Abstract
Nutrition science has traditionally relied on population-level evidence, especially evidence from observational studies. However, it is facing what could be called a ‘credibility crisis’ (Penders et al. 2017; Jukola 2021). Critics have questioned the reliability of the evidence originating from observational studies and demanded randomized controlled trials to back up claims about the link between food and health. Further, the aim of implementing effective public health interventions and providing individual guidance based on population-level evidence has been called into question (e.g., Ordovas et al. 2018). Recently, Personalized Nutrition (PN) has arisen as a challenger to the traditional population-based approach to nutritional evidence and advice. It aims at providing more effective interventions by utilizing genetic, nutritional, medical, etc. information. This talk addresses the question: What are the epistemic and sociopolitical implications of the trend towards PN? In order to provide answers, I start by drawing on Longino’s (2013) account of local epistemologies to outline the epistemic landscape of PN and to show how it differs from that of the so-called traditional nutrition science. Despite its recent proliferation, PN lacks a commonly agreed-upon definition (e.g., Bush et al. 2020). I suggest that there are multiple ways of conceptualizing PN and, consequently, of delineating what its central research questions and methods are. For example, there are differences in which physiological, genetic, or clinical parameters researchers focus on (e.g., Drabsch & Holzapfel 2019). Second, I assess the potential ethical and political implications of PN. By applying the so-called Coupled Ethical-Epistemic Analysis (Katikireddi & Valles 2015) as a tool for analysing the entanglement of epistemic and non-epistemic aspects of research, I hypothesize that at least some dominant conceptualizations of PN lead to effective public health interventions being undermined with undesirable consequences. This concerns views of PN that focus on genetic variation or epigenetic marks, while overlooking the effects of social and environmental factors, when differences between health outcomes are explained. PN may overemphasize the responsibility of at-risk individuals for their own health to the detriment of interventions targeting social determinants of health.
