Viewpoint: Are you being duped? Some direct-to-consumer genetic tests are ‘complete trash’

consumer

[H]ow accurate are [direct-to-consumer] genetic tests?  The truth is that testing runs the gamut of quality, ranging from medical-grade accuracy to total garbage. So how should you choose?

First, ask yourself what you are looking for in a DTC test:  do you want medical information that can guide your management? Or simply recreational ancestry and ‘genutainment’? Are you willing to pay $70 or $1000 for that kit, or somewhere in between?

If you are looking for general health information and you are willing to spend ~$1000, you can get a full genome sequence from several companies, including Full Genomes or Veritas.

If you are looking for ancestry and/or recreational genetics, Ancestry.com (~$69) and 23andMe ($99 ancestry, $199 health + ancestry) are two popular options.  Be sure to consider the pros and cons before ordering a kit.

And then comes the dark side: Companies that have recently issued human reports on dog DNA or, even more worrisome, issued a full genetic report on a tap water sample.  That’s right, tap water.  The take away here:  some DTC genetic tests are fraudulent, and consumers are being duped.

[I]t is important for consumers to know that their DTC test may yield good information, limited information, or complete trash.

Editor’s note: Ellen Matloff is a certified genetic counselor and president and CEO of My Gene Counsel

Read full, original post: How Accurate Is Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing? From Gold(ish) To Garbage

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

wuhan institute of virology main entrance
​​COVID lab leak? Making a case that the Wuhan market origins theory is wrong
Screenshot-2026-06-17-at-9.44.03-AM
Viewpoint: Embryos are becoming the newest battleground of love, loss, and legal uncertainty
Screenshot-2026-06-18-at-11.41.51-AM
Viewpoint—Protecting baloney science: Far right senators move to protect the phony homeopathy industry
Screenshot-2026-06-17-at-11.57.12-AM
Viewpoint: Raw milk and the myth of safety—ProPublica exposes the growing anti-homogenization movement
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-9-2026-01_11_37-PM
Turmeric supplements: More risks than benefits
Screenshot-2026-06-16-at-10.02.22-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Industrial food’ primer—Challenging the dangerous delusions of the alternative food movement
Screenshot-2026-06-18-at-2.52.05-PM
Activist organization accuses Trump of protecting methane-generating stripper wells to benefit billionaire and donor Jeffrey Hildebrand 
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-16-2026-10_01_45-AM-2
Viewpoint—Recursive self-improvement: AI leader Anthropic calls for AI slowdown
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-03_07_27-PM
AAP v. Kennedy: While a court challenge grinds on, RFK Jr. quietly advances his anti-vaccine conspiracy agenda
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-18-2026-02_32_04-PM
Can illegal social media content be stopped before it goes viral? UK is going to try.
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-16-2026-10_29_11-AM
What’s behind Anthropic’s warning about the accelerating development of AI
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.