This feels like a short footstep into bad science-policy outcome. I don't for a minute doubt the science side has good numbers for it's weighted outcome probabilities. I think its going to be widely mis-used, mis-quoted and mis-understood.

Language in this area of health is a poison pen. Intentionality (you chose to drink the coke, you own the diabetes) and de-empathising (you were born fat and poor, I don't have to help you) are the two stand outs I hear a lot from people I know in the USA who have personal struggles with health costs, and consequences and mostly have conquered them. Down here in a world of public health, the genetic exposure risk is pretty directly about aboriginal and islander communities who are drowning in fetal alcohol syndrome, early onset diabetes, other diseases. This kind of report should (I think) help, but I suspect is going to hinder as it becomes a giant baseball bat in the policy debate.