I cringed when I read the title of this BBC article: “Diet Choices ‘Written in genes.”
The claim: twin studies suggest that “Identical twins were far more likely to share the same dietary patterns – like a penchant for coffee and garlic.”
The Kings College researchers looked at a total of more than 3,000 female twins aged between 18 and 79, working out their broad preferences using five different dietary “groups”.
These included diets heavy in fruit and vegetables, alcohol, fried meat and potatoes, and low-fat products or low in meat, fish and poultry.
…
Professor Jane Wardle, from University College, said that the findings, and other similar research, pointed to genetics playing a “moderate” part in the development of preferred foods.
She said that it was possible that genes involved with taste, or the “reward” chemicals released by the body in response to certain foods, might play a role.
“People have always made the assumption that food choices are all due to environmental factors during life, but it now seems this isn’t the case.
“It also suggests that what parents do to influence eating habits in childhood are not necessarily as important as we thought – and that a lot of effort may need to be made with young people as they become independent in adolescence to steer them onto the right course.”
This feels, to me, like a lot of spouting based on preferences for garlic and coffee. Garlic and coffee are things that hit certain parts of the palette. They suggest that the way things taste on the tongue is perhaps partially genetic — but didn’t we know that? Some segment of the population (to which I unfortunately belong) is unable to determine the finer distinctions between most of the spices we use in food, all of which are instead only interpreted by the brain as pain. That’s genetic. Why wouldn’t “bitterness tastes good” (like coffee) be one of those things?
Although really, coffee’s a poor example because it has such a heavy social meaning. Personalities can help drive people toward coffee, and we know that twin studies indicate similarities in personality. So, garlic is better. Yes, I will believe that genetics influence how people interpret the flavor of garlic.
But to make a leap from that to a more sophisticated claim about dietary types? Eh… I haven’t read the study, but it seems problematic to do, and I wonder how many of the factors which a social scientist would see as important to such a study were included.
And of course, as usual, the claim (which we are to take as something ruling out social influences) is probably only tested in one or two regions (say: England, or England, America, and France), so it doesn’t necessarily say anything definitive about cultural mediation of taste. (If I’m wrong about that, would be happy to hear it.)
I haven’t read the study itself, and I’m not an expert on these topics, so these are just ruminations. As reported, this study yields some interesting information. However, it seems to me that its findings are likely to be overblown. Anyone catch American television news coverage of it? Was it really annoying?
Palate, unless we’re talking about obesity in the art world.
Thanks.
Not sure why this is surprising.
Different people have vastly different densities and types of taste buds. Some are relatively insensitive to the bitter compounds found in aspirin, for example; others are “supertasters” who are able to detect extremely fine concentrations of substances or tastes.
See, e.g., these three articles:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E7DE113FF93BA25751C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E5DD123BF931A35752C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E1DB1E38F930A25757C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
My understanding is that this is very likely to be genetic in origin (the taste bud stuff).
This just strikes me as silly. I’m a little embarrassed it comes from my alma mater, which is a reputable research institution!
Especially if you read this in light of the study Amp posted about recently, did they control for similarities in environment between twins raised apart? If twins were raised apart, but in similar socio-economic or cultural environs, the food preferences they develop will have similar environmental influences.
There’s definitely a big cultural/environmental role in food preferences, and I think it’s a bit simplistic of them to make the leap from sensitivity to particular flavours to whole modes of eating. I remember being very impressed that my 6 year old French cousin sidled up to her father and requested a big slice of stinky Roquefort cheese, which I only managed to enjoy at age 26. But then I was happily eating black olives and pickled onions at a young age, because my parents ate them so I was exposed to them, but not Roquefort.
“I think it’s a bit simplistic of them to make the leap from sensitivity to particular flavours to whole modes of eating. ”
This was the point I intended to make, basically. Dunno if that’s what came across to you or not, Sailorman.
Just like breast cancer – yes, there is a genetic link but environment plays a significantly bigger role. There was once a time where they thought that breast cancer was ‘only’ genetic and therefore was used as the main form of screening. Now, things have changed. We have to be careful with these ‘genetic links’ as it may mislead people into believing that it plays an active role. There are dominant and recessive genes, which means that it takes a host of factors to activate those genes and make them significant enough to be noticeable. I may have red hair in my genetic profile, but because of my other dominant traits, it doesn’t show up until I had kids and then one of them got it. Just remember to be cautious about these types of gene-mapping reports. One commenter has already made a good point of cultural influences and the twins being raised apart…