ArticleGenes & nutrition2014
Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say.
Article in Genes & nutrition, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutrigenomics: A tool to unlock genetic potential of Nigerian indigenous goat breeds.Open veterinary journal · 2025Review
- The Advent of Nutrigenomics: A Narrative Review with an Emphasis on Psychological Disorders.Preventive nutrition and food science · 2022Review
- Saturated Fat and Cardiovascular Health: Phenotype and Dietary Factors Influencing Interindividual Responsiveness.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2022Review
- Consumer acceptance of genetic-based personalized nutrition in Hungary.Genes & nutrition · 2021Article
- Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics, Personalized Nutrition, and Precision Healthcare.Current nutrition reports · 2020Review
- Personalised nutrition and health.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Consumer adoption of personalised nutrition services from the perspective of a risk-benefit trade-off.Genes & nutrition · 2015Article
- Epigenetic effects of human breast milk.Nutrients · 2014Review
- Psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition in 9 European countries.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.