Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition

  • R. Fallaize (a1), A. L. Macready (a1), L. T. Butler (a2), J. A. Ellis (a2) and J. A. Lovegrove (a1)...

Abstract

It is predicted that non-communicable diseases will account for over 73 % of global mortality in 2020. Given that the majority of these deaths occur in developed countries such as the UK, and that up to 80 % of chronic disease could be prevented through improvements in diet and lifestyle, it is imperative that dietary guidelines and disease prevention strategies are reviewed in order to improve their efficacy. Since the completion of the human genome project our understanding of complex interactions between environmental factors such as diet and genes has progressed considerably, as has the potential to individualise diets using dietary, phenotypic and genotypic data. Thus, there is an ambition for dietary interventions to move away from population-based guidance towards ‘personalised nutrition’. The present paper reviews current evidence for the public acceptance of genetic testing and personalised nutrition in disease prevention. Health and clear consumer benefits have been identified as key motivators in the uptake of genetic testing, with individuals reporting personal experience of disease, such as those with specific symptoms, being more willing to undergo genetic testing for the purpose of personalised nutrition. This greater perceived susceptibility to disease may also improve motivation to change behaviour which is a key barrier in the success of any nutrition intervention. Several consumer concerns have been identified in the literature which should be addressed before the introduction of a nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition service. Future research should focus on the efficacy and implementation of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Professor Julie Lovegrove, email J.A.Lovegrove@reading.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1World Health Organization (2001) Diet, Physical Activity and Health, Documents A55/16 and A55/16 Corr. 1). Geneva: WHO.
2Allender, S, Scarborough, P, Peto, V, et al. (editors) (2008) European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics, 2008 Edition. In European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics, p. 112Oxford: University of Oxford.
3Alwan, A (2011) Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2010. Geneva: WHO.
4Kreuter, MW & Wray, RJ (2003) Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav 27, S227S232.
5Marantz, PR (2010) Rethinking dietary guidelines. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 50, 1718.
6Hippisley-Cox, J, Coupland, C, Vinogradova, Y, et al. (2007) Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. Br Med J 335, 136.
7Hesketh, J, Wybranska, I, Dommels, Y, et al. (2006) Nutrient–gene interactions in benefit–risk analysis. Br J Nutr 95, 12321236.
8National Institutes of Health (2003) NIH News – international consortium completes human genome project: all goals achieved; new vision for genome unveiled. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2003/nhgri-14.htm (accessed accessed December 2011).
9van Ommen, V (2007) Personalized nutrition from a health perspective: luxury or necessity? Genes Nutr 2, 34.
10Kussmann, M, Raymond, F & Affolter, M (2006) OMICS-driven biomarker discovery in nutrition and health. J Biotechnol 124, 758787.
11Kaput, J & Rodriguez, RL (2004) Nutritional genomics: the next frontier in the postgenomic era. Physiol Genomics 16, 166177.
12Ordovas, JM & Mooser, V (2004) Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. Curr Opin Lipidol 15, 101108.
13Mutch, D, Wahli, W & Williamson, G (2005) Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics: the emerging faces of nutrition. FASEB J 19, 16021616.
14Dopler Nelson, M, Prabakar, P & Kondragunta, V (2010) Genetic phenotypes predict weight loss success: the right diet does matter. In 50th Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism 2010, abstract 735. San Francisco: American Heart Association.
15Department of Heath (2008) Putting Prevention First – Vascular Checks: Risk Assessment and Management. London: Department of Health.
16Rose, G, Khaw, K & Marmot, M (2008) Rose's Strategy of Preventative Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17Simmons, RK, Coleman, RL, Price, HC, et al. (2009) Performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine and the Framingham risk equations in estimating cardiovascular disease in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort. Diabetes Care 32, 708713.
18Stewart-Knox, BJ, Bunting, BP, Gilpin, S, et al. (2008) Attitudes toward genetic testing and personalised nutrition in a representative sample of European consumers. Br J Nutr 101, 982989.
19Makeeva, OA, Markova, VV & Puzyrev, VP (2009) Public interest and expectations concerning commercial genotyping and genetic risk assessment. Pers Med 6, 329341.
20Aro, AR, Hakonen, A, Hietala, M, et al. (1997) Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Educ Couns 32, 4149.
21Toiviainen, H, Jallinoja, P, Aro, AR, et al. (2003) Medical and lay attitudes towards genetic screening and testing in Finland. Eur J Hum Genet 11, 565572.
22Sanderson, SC, Wardle, J, Jarvis, MJ, et al. (2004) Public interest in genetic testing for suceptability to heart disease and cancer: a population-based survey in the UK. Prev Med 39, 458464.
23Morren, M, Rijken, M, Baanders, AN, et al. (2007) Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes towards genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns 65, 197204.
24Henneman, L, Timmermans, DRM & Wal, GVD (2006) Public attitudes toward genetic testing: perceived benefits and objections. Genet Test 10, 139145.
25Morin, K (2009) Knowledge and attitudes of Canadian consumers and health care professionals regarding nutritional genomics. OMICS 13, 3741.
26Grant, R, Hivert, M, Pandiscio, J, et al. (2009) The clinical application of genetic testing in type 2 diabetes: a patient and physician survey. Diabetologia 52, 22992305.
27Antoniou, A, Pharoah, P, Narod, S, et al. (2003) Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72, 11171130.
28Gaskell, G, Allum, N & Stares, S (2003) Europeans and biotechnology in 2002, Eurobarometer 58.0 p. 44.http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf (accessed accessed February 2013).
29Cherkas, LF, Harris, JM, Levinson, E, et al. (2010) A survey of UK public interest in Internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS One 5, e13473.
30Human Genetics Commission (2003) Genes Direct: Ensuring the Effective Oversight of Genetic Tests Supplied Directly to the Public. London: Department of Health.
31Nielsen, DE & El-Sohemy, A (2012) A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr 7, 559566.
32Meiser, B, Kasparian, NA, Mitchell, PB, et al. (2008) Attitudes to genetic testing in families with multiple cases of bipolar disorder. Genet Test 12, 233243.
33Makeeva, OA, Markova, VV, Roses, AD, et al. (2010) An epidemiologic-based survey of public attitudes towards predictive genetic testing in Russia. Pers Med 7, 291300.
34Adámková, V, Veleminský, M, Zimmelová, P, et al. (2009) Volunteer's willingness to genetic testing – lack of the understanding of the matter. Physiol Res 58, S53S54.
35Ronteltap, A, van Trijp, JCM & Renes, RJ (2009) Consumer acceptance of nutrigenomics-based personalised nutrition. Br J Nutr 101, 132144.
36Ronteltap, A, van Trijp, H, Berezowska, A, et al. (2013) Nutrigenomics-based personalised nutritional advice: in search of a business model? Genes Nutr, 8, 153163.
37Bosompra, K, Flynn, BS, Ashikaga, T, et al. (2000) Likelihood of undergoing genetic testing for cancer risk: a population-based study. Prev Med 30, 155166.
38Ronteltap, A, Van Trijp, J, Renes, R, et al. (2007) Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49, 117.
39World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: WHO.
40Ronteltap, A & van Trijp, H (2007) Consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition. Genes Nutr 2, 8587.
41Strecher, VJ, DeVellis, BME, Becker, MH, et al. (1986) The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Educ Behav 13, 7392.
42Sanderson, SC, Wardle, J & Humphries, SE (2008) Public health genomics and genetic test evaluation: the challenge of conducting behavioural research on the utility of lifestyle-genetic tests. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 1, 224234.
43Joost, H, Gibney, M, Cashman, K, et al. (2007) Personalised nutrition: status and perspectives. Br J Nutr 98, 2631.
44Hunter, DJ, Khoury, MJ & Drazen, JM (2008) Letting the genome out of the bottle – will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 358, 105107.
45Harvey-Berino, J, Gold, EC, West, DS, et al. (2001) Does genetic testing for obesity influence confidence in the ability to lose weight? A pilot investigation. J Am Diet Assoc 101, 13511353.
46McMahon, OC, McConnon, A, McKenzie, K, et al. (2010) An exploration of the use of personalised nutrition among potential end users of the concept. Proc Nutr Soc 69, E357.
47Arakadianos, I, Valdes, AM, Marinos, E, et al. (2007) Improved weight management using genetic information to personalize a calorie controlled diet. Nutr J 6, 29.
48Frosch, DL, Mello, P & Lerman, C (2005) Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14, 14851489.
49Hogarth, S, Javitt, G & Melzer, D (2008) The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9, 161182.
50Castle, D & Ries, NM (2007) Ethical, legal and social issues in nutrigenomics: the challenges of regulating service delivery and building health professional capacity. Mutat Res 622, 138143.
51Weir, M, Morin, K, Ries, N, et al. (2010) Canadian health care professionals' knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of nutritional genomics. Br J Nutr 104, 11121119.
52Whelan, K, McCarthy, S & Pufulete, M (2008) Genetics and diet–gene interactions: involvement, confidence and knowledge of dietitians. Br J Nutr 99, 2328.
53Scheuner, MT, Sieverding, P & Shekelle, PG (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases. J Am Med Assoc 299, 13201334.
54van El, CG & Cornel, MC (2011) Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework. Eur J Hum Genet 19, 377381.
55Heshka, JT, Palleschi, C, Howley, H, et al. (2008) A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 10, 1932.
56Jackson, D, Wills, R, Davies, J, et al. (2009) Public awareness of the symptoms of diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 8, 971972.
57Walsh, M & Kuhn, S (2012) Developments in personalised nutrition. Nutr Bull 37, 380383.
58Mathers, JC (2007) Overview of genes, diet and cancer. Genes Nutr 2, 6770.
59Barton, P, Andronis, L, Briggs, A, et al. (2011) Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention in whole populations: modelling study. BMJ 343, d4044.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Nutrition Research Reviews
  • ISSN: 0954-4224
  • EISSN: 1475-2700
  • URL: /core/journals/nutrition-research-reviews
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed