GeneLink was analyzing DNA samples for genetic variations called single nucleotide polymorphisms (or SNPs) through a third party laboratory. From the results, the company was selling treatments for the various "weaknesses"–personalized nutritional supplements and skin care products. Given that there isn't evidence showing cause and effect relationships between the SNPs and the nutritional supplements, it's not surprising the FTC brought a lawsuit against the company.
After 23andMe, Another Personal Genetics Firm Is Charged with False Advertising
By Dina Fine Maron, Scientific American
It sounded like a miracle of science and convenience: swab your cheek and drop the saliva sample in the mailbox and GeneLink Biosciences, a personal genetics company, would analyze your DNA and send back nutritional supplements customized to your personal genome. The regimen, the company promised, was good for diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, insomnia and other ailments. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), however, thought it sounded like false advertising and brought a lawsuit against the company, charging its claims were misleading and not founded in sound science.
The case is the latest in the continuing controversy over personal DNA testing services. Two months ago the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned 23andMe to stop marketing some of its personal genetics health services because the company failed to prove those tests worked and the agency worried about the public health consequences of inaccurate results.* The GeneLink case, the FTC’s first against a personal genomics company, could serve as a shot across the bow to other similar businesses. Under the terms of a proposed settlement announced on January 7, Orlando, Fla.–based GeneLink agreed to stop making unsubstantiated health claims. The settlement, which would only take place after a 30-day public comment period and a final decision from the FTC, would keep GeneLink and its former subsidiary, foru International, from making any future claims that their products can impact the course of disease unless such claims are supported by two double-blind, randomized control trials—the gold standard of medicine. A violation of that agreement could lead to fines.
[…]
“Any claims at all that one can look at those SNPs or other SNPs and make any meaningful recommendations for nutrition, cosmetics or anything along those lines are just entirely unfounded and entirely without any scientific merit,” says geneticist James Evans, editor in chief of the journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.
Keep reading After 23andMe, Another Personal Genetics Firm Is Charged with False Advertising: Scientific American.
Image: National Institutes of Health
