The Future of Individualized Nutrition

With an abundance of supplements to choose from, I often ask myself, ‘which ones are best for me?’

As I scan through the ingredients and research the evidence behind the active components (evidence that, unfortunately, often lacks rigorous human trials [3]), the answer is not always clear.

One supplement could be very potent but carry side effects, another may lack potency, and some may be processed better in someone else’s body, but not mine.

Supplement usage can be subject to endless trial and error to get the right fit and combination that works for you at a specific time and for your intended purpose.

But what if you could have an individualized supplement? Individual to your metabolism, your needs, your experience, your body, and your genes?

Genetic variation

You may have heard of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids as they are critical for human brain development, inflammation, and the immune response [2, 7].

There are a set of genes, referred to by their acronym FADS from now on, that allow us to synthesize omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids from plant-sourced precursors within our body.

Researchers at Cornell University have demonstrated that this was not always the case [2].

Food can influence our genes!

Through comparison of ancient and modern DNA, researchers demonstrated that humans had less efficient versions of the FADS genes before agriculture. Their FADS genes were not nearly as effective for omega-3 and omega-6 biosynthesis because there was no need for it; they would obtain these fatty acids through their animal-based diet from hunting and gathering [2].

Over the years, our genes adapted to our diet, having generations to change the DNA from which our body and its metabolism is constructed. Even so, the FADS genes are not perfect. The synthesis of some Omega-3’s is still not as efficient as we need [9], which is why consumption of fish 2 times per week or fish oil supplementation is recommended [10].

All this to say that our genes can change over time, some with longer timeframes than others, and these genes can have an influence on the metabolism of different food components within our bodies. This is where nutrigenomics comes in.

Nutrigenomics

Nutrigenomics encompasses scientific study of how food components influence genes, and how genes influence food metabolism, along with any resulting health implications [1].

The field focuses on identifying biomarkers, such as tiny changes in your DNA, to better understand individual genetic variance in response to nutrients, as well as how nutrients can impact gene expression.

A substantial number of genes with nutrition-related roles have been exposed. They can distinguish your level of risk for gluten intolerance [4], heart attack following caffeine consumption [5], blunted weight loss based on fat intake [6], and much more.

Individualized nutrition

There is a great potential to individualize nutrition with this increasing amount of information on how our genetics have evolved.

Differences in metabolism of folate, iron, calcium, sodium, whole grain, fat, protein, lactose, gluten, vitamins A, B12, C, D, E, and other nutrients, allow for an enhanced understanding of how an individual may react to certain foods, and leads to a more precise intake of nutrients that an individual should consume for optimal health [8].

Thus, if a supplement were customized, it would encompass all the differences in metabolism, whether increases or decreases, and could account for personal preferences for any existing conditions or sports enhancements.

Still be wary when people blame their genes on their health. Soon we’ll all know the truth!

To Sum It Up

Our genes have an influence on our metabolism and are subject to change.

Nutrigenomics is a relatively new field that studies the influence of food components on genes, and vice-versa, along with any resulting health implications.

Knowing our individual metabolic genetics may allow us to tailor nutrition to a tighter fit, individualizing dietary advice for a better you!

---

Lucas Roldos

is currently completing his MSc in Human Nutrition at McGill University, where he received his BSc in Nutrition Science with a sports concentration and a minor in Neuroscience. His research examines motivation for healthy behavior.

Disclaimer: The information provided is meant to spread knowledge and induce interest for educational purposes. It is based on limited research. We try to pull the overall message of the literature, but further research may be necessary.  What is done with the information or suggestions is solely the consumer's decision. The information provided is not meant to treat or diagnose any medical condition. References are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute the endorsement of any website or other sources.

Reference:

1)    Wittwer J. Nutrigenomics in human intervention studies: Current status, lessons learned and future perspectives. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. (2011)

2)    Ye K, et al. Dietary adaptation of FADS genes in Europe varied across time and geography. Nature Ecology & Evolution. (2017).

3)    Riley TH. Dietary supplements: Primer and FDA oversight. New York: Nova Science. (2010). 

4)    Wolters VM & Wijmenga C. (2008). Genetic background of celiac disease and its clinical implications. American Journal of Gastroenterology.

5)    Cornelis MC, et al. Coffee, CYP1A2 genotype, and risk of myocardial infarction. Jama. (2006).

6)    Mattei J, et al. TCF7L2 genetic variants modulate the effect of dietary fat intake on changes in body composition during a weight-loss intervention. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2012).

7)    Li J, et al. The role of Omega-3 docosapentaenoic acid in pregnancy and early development. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. (2016).

8)    Nutrigenomix Inc. Personalized Nutrition & Fitness Report. Sample ID: 15151112090713. (2017)

9)    Swanson D et al. Omega-3 Fatty Acids EPA and DHA: Health Benefits Throughout Life. Advances in Nutrition. (2012)

10) Dieticians of Canada. Food Sources of Omega-3 Fats (2016)

Bucks and Butterflies: Is it Worth Buying Non-GMO Foods? (Part 1)

Take a stroll down the organic or health-food section in your grocery store, and you will likely see plastered on various products a ubiquitous, innocuous butterfly logo with the words “Non GMO Project Verified”—usually entailing a premium cost.

What are GMOs?

GMO stands for “genetically modified organism”, insinuating that specific genes have been incorporated into or removed from foods using modern day DNA engineering techniques; such techniques have been denounced by armchair nutritionists, bloggers, naturopaths, and their ilk (such as the “Food Babe”, Vani Hari) as being toxic to overall health and as a causative factor in the pandemic of chronic diseases plaguing Western societies (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.).

It’s tempting to put the blame on the archetypal Mad Scientist, deviously splicing Franken-genes into the genetic make-up of food crops while concocting carcinogenic monstrosities *cue maniacal laughter*. But is this true?

The non-GMO butterfly    https://livingnongmo.org/learn/take-action/

 

Is it worth paying extra for that butterfly logo?

For starters, many food products that claim to be non-GMO contain no ingredients that could realistically be genetically modified in the first place (for instance, there is a product on the market called “Blk Premium Alkaline Water” claiming to be GMO free. Last time I checked, water does not contain any DNA. Ditto for “Himalayan Fine Pink Salt”).

Here in Canada, there really aren’t that many foods being sold that are genetically modified. They currently include: canola, corn, soy, sugar beet (used to produce sugar), alfalfa (used as animal feed), papaya, tomato, some varieties of squash (such as yellow crookneck squash), specific strains of wheat, potato, and cottonseed oil. [1] 

So if you’re being tempted into buying kiwis, oranges, cucumbers, (or anything not on the above list for that matter), with the non-GMO label, quite frankly you are being manipulated into buying snake-oil.

Genetically modified organisms are altered in a controlled fashion, targeting only specific genes.

Health Canada requires strict scientific testing and assessment of new GMO foods before permitting them onto the market (a lengthy seven to ten-year process), which tests for their potential to produce toxins or allergens, to adversely affect nutrient composition, or to negatively impact the environment. [2]

Technically, even conventionally bred crops are considered genetically modified by Health Canada. But I digress.

Most critics of GMO foods are only going after genetically engineered foods (a method called “transgenesis”). In contrast, conventionally bred crops and animals have been genetically modified through these three processes:

1. Selective breeding (practiced for the past 10,000 years): involves crossing similar or dissimilar plants or animals of the same species, with the goal of improving certain characteristics (examples: broccoli, cabbage, shih tzus). This method affects hundreds of thousands of genes, many of which are unknown.
2.  Interspecies crosses (practiced since the 1800s): involves culturing techniques, such as grafting, that permit genetics to cross between different species (examples: tangelos, some types of apple, Ligers). Again, this method affects hundreds of thousands of genes, many of which are unknown.
3.  Mutagenesis (practiced since the 1930s); involves the use of chemicals or radiation to change DNA and hopefully induce favourable traits (examples: pears, rice, mint, the Incredible Hulk). This process is completely random and the number of genes affected in this manner is indeterminate but likely is in the thousands (which genes are affected? It’s unknown).

Crops developed using selective breeding, interspecies crosses, and mutagenesis can qualify for the “Non GMO Project Verified” label. The scientific research pertaining to the safety of transgenic crops, however (compiled from over 10 years worth of analysed data) has yet to find any evidence of harm in humans—with the scientific consensus being that they are safe to eat. [3] 

Since the controversies and subtleties surrounding the GMO debate are so fascinating given my article word-limit, ‘Part 2’ will address the following topics surrounding GMOs—"Round-Up”, Bt/Terminator genes, and Monsanto.

- Tyler Feeney-

---

Tyler Feeney

is currently pursuing his Master’s degree in Dietetics from McGill University (finishing in 2018). His first degree was in Biology with a concentration in plants from his home province of New Brunswick. His research focuses on how plant-based diets can shape our gut bacteria, food systems issues in the context of developing countries, and how different diets can impact odds of getting obesity and other chronic diseases of the Western world. 

---

Disclaimer: The information provided is meant to spread knowledge and induce interest for educational purposes. It is based on limited research. We try to pull the overall message of the literature, but further research may be necessary.  What is done with the information or suggestions is solely the consumer's decision. The information provided is not meant to treat or diagnose any medical condition. References are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute the endorsement of any website or other sources.

References

 1.    Government of Canada. Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Other Novel Foods. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products.html. Accessed October 1st, 2017.

2.    Government of Canada. The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/reports-publications/biotechnology/regulation-genetically-modified-foods.html. Accessed October 1st, 2017.

3.    Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88.