Nutrition research is facing major challenges as more and more mechanistic relationships with disease processes are being reported, but human clinical studies conducted on randomly selected populations fail to demonstrate predicted outcomes. Studies capable of identifying specific subpopulations that are uniquely responsive to particular diets or nutrients have not yet been completed. At first glance, variation in effect parameters are usually too large to allow for realistic conclusions. Accurate biomarkers were needed and (nutri)genomics claimed to provide these as early event multi-parameter biomarker profiles. However, upon second thought (and some disillusion), a number of other issues also need to be addressed, as:

• In the end, nutrigenomics just provided a better description of homeostasis, showing the robustness of health and the subtleties of multiple minor changes.
• Quantification of health does not work by applying "absence of disease" approaches. The relationship between nutrition and disease usually involved intermediate "overarching" processes like metabolic stress, oxidative stress and inflammatory stress. These processes strongly influence each other, are complex (no simple biomarkers), are strongly regulated, have both local and systemic components, are (also) hormonally and neurologically controlled. So, the quantification of the effect of nutrition on these processes is both essential and at present a logistical nightmare.    
• Inter-individual variation usually is larger than the effect imposed by the treatment, partly because the "confounders" could not be properly controlled, urging a re-assessment of these confounders. Genetics, life style, age, etc all determine "personal health and need to be quantified.

These considerations led to a second wave in nutrigenomics research, the "challenging of homeostasis" concept. The idea is that only after stressing or perturbing a homeosatic situation, can the robustness ("health") of the system will be demonstrated and possibly quantified. A classical example in nutrition research is the (oral) glucose tolerance test, and other tests that provide diagnostic power to the nutritional and health status of individuals are used / available including post-prandial lipemia, post-prandial intestinal permeability and post-prandial microflora activity.  Other scientific disciplines also have had to deal with more detailed and accurate phenotypic characterisation and quantification as their mandates evolved with the growth and maturation of the particular fields. For example, as pharmaceuticals have moved from pure disease therapeutics to disease prevention, biomarkers have needed to be more accurate in their estimation of individual variations in the need for intervention and the varying effectiveness and side effects of specific drugs. Pharmacokinetics and the potential of pharmacogenomics to predict efficacy and dosages are foreseen as part of the future of Pharmacology. Part of the conference will thus deal with what nutritionists can learn from others (biomedical, genetics, imaging, health care, etc) The conference is structured to allow for active, open discussions. During the conference, a working group session will take place. We thus foresee the need for a broad audience and an active contribution of all participants.