Personalised nutrition has a marketing problem. The good companies and the questionable ones use the exact same words: your DNA, your microbiome, tailored to you, backed by science.

So how do you tell them apart before you've paid?

This is a fair worry, and I'd rather meet it head-on than pretend it doesn't exist. The field is growing fast and the rules are still catching up. A saliva kit that reads your genes, an app that reads your glucose, a questionnaire that spits out a supplement plan, these are regulated by different bodies, or in some cases barely regulated at all.

In early 2025, a group of researchers led by the Personalized Nutrition Initiative at the University of Illinois published a review of exactly this problem in the journal Advances in Nutrition. They looked at where personalised nutrition sits in the regulatory picture and, usefully, they named what a credible programme should actually do.

Five things. Here they are, in plain language, with an honest note on where we stand on each.

1. The test has to be accurate

A personalised plan is only as good as the data underneath it. If the DNA read is sloppy, everything built on top of it is guesswork wearing a lab coat.

The question to ask any company: who runs the actual analysis, and to what standard? A kit that gets couriered to a proper accredited genetics laboratory is a different thing from one processed in-house with no external check.

Our samples go to an ISO 15189-accredited laboratory in Austria. That accreditation is the specific one for medical and genetic testing labs, and it exists precisely so the result doesn't depend on trusting the brand's word.

2. Real experts have to build the advice

The review is blunt about this: recommendations should be developed by credentialed, skilled people, not generated by a template and rubber-stamped.

This is where a lot of "personalised" products quietly fall down. A symptom quiz feeding a preset menu isn't expertise, it's a decision tree. The genetics behind nutrient metabolism are genuinely complex, and reading them into a formula takes people who understand the biochemistry, not just the marketing.

If a service can't tell you who designs the advice and what their qualifications are, that's an answer in itself.

3. The claims have to be clear and honest

Responsible communication means telling you what the product does, what it doesn't, and where the certainty ends. Personalised nutrition is not medicine. It won't cure a condition, and anyone selling it as though it will has crossed a line the researchers specifically warn about.

We try to hold ourselves to this in a way you can check. We call it precision nutrition, not treatment. When the science on a gene is solid, we say so. When it's still developing, we say that too. The MTHFR piece is a good example: the biochemistry is rock solid, the internet's wilder claims about that gene are not, and we draw the line out loud.

4. The science has to be substantiated

Substantiation means a claim can be traced back to real evidence, not a vibe. This is the difference between "studies link this variant to reduced folate metabolism" and "unlock your genetic potential."

The variants we act on, VDR for vitamin D, MTHFR for folate, FADS for omega-3 conversion, HFE for iron, are documented in peer-reviewed literature with well-characterised effects. Where the evidence is thinner, in multi-gene dose modelling for instance, we're upfront that this is applied science moving forward, not settled fact. That honesty is the point. A programme that claims certainty about everything is telling you something about itself.

5. Your data has to be protected

Your genome is the most personal data you own. The review puts privacy on the list for good reason: a personalised-nutrition company is handling information that can't be reset like a password.

Ask where the sample goes, how long data is kept, who it's shared with, and what rights you have to delete it. We operate under GDPR, our full policy spells out collection, retention, and your rights, and the genetic analysis runs inside Europe. You should expect a clear answer to all of these from anyone you hand a saliva tube to.

How to use this

You don't need to take my word that we clear the bar. That's rather the point of a checklist. Take these five questions to any personalised-nutrition company, including ours, and see how quickly and clearly they answer:

  • Who runs the lab, and is it accredited?
  • Who designs the advice, and what are their credentials?
  • What does the product claim, and what does it refuse to claim?
  • Can the science be traced to real studies?
  • Where does my genetic data live, and can I delete it?

A trustworthy company answers these without flinching. The rest get vague. As the researchers put it, working openly with the standards that exist is a chance to build trust and stand apart. We'd rather be judged on that than on adjectives.

See how we answer all five

Accredited lab, evidence-led formulas, clear claims, and a saliva test that reads 60+ nutritional markers into a plan built for your biology.

See pricing

Reference: Donovan SM, et al. Perspective: Challenges for Personalized Nutrition in the Current United States Regulatory Framework and Future Opportunities. Advances in Nutrition, 2025.

← Back to the blog