Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Personalized Nutrition and Social Justice: Ethical Considerations Within Four Future Scenarios Applying the Perspective of Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The idea of personalized nutrition (PN) is to give tailored dietary advice based on personal health-related data, i.e. phenotoype, genotype, or lifestyle. PN may be seen as part of a general trend towards personalised health care and currently various types of business models are already offering such services in the market. This paper explores ethical issues of PN by examining how PN services within the contextual environment of four future scenarios about health and nutrition in Europe might affect aspects of social justice according to Martha Nussbaum’s capability approach. The scenarios have been created by a mixed group of stakeholders and experts in three consecutive workshops. This resulted in the definition of four future scenarios within a scenario space consisting of two variables: the ‘logic of health care systems’ and ‘conception of health’. Within each scenario, PN is likely to play a more or less important role in improving health by influencing food consumption patterns in society. Nussbaum’s capability approach implies a concept of social justice as a function of a minimum standard of human dignity. This denotes an account for equality in terms of a minimum of entitlements. However, also the ability of achieving individual objectives is essential for social justice. Personalisation advice in health and food consumption patterns, as aimed for by PN, is therefore acceptable provided a minimum of entitlements is guaranteed to all members of a society, and at the same time freedom concerning personal preferences is respected. Potential variation of how different people might benefit from PN should therefore be consistent with the minimum required as defined by the list of capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The complete list contains the following capabilities: 1 Life—being able to live a life of normal length; 2 Bodily health—being able to have good health, to be adequately nourished; 3 Bodily integrity—being able to move freely, be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault; opportunities for sexual satisfaction and choice in matters of reproduction; 4 Senses, imagination and thought—being able to use senses, imaginations and thought informed and cultivated by adequate education; 5 Emotions—being able to have attachments to things and people; 6 Practical reason—being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life; 7 Affiliation- Being able to live with and towards others, having a social basis of self-respect and non-humiliation; 8 Other species—being able to live in relation to animals, plants, nature; 9 Play—and laugh; 10 Control over one’s environment—(political) being able to participate effectively in political choices and (material) to hold property on an equal basis with others. (Nussbaum 2007, pp. 76–78).

  2. For further explanation of the concept of nudging in relation to health decisions, see Thaler and Sunstein (2008).

References

  • Bombard, Y., Abelson, J., Simeonov, D., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2013). Citizens’ perspectives on personalized medicine: A qualitative public deliberation study. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 1197–1201. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, R. (2013). Ethical issues in personalized medicine. Drug Discovery Today: Therapeutic Strategies. doi:10.1016/j.ddstr.2013.05.001.

  • Doz, F., Marvanne, P., & Fagot-Largeault, A. (2013). The person in personalized medicine. European Journal for Cancer., 49(5), 1159–1160. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.11.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, A., Navarini, A. A., Recher, A., Rippe, K. P., Rütsche, B., Telser, H., et al. (2014). Personalisierte Medizin. TA-Swiss 61/2014. Zürich: vdf ETH Hochschulverlag. ISBN: 978-3-7281-3592-6. doi:10.3218/3592-6.

  • Godet, M. (2006). Creating futures: Scenario planning as a strategic management tool. London: Economica-Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goossens, J. (2014). Exploring future opportunities and barriers for business model concepts in personalized nutrition. Archives of Public Health, 72(suppl.1.), K5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görman, U., Mathers, J. C., Grimaldi, K. A., Ahlgren, J., & Nordström, K. (2013). Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition. Genes & Nutrition, 8(4), 373–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hailwood, S. (2012). Bewildering Nussbaum: Capability justice and predation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(3), 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordström, K., Coff, C., Jönsson, H., Nordenfelt, L., & Görman, U. (2013a). Food and health: Individual, cultural, or intellectual matters? Genes & Nutrition., 8(4), 357–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordström, K., Juth, N., Kjellström, S., Meijboom, F., & Görman, U. (2013b). Values at stake: Autonomy, responsibility, and trustworthiness in relation to genetic testing and personalized nutrition advice. Genes & Nutrition, 8(4), 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronteltap, A., Trijp, H., Berezowska, A., & Goossens, J. (2012). Nutrigenomics-based personalized nutritional advice: In search of a business model? Genes & Nutrition, 8(2), 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlin, N.-E., & Hermerén, G. (2012). Personalized, predictive and preventive medicine: a decision-theoretic perspective. Journal of Risk Research, 15(5), 453–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleidgen, S., & Marckmann, G. (2013) Re-focusing the ethical discourse on personalized medicine: A qualitative interview study with stakeholders in the German healthcare system. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(20). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/14/20.

  • Schumpelick, V., & Vogel, B. (Eds.). (2011). Medizin nach Mass. Individualisierte Medizin—Wunsch und Wirklichkeit. Freiburg: Herder Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. (2012). Universities and a Human Development Ethics: a capabilities approach to curriculum. European Journal of Education, 47(3), 448–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Nordström.

Additional information

On behalf of the Food4Me project.

Food4Me is the acronym of the EU FP7 project: “Personalized nutrition: an integrated analysis of opportunities and challenges” (Contract No. KBBE.2010.2.3-02, Project No. 265494). The parties involved in the project are listed on the project’s Web site http://www.food4me.org/. Project coordination was carried out at University College Dublin, Ireland, Institute of Food and Health; Project Coordinator: Professor Michael J Gibney, Project Manager: Dr. Marianne Walsh. For overall correspondence regarding the Food4Me project: Professor Michael J Gibney, UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, Tel: +353 (1) 716 2824, e-mail: mike.gibney@ucd.i.e.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nordström, K., Goossens, J. Personalized Nutrition and Social Justice: Ethical Considerations Within Four Future Scenarios Applying the Perspective of Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 5–22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9589-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9589-0

Keywords

Navigation