Putting Nutrigenomics on the map
What might appear like just another fad has many more
implications than you might think. Most of us can't exactly explain what
"functional food" stands for, let alone nutrigenomics! In thousands
of laboratories around the world, however, scientists are busy whispering the
"N" word with respect and devotion. All that hard work to gratify us
with a new generation of allegedly called “functional foods” this time based on
our genetic make-up. Currently, nutrigenomics proponents argue that, if made
available to everybody, it would reduce and ultimately eliminate racial and
ethnic disparities resulting from environment-gene interactions, particularly
those involving dietary, economic and cultural factors (Center of Excellence in
Nutritional Genomics at UC Davis, USA).
“Let's not bother about putting too much effort into
changing our lifestyle and support organic, locally produced, well-balanced
food, exercising and rethinking our food habits. That doesn't work anyway.”
Very soon a deluge of adverts will say: "It's the genes fault if we put on
weight or get depression, etc. All we all have to do is to take a quick blood
test and go to the supermarket to buy the corresponding techno-food/drink”. Of
course, cheap versions will also be available in newly built supermarkets owned
by Tesco, Wal-Mart and consorts in India, Thailand, China, etc." This
could sound a pretty good idea, just like the promises to alleviate world
starvation with genetically modified crops ten years ago! However, just like
the mispromise, nutrigenomics’ s honorable goal has no proof to substantiate
it. I am not implying that nutrigenomics is good or bad. As a science it has no
pretension other than to push our knowledge of food and diet interactions a
little bit further.
My concern is that the appetite for control and the greed of
a few might eventually prevail over a “boring” balanced and precautionary
approach that would benefit everyone. What’s important, I believe, is that a
full assessment of the risk/benefit of the technology, including consumers'
participation, is conducted before deciding on the trajectories of development.
As a trained food policy analyst and lawyer, I’ve done my homework. My
preliminary findings show that research on the social impacts and the balance
of risks/benefits of the commercialization of these products on a global scale
are largely overlooked. If the political process is not opened up to take into
account alternatives views, including consumers opinions, it may lead to
confusing further public perceptions regarding a healthy diet. It might
contribute to further transforming our societies into big hospitals filled with
hypochondriacs. Despite this, governments around the world, lured by this easy
way out of the health care nightmare, are investing in the food industry to
produce the miracle product instead of insuring a sound and fair supply chain.
Of course the alternative offered is not an easy one. Moderation is not as sexy
as a wonder science, but it is certainly a more realistic approach for
consumers. Science can help but it can’t tackle the roots of MAL-NUTRITION
raging in both hemispheres (obesity, anorexia, etc). The inequalities and dellusions
of consumerism caused by government disengagement, bad governance and the
triumph of unfettered free trade dogma are certainly not just a matter of
finding a new wonder science.
In short, my main concern is that the current development of
this niche science is kept behind closed doors without an appropriate risk
assessment of the technology to determine which developments to prioritize
based on the necessary evidence-based information.
The current private and public sector research in nutrigenomics,
at the EU and the US levels, is heavily aimed at commercial rather than “public
health” ends. Where a commercial approach is pursued, there is very little
public research serving to inform about the ethical challenges of future
genetically-tailored functional food. Consequently not much is done in term of
regulatory benchmarking to protect from misleading health claims and avoid
pushing through needless commercial applications. It is, therefore, crucial to
inform all the stakeholders (regulators, scientists, social scientists and
especially the consumers) of the importance of integrating a broad
socio-cultural dimension in the technology assessment of nutrigenomics. But the
path of moderation doesn’t stand a chance while facing the prospect of an ever
growing billion $ market in functional food. At the end of the day, it’s all
down to us: the consumers. If we don’t use our critical judgment to stop being
force fed with illusions that get us fat and ill while starving the rest of the
world, then a few billionaires at the top of intangible fortresses called
“multinational companies” will keep on draining the biosphere of all its blood.
What I am personally planning to do is to extend my
investigation started at City University, London, under the supervision of
Professor Tim Lang and inspired by my work with Vandana Shiva in India. I am
currently putting together a proposal to raise funding with the help of
professional fundraisers (pro-bono) in London. It is, as you might imagine, not
the easiest task, but as I've tried to demonstrate here, such work is urgently
needed. I will put the information gathered in a format accessible to a wide
audience and not only the so-called experts. The work I am intending to do will
supply people with enough information to develop their own opinions on what the
risks/benefits of the current developments of the science behind nutritional
genomics will entail. The first part will be primarilly designed to inform
Western consumers and policy-makers on what concern them most, their own
well-being; the second part of the research will focus on how our support for
functional food (buying power) impacts on the population of the South. It will
investigate whether there is evidence to support the hypothesis that poor
countries are providing the human guinea pigs necessary to get the genetic
data, the core material upon which nutrigenomics knowledge is built.
Unhealthy nutrition is a complex problem rooted in
inequalities and delusions caused by government disengagement, bad governance
and the triumph of unfettered free trade dogma. It is not just a matter of
finding a new wonder science. While new technology might have a role to play,
it is no time to be fooled. Scarce public resources mean that no waste should
be allowed. Extended research is definitely needed to inform policy.
All the best,
Rachel Dechenne
Click here to check out some of her work - she's a rock star!
