Epigenetics is kinda sorta a little bit like our regular understanding of genetics.
But epigenetics has to do not so much with what genes you may or may not have, but which of those genes are or are not turned on.
And the turning on/turning off of the genes is highly affected by environmental factors.
Actually, since I'm a PhD level biochemist, I'm fairly aware of the emerging field of epigenetics. I'd be interested in working in that field if I were still a bench (research) scientist.
My previous comment was based on the attribution of autism on the consumption of eating one particular kind of naturally occurring sugar from one particular source. There is no difference in fructose from different sources.
A big problem with studies that I didn't mention in my previous comment is that, at the P < 0.05 level of significance that is the standard for accepting something as biologically relevant, 1 out of 20 studies makes the wrong conclusion.
The problem I have with these studies is that so far, as far as I know, they can show no PHYSICAL difference in autistic cases. No damage or underdevelopment of any of the brain centers, no biochemical or other markers, no obvious deficiencies or changes to neural functions.
All they base their data on is behavioral models.
Even given that we may not have a complete understanding of what exactly is happening, we can still look at correlations. And there is no doubt that the rise in autism correlates with increased HFCS consumption.
But autism also correlates with increased margarine consumption.
Autism also correlates with Mario Brothers and reduced exercise.
When I was young, my mother, a Catholic, ate fish on Fridays... autism correlates with the decrease in that tradition.
I see these things as tantalizing hints until we have more concrete answers. And one of the fudging factors introduced by epigenetics is that the answer for what YOU should eat might be very different from what I should eat!