potential commodification of molecular advice that undermines longer histories of food management in premodern and non-Western cultures. Moreover, it elides how the longer history of nutritional advice always happened in a heavily moralized, gendered, and racialized context deeply entwined with collective technologies of power, not just individual advice. This article aims at offering a wider appreciation of this longer history to nuance the hype and exceptionalism surrounding contemporary claims.

Characterizing Precision Nutrition Discourse on Twitter: Quantitative Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is possible that tailoring dietary approaches to an individual's genomic profile could provide optimal dietary inputs for biological functioning and support adherence to dietary management protocols. The science required for such nutrigenetic and nutrigenomic profiling is not yet considered ready for broad application by the scientific and medical communities; however, many personalized nutrition products are available in the marketplace, creating the potential for hype and misleading information on social media. Twitter provides a unique big data source that provides real-time information. Therefore, it has the potential to disseminate evidence-based health information, as well as misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize the landscape of precision nutrition content on Twitter, with a specific focus on nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. We focused on tweet authors, types of content, and presence of misinformation.

METHODS

Twitter Archiver was used to capture tweets from September 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, using keywords related to nutrition and genetics. A random sample of tweets was coded using quantitative content analysis by 4 trained coders. Codebook-driven, quantified information about tweet authors, content details, information quality, and engagement metrics were compiled and analyzed.

RESULTS

The most common categories of tweets were precision nutrition products and nutrigenomic concepts. About a quarter (132/504, 26.2%) of tweet authors presented themselves as science experts, medicine experts, or both. Nutrigenetics concepts most frequently came from authors with science and medicine expertise, and tweets about the influence of genes on weight were more likely to come from authors with neither type of expertise. A total of 14.9% (75/504) of the tweets were noted to contain untrue information; these were most likely to occur in the nutrigenomics concepts topic category.

CONCLUSIONS

By evaluating social media discourse on precision nutrition on Twitter, we made several observations about the content available in the information environment through which individuals can learn about related concepts and products. Tweet content was consistent with the indicators of medical hype, and the inclusion of potentially misleading and untrue information was common. We identified a contingent of users with scientific and medical expertise who were active in discussing nutrigenomics concepts and products and who may be encouraged to share credible expert advice on precision nutrition and tackle false information as this technology develops.

Personalised nutrition and health

Jose Ordovas and colleagues consider that nutrition interventions tailored to individual characteristics and behaviours have promise but more work is needed before they can deliver

Ethical considerations in the implementation of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics

Awareness of ethical issues that may be raised by the implementation of nutrigenetic/nutrigenomic (NGx) testing and personalized nutrition, at an individual or a public health level, is crucial to ensure the latter's sound and effective implementation. NGx tests that are currently offered or developed have different natures and scopes. We provide an example of NGx testing on the MTHFR gene to illustrate the current challenges when it comes to grasp the meaning of the results of such testing. In addition, NGx testing is developed within an evolving landscape of new genomic technologies and occurs at a time when public health policies mainly focus on preventive and predictive healthcare, with an emphasis on increased individual responsibility. The ethical issues raised by such a context and the genetic nature of NGx testing both should be carefully evaluated.

Evaluation of a cartoon-based knowledge dissemination intervention on scientific and ethical challenges raised by nutrigenomics/nutrigenetics research

CONTEXT

The push for knowledge translation on the part of health research funding agencies is significant in Canada, and many strategies have been adopted to promote the conversion of knowledge into action. In recent years, an increasing number of health researchers have been studying arts-based interventions to transform knowledge into action. This article reports on the results of an online questionnaire aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a knowledge dissemination intervention (KDI) conveying findings from a study on the scientific and ethical challenges raised by nutrigenomics-nutrigenetics (NGx) research. The KDI was based on the use of four Web pages combining original, interactive cartoon-like illustrations accompanied by text to disseminate findings to Canadian Research Ethics Boards members, as well as to NGx researchers and researchers in ethics worldwide.

METHODS

Between May and October 2012, the links to the Web pages were sent in a personal email to target audience members, one thematic Web page at a time. On each thematic Web page, members of the target audience were invited to answer nine evaluation questions assessing the effectiveness of the KDI on four criteria, (i) acquisition of knowledge; (ii) change in initial understanding; (iii) generation of questions from the findings; and (iv) intent to change own practice.

FINDINGS

Response rate was low; results indicate that: (i) content of the four Web pages did not bring new knowledge to a majority of the respondents, (ii) initial understanding of the findings did not change for a majority of NGx researchers and a minority of ethics respondents, (iii) although the KDI did raise questions for respondents, it did not move them to change their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

While target end-users may not feel that they actually learned from the KDI, it seems that the findings conveyed encouraged reflection and raised useful and valuable questions for them. Moreover, the evaluation of the KDI proved to be useful to gain knowledge about our target audiences' views since respondents' comments allowed us to improve our understanding of the disseminated knowledge as well as to modify (and hopefully improve) the content of the Web pages used for dissemination.

Benefits associated with nutrigenomics research and their reporting in the scientific literature: researchers' perspectives

Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics (NGx) are fields of research that have raised significant expectations about their potential benefits. This article presents empirical data from an online survey seeking the opinions of NGx researchers (n=126) regarding the achievability of the potential benefits of NGx, the time envisioned for their realization, the motives that may lead to their explicit mention in scientific peer-reviewed articles and the audience(s) targeted by NGx researchers when reporting their results in such articles. Results show that caution should be taken to avoid the risks associated with biohype and the premature dissemination of the potential benefits of NGx among various audiences.

Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say

Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics (hereafter NGx) have stimulated expectations for beneficial applications in public health and individuals. Yet, the potential achievability of such promise is not without socioethical considerations that challenge NGx implementation. This paper focuses on the opinions of NGx researchers about potential risks raised by NGx. The results of an online survey show that these researchers (n = 126) are fairly confident about the potential benefits of NGx, and that most downplay its potential risks. Researchers in this field do not believe that NGx will reconfigure foods as medication or transform the conception of eating into a health hazard. The majority think that NGx will produce no added burden on individuals to get tested or to remain compliant with NGx recommendations, nor that NGx will threaten individual autonomy in daily food choice. The majority of researchers do not think that NGx will lead to discrimination against and/or stigmatization of people who do not comply with NGx dietary recommendations. Despite this optimism among NGx researchers, we suggest that key risk factors raised by the socioethical context in which NGx applications will be implemented need to be considered.

Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate

The future clinical applications of whole genome sequencing come with speculation and enthusiasm but require careful consideration of the true system costs and health benefits of the clinical uses of this exciting technology.

The cost of whole genome sequencing is dropping rapidly. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm about the potential for this technological advance to transform clinical care. Given the interest and significant investment in genomics, this seems an ideal time to consider what the evidence tells us about potential benefits and harms, particularly in the context of health care policy. The scale and pace of adoption of this powerful new technology should be driven by clinical need, clinical evidence, and a commitment to put patients at the centre of health care policy.