Love a burger but can’t stand coriander? There could be a scientific reason for that

A preference for one group of foods is not simply about ‘picky eating’ – rather, it is something driven by our genes and biology, writes Ian Hamilton

This new intelligence has implications for how we choose certain food types over others (Getty/iStock)

The range and choice of food we can buy has exploded in recent years, and much of it does little to help our waistlines. Paralleling the increased availability of junk food is the rise in obesity. A lot of this food is designed to tempt us, appealing to our desire for sweet and fatty foods that are high in calories, salt and fats. It has little nutritional value but fills you up.

We don’t currently have a good understanding of what drives taste, including why we are attracted to some food types over others. In the main, it has been assumed that we all have a degree of control over the food we decide to eat and how often we consume it. This can lead to discrimination and fat shaming of those who are overweight and obese.

New research provides fascinating insights into how taste works from a biological perspective. Scientists had access to 189,000 people, assessed which food types they liked and asked them to rate how good they tasted. Rather than a clear divide between savoury and sweet, the participants rated how likeable a food was. For example, a preference for orange or apple juice correlated with high ratings for desserts rather than fruit, which is counterintuitive.

Identifying 325 genes involved in determining what we prefer to eat suggests that there are two distinct biological processes. One regulates our desire for pleasurable foods, and the other regulates all other foods.

This new intelligence has implications for how we choose certain food types over others. Importantly, the research findings suggest that a preference for one group of foods is not simply about “picky eating” – rather, it is something driven by our genes and biology. This information could help us think about the way we prepare and cook food. For example, some people don’t like the taste of coriander as it can taste “soapy”, which isn’t exactly a tempting flavour. The researchers believe this is a genetically determined response and could be overcome by cooking coriander rather than eating it raw.

Crucially, it opens up the potential for identifying those at risk of making choices about food that result in unhealthy eating patterns long term, and targeting interventions with the aim of improving their diets.

We all know how critical our early years are in terms of what and how much we eat. At this stage in life, habits that will last decades are formed. For some, this will mean they have poor diets consisting of low nutritional value foods, carrying significant health risks, including obesity. Added to which, the food industry is adept at marketing these products, making it challenging for parents trying to provide healthy options to their children. The industry knows that many of us have dwindling budgets and are time-poor, making ready meals high in fats, salt and sugar an all too easy choice.

A biological and genetic explanation of behaviour such as liking some food types over others could be seen as giving little hope, as it is predetermined by the genes you inherit. This would be the case if we didn’t make use of this new knowledge. Research findings can take a long time to have a real-world impact, and this knowledge doesn’t arrive in a vacuum. There are many vested interests in what we eat and how we eat. One obvious example is the weight loss industry, which is worth billions annually.

There are some caveats with these findings, which the scientists acknowledge. The most influential is that participants in this trial tended to be older and better educated. This means they were more health literate and therefore aware of what a healthy diet looks like. It is difficult to know how much these factors impacted the results. No research is perfect, so it is always worth considering the ways that bias can potentially skew experimental results.

The insights we gain from this research can be used to not only help people improve their diets, but also reduce the stigma that accompanies obesity. While the physical health risks of being overweight are serious, the psychological impact is just as crippling. Too many people who are obese continue to experience negative attitudes from society and, unfortunately, this can include health professionals. This is underpinned by a perception that people have control over what they eat, so all they have to do is eat less or have more self-control.

The new research challenges this view and provides information that gives people not only hope but valuable information on the practical ways they can tweak their diets and reduce the health risks they face. The sooner these new findings are disseminated, the better. They could save some from a premature death.

Ian Hamilton is a senior lecturer in addiction and mental health at the University of York