Personal Nutrition and nutrigenomics may clash with other foodstyles, both in its actual nature as personal Nutrition.

The relation between food and health itself can not be detrimental even where health concentration will raise society’s propensity to overestimate health’s value in an enclosed context. This overestimation of health may mean that safety is a societal norm to be complied with for all. The standard will take so long that people have little time for other things. Researchers addressed this issue first, using the word ‘health’ as the phrase ‘super value.’
Health is a norm, and the inability to maintain or pursue wellness is then perceived as a failure to accept life. Most, or even the bulk of the population, can be expected not to live up to that standard.

Furthermore, in its current nature, nutrigenomics stresses the avoidance of ‘pre diseases.’ This allows people to prepare for the future, which may cause them to neglect their present needs, such as socializing over diet or cooking requirements.
The theory of avoidance requires more clear implications. It also presumes that all pre diseases will evolve into complete disorders, to favor the future over the present, if nutritional and other improvements in lifestyle are not embraced. Nonetheless, this theory is incorrect because people can suffer dangerous risks without any symptomatic health symptoms.

Secondly, nutrigenomics can increase personal responsibility and decrease social responsibility for health, contributing to lower public authorities’ health obligations. Some food companies claim that genomic and customized dietary testing are human forms of control and can replace diet policy on public health.
Health insurers and government agencies also promote greater accountability for wellbeing on the part of customers such as the recent United Kingdom Health Department survey, Choosing health.

Where social accountability is the principal organizational concept, overall public wellbeing is impaired by exacerbating wellbeing disparities within socio-economic groups further support the importance of the public on individualized preventive diet policies: Targeting whole communities gives policymakers greater incentives for progress in public health, while targeting individuals’ at risk may be politically divisive. This does not mean that everybody eats the same or bland diet, as it is often thought, but rather the whole dietary activity is shifting toward a more balanced manner.

In other words, nutrigenomics revisits the issue of who is responsible for the wellbeing.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may also like