Ethical considerations in the implementation of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet. Med. 17(6), 505–507 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Public Health Genomics. ACCE model list of 44 targeted questions aimed at a comprehensive review of genetic testing (2010). www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/acce/acce_proj.htm.
  Google Scholar
• 3 Hurlimann T, Menuz V, Graham J, Robitaille J, Vohl MC, Godard B. Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say. Genes Nutr. 9(1), 370 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4 National Human Genome Research Institute. Frequently asked questions about genetic testing (2015). www.genome.gov/19516567.
  Google Scholar
• 5 Hegde M, Bale S, Bayrak-Toydemir P et al. Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing – a clinical laboratory perspective. A report of the association for molecular pathology. J. Mol. Diagn. 17(2), 107–177 (2015). • An extensive review from the Incidental Findings Working Group of the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) Clinical Practice Committee and the Whole Genome Analysis Working Group. It describes the new challenges raised by next-generation sequencing technology, its potential benefits, but also the potential harms that could result from reporting incidental findings to patients.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6 Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS et al. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 94(6), 818–826 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7 Mathieu G, Groisman IJ, Godard B. Next generation sequencing in psychiatric research: what study participants need to know about research findings. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 16(9), 2119–2127 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8 Groisman IJ, Mathieu G, Godard B. Use of next generation sequencing technologies in research and beyond: are participants with mental health disorders fully protected? BMC Med. Ethics 13, 36 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9 Zawati MH, Parry D, Thorogood A et al. Reporting results from whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in clinical practice: a proposal for Canada? J. Med. Genet. 51(1), 68–70 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10 Burke W, Evans BJ, Jarvik GP. Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet. 166C(1), 105–111 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11 Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 21(3), 248–255 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Clift KE, Halverson CM, Fiksdal AS, Kumbamu A, Sharp RR, McCormick JB. Patients’ views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing. Appl. Transl. Genom. 4, 38–43 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13 Kocarnik JM, Fullerton SM. Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. JAMA 311(8), 795–796 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14 Saukko P. State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72(1), 53–60 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15 Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing in this country. A letter to the Honourable Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P, Health Canada (2015). www.ccmg-ccgm.org/news-article-11.html?id=230amp;catid=122.
  Google Scholar
• 16 Saukko PM, Reed M, Britten N, Hogarth S. Negotiating the boundary between medicine and consumer culture: online marketing of nutrigenetic tests. Soc. Sci. Med. 70(5), 744–753 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17 Sales NM, Pelegrini PB, Goersch MC. Nutrigenomics: definitions and advances of this new science. J. Nutr. Metab. 2014, 202759 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ronteltap A, Van Trijp H, Renes R. Expert views on critical success and failure factors for nutrigenomics. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 18(4), 189–200 (2007).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 19 Kohlmeier M, De Caterina R, Ferguson LR et al. Guide and position of the international society of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics on personalized nutrition: part 2 – ethics, challenges and endeavors of precision nutrition. J. Nutrigenet. Nutrigenomics 9(1), 28–46 (2016). •• A position paper by the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics that acknowledges current scientific challenges and an urgent need for ethical, social and legal considerations in the development of nutrigenetic/nutrigenomic applications.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20 Gibney MJ, Walsh MC. The future direction of personalised nutrition: my diet, my phenotype, my genes. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72(2), 219–225 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21 Rizzi F, Conti C, Dogliotti E et al. Interaction between polyphenols intake and PON1 gene variants on markers of cardiovascular disease: a nutrigenetic observational study. J. Transl. Med. 14(1), 186 (2016). • A good example of a nutrigenetic study targeting a gene and polymorphisms that are already known or studied for their contribution to the onset of cardiovascular diseases. Such a study shows how NGx is expected to be used to modulate pre-existing genetic risks.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22 Goni L, Cuervo M, Milagro FI, Martinez JA. A genetic risk tool for obesity predisposition assessment and personalized nutrition implementation based on macronutrient intake. Genes Nutr. 10(1), 445 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23 Ferretti G, Bacchetti T, Masciangelo S, Saturni L. Celiac disease, inflammation and oxidative damage: a nutrigenetic approach. Nutrients 4(4), 243–257 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24 Grimaldi KA. Nutrigenetics and personalized nutrition: are we ready for DNA-based dietary advice? Per. Med. 11(3), 297–3017 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 25 De Caterina R, El-Sohemy A. Moving towards specific nutrigenetic recommendation algorithms: caffeine, genetic variation and cardiovascular risk. J. Nutrigenet. Nutrigenomics 9(2–4), 106–115 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26 Frazier-Wood AC. Dietary patterns, genes, and health: challenges and obstacles to be overcome. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 4, 82–87 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27 Stenne R, Hurlimann T, Godard B. Are research papers reporting results from nutrigenetics clinical research a potential source of biohype? Account Res. 19(5), 285–307 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28 Hendriks HF. Use of nutrigenomics endpoints in dietary interventions. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72(3), 348–351 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29 Ohlhorst SD, Russell R, Bier D et al. Nutrition research to affect food and a healthy life span. J. Nutr. 143(8), 1349–1354 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30 Godfrey KM, Costello PM, Lillycrop KA. The developmental environment, epigenetic biomarkers and long-term health. J. Dev. Orig. Health Dis. 6(5), 399–406 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31 Debusk R. Nutrigenetic testing. Considerations for clinicians. Altern. Complement. Ther. 20(2), 80–83 (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 32 Bailey LB, Stover PJ, McNulty H et al. Biomarkers of nutrition for development-folate review. J. Nutr. 145(7), S1636–S1680 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33 Figueiredo JC, Levine AJ, Crott JW, Baurley J, Haile RW. Folate-genetics and colorectal neoplasia: what we know and need to know next. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 57(4), 607–627 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34 De Wals P, Tairou F, Van Allen MI et al. Reduction in neural-tube defects after folic acid fortification in Canada. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(2), 135–142 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35 Morais CC, Alves MC, Augusto EM, Abdalla DS, Horst MA, Cominetti C. The MTHFR C677T polymorphism is related to plasma concentration of oxidized low-density lipoprotein in adolescents with cardiovascular risk factors. J. Nutrigenet. Nutrigenomics 8(3), 105–113 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36 Remington R, Bechtel C, Larsen D et al. A Phase II randomized clinical trial of a nutritional formulation for cognition and mood in Alzheimer's disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 45(2), 395–405 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37 Sezgin Z, Dincer Y. Alzheimer's disease and epigenetic diet. Neurochem. Int. 78, 105–116 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38 Robitaille J, Hamner HC, Cogswell ME, Yang Q. Does the MTHFR 677C–>T variant affect the recommended dietary allowance for folate in the US population? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89(4), 1269–1273 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39 Gomes S, Lopes C, Pinto E. Folate and folic acid in the periconceptional period: recommendations from official health organizations in thirty-six countries worldwide and WHO. Public Health Nutr. 19(1), 176–189 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40 Pentieva K, Selhub J, Paul L et al. Evidence from a randomized trial that exposure to supplemental folic acid at recommended levels during pregnancy does not lead to increased unmetabolized folic acid concentrations in maternal or cord blood. J. Nutr. 146(3), 494–500 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41 Xie SZ, Liu ZZ, Yu JH et al. Association between the MTHFR C677T polymorphism and risk of cancer: evidence from 446 case–control studies. Tumour Biol. 36(11), 8953–8972 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42 U.S. National Library of Medicine. MTHFR (2016). https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR.
  Google Scholar
• 43 Levin BL, Varga E. MTHFR: addressing genetic counseling dilemmas using evidence-based literature. J. Genet. Couns. doi:10.1007/s10897-016-9956-9957 (2016) (Epub ahead of print). •• Presents a brief background of the MTHFR polymorphisms and their clinical significance. The authors address the challenges that MTHFR testing can raise in genetic counseling.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44 Ramkaran P, Phulukdaree A, Khan S, Moodley D, Chuturgoon AA. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease in young South African Indians. Gene 571(1), 28–32 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45 Xiong X, Lin XK, Xiao X et al. Association between MTHFR C677T polymorphism and diabetic nephropathy in the Chinese population: an updated meta-analysis and review. Nephrology (Carlton) 21(1), 5–12 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46 Mitchell ES, Conus N, Kaput J. B vitamin polymorphisms and behavior: evidence of associations with neurodevelopment, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and cognitive decline. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 47, 307–320 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47 Schwartz B. New criteria for supplementation of selected micronutrients in the era of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 65(5), 529–538 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48 Genetic testing registry (GTR). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/all/tests/?term=all[sb].
  Google Scholar
• 49 Oberg E, Givant C, Fisk B, Parikh C, Bradley R. Epigenetics in clinical practice: characterizing patient and provider experiences with MTHFR polymorphisms and methylfolate. J. Nutrigenet. Nutrigenomics 8(3), 137–150 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50 Ferguson LR, De Caterina R, Görman U et al. Guide and position of the international society of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics on personalised nutrition: part 1 – fields of precision nutrition. J. Nutrigenet. Nutrigenomics 9(1), 12–27 (2016). • An excellent review on the current state of knowledge in NGx and associated new fields of science.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51 Brown RC. Moral responsibility for (un)healthy behaviour. J. Med. Ethics 39(11), 695–698 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52 Tremblay J, Hamet P. Role of genomics on the path to personalized medicine. Metabolism 62(Suppl. 1), S2–S5 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53 Resnik DB. Genetics and personal responsibility for health. New Genet. Soc. 33(2), 113–125 (2014). •• An excellent and accessible article that describes the complex ethical implications of genetics on personal responsibility.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54 Komduur RH, Korthals M, Te Molder H. The good life: living for health and a life without risks? On a prominent script of nutrigenomics. Br. J. Nutr. 101(3), 307–316 (2009). • Describes the considerable mismatch between how food and health are conceptualized by NGx (where food is exclusively interpreted in terms of disease prevention) compared with society and individuals.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55 Korthals M. Coevolution of nutrigenomics and society: ethical considerations. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94(6 Suppl), S2025–S2029 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56 Görman U. Ethical issues raised by personalized nutrition based on genetic information. Genes Nutr. 1(1), 13–22 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 57 Görman U, Mathers JC, Grimaldi KA, Ahlgren J, Nordstrom K. Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr. 8(4), 373–381 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 58 Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A. Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 9(11), e112665 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59 Li SX, Ye Z, Whelan K, Truby H. The effect of communicating the genetic risk of cardiometabolic disorders on motivation and actual engagement in preventative lifestyle modification and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Nutr. 116(5), 924–934 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60 Komduur R, Te Molder H. The role of genes in talking about overweight: an analysis of discourse on genetics, overweight and health risks in relation to nutrigenomics. Public Underst. Sci. 23(8), 886–902 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 61 Bouwman LI, Te Molder H, Koelen MM, Van Woerkum CM. I eat healthfully but I am not a freak. Consumers’ everyday life perspective on healthful eating. Appetite 53(3), 390–398 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 62 Fallaize R, Macready AL, Butler LT, Ellis JA, Lovegrove JA. An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition. Nutr. Res. Rev. 26(1), 39–48 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63 Hietaranta-Luoma HL, Luomala HT, Puolijoki H, Hopia A. Using ApoE genotyping to promote healthy lifestyles in Finland – psychological impacts: randomized controlled trial. J. Genet. Couns. 24(6), 908–921 (2015). • There is a need for more research on the impact of personal genetic information on lifestyle behavior changes. This study assessed the psychological effects of personal genetic information, provided by different APOE genotypes, as a tool to promote such lifestyle changes.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 64 Van Der Wouden CH, Carere DA, Maitland-Van Der Zee AH et al. Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Ann. Intern. Med. doi:10.7326/M15-0995 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 65 Fry CL. Ethical issues in obesity interventions for populations. NSW Public Health Bull. 23(5–6), 116–119 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 66 Brown AW, Allison DB. Unintended consequences of obesity-targeted health policy. Virtual Mentor 15(4), 339–346 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 67 Ten Have M. Ethical aspects of obesity prevention. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 28(2), 303–314 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 68 Balcom J, Kotzer K, Waltman L, Kemppainen J, Thomas B. The genetic counselor's role in managing ethical dilemmas arising in the laboratory setting. J. Genet. Couns. 25(5), 838–854 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 69 Paul NW, Banerjee M, Michl S. Captious certainties: makings, meanings and misreadings of consumer-oriented genetic testing. J. Community Genet. 5(1), 81–87 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 70 Ormond K, Cho M. Translating personalized medicine using new genetic technologies in clinical practice: the ethical issues. Per. Med. 11(2), 211–222 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 71 Egalite N, Groisman IJ, Godard B. Genetic counseling practice in next generation sequencing research: implications for the ethical oversight of the informed consent process. J. Genet. Couns. 23(4), 661–670 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 72 Burke W, Trinidad SB. The deceptive appeal of direct-to-consumer genetics. Ann. Intern. Med. doi:10.7326/M16-0257 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 73 Covolo L, Rubinelli S, Ceretti E, Gelatti U. Internet-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 17(12), e279 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 74 Sterling R. The on-line promotion and sale of nutrigenomic services. Genet. Med. 10(11), 784–796 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 75 Cornel MC, Van El CG, Borry P. The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications. J. Community Genet. 5(1), 7–12 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 76 Cormier H, Tremblay BL, Paradis AM et al. Nutrigenomics – perspectives from registered dietitians: a report from the Quebec-wide e-consultation on nutrigenomics among registered dietitians. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 27(4), 391–400 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77 Weir M, Morin K, Ries N, Castle D. Canadian health care professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of nutritional genomics. Br. J. Nutr. 104(8), 1112–1119 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 78 Camp KM, Trujillo E. Position of the academy of nutrition and dietetics: nutritional genomics. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114(2), 299–312 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 79 Bouchard-Mercier A, Desroches S, Robitaille J, Vohl MC. Factors associated with the intention of registered dietitians to discuss nutrigenetics with their patients/clients. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res. doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2016-005 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 80 Bergmann MM, Görman U, Mathers JC. Bioethical considerations for human nutrigenomics. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 28, 447–467 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81 Ahlgren J, Nordgren A, Perrudin M et al. Consumers on the Internet: ethical and legal aspects of commercialization of personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr. 8(4), 349–355 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar