Intolerance tests ‘feeding on fears’
21 August 2008
Some companies who claim to diagnose food intolerances are playing on people’s food phobias to sell expensive tests with highly inconsistent results - and they could potentially be risking people’s health, according to an investigation by Which?
Researchers from the consumer group trialled alternative tests that claim to diagnose food intolerances through analysis of blood samples or strands of hair, changes in electric current, or resistance to pressure applied to their legs or arms. They found that:
> The tests diagnosed 183 intolerances – although the researchers actually had just one medically confirmed allergy and one food intolerance between them
> Identical blood and hair samples sent under different names to the same company produced different test results
> There was little or no overlap between test results from different companies
> The testers felt the practitioners applied more pressure when measuring resistance for certain foods – which they were then told to avoid
> The tests recommended excluding up to 39 foods – which could make it difficult to eat a balanced diet and lead to nutritional problems.
The tests cost between £45 and £275 each, but an expert panel of medical specialists and a dietitian that assessed the results felt that none had diagnostic value for genuine allergies or intolerances.
Many people confuse intolerances - which can be caused by an inability to digest a particular food and have symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and headaches – with allergies, which affect the immune system and can cause severe reactions including anaphylactic shock.
Neil Fowler, Editor, Which? magazine, says:
“A severe allergy can be life-threatening, so it’s no surprise that people want to find out if they should avoid certain foods. But some companies are playing on these fears to sell expensive intolerance tests that are not medically proven. Our tests have shown them to be unreliable - and they could even endanger your health as following their recommendations could lead to nutritional deficiencies.”
Which? advises people who are concerned that they may have an allergy or intolerance to keep a record of symptoms and a food diary, and speak to their GP.
- Ends –
Notes to Editor
Which? is the leading independent consumer champion in the UK, providing impartial, expert information on thousands of products and services to help make individuals as powerful as the organisations they have to deal with in their daily lives. To find out more go to www.which.co.uk.
The full article “Feeding your fears” appears in the September 2008 issue of Which? magazine. For further information, the full article, a copy of the magazine or an interview, please contact Nicola Frame.
Gift subscriptions to Which? magazine can now be purchased from Borders, priced at £29.97 for six issues.
Research Notes
Four healthy researchers visited hospitals for proven, conventional tests for confirmation of food allergies and intolerances, which showed one researcher had a peanut allergy and another had a lactose intolerance. Each researcher then trialled two of the following tests, mentioning symptoms of bloating and headaches. The companies that were used were selected by Which? as they advertise online and in magazines.
Blood test (IgG) – researchers paid between £99 and £275 depending on how many foods blood is tested against. A blood sample is taken using a surgical pin and vial, and posted to the company for analysis. Companies using this test claim that raised levels of IgG (Immunoglobulin G) antibodies within blood in relation to a particular food indicate intolerance. Companies used: YorkTest Laboratories and Cambridge Nutritional Sciences Ltd.
Vega testing (or electrodermal testing) – researchers paid between £60 and £75. The tester holds a metal probe connected to a galvanometer or computer and another probe is placed on acupressure points on the other hand, creating an electric circuit between the person and the machine. Vials containing ‘essences’ of different foods are placed in the machine, or a computer programme is used. A reduction in the electric current is interpreted as an intolerance to the food. Companies used: An independent practitioner and a Nutrimark practitioner operating from Holland & Barrett.
Hair analysis – researchers paid between £48 and £75. A few strands of hair are sent to the company for analysis. Claims to diagnose intolerances by testing the ‘vibrational energy pattern’ of the hair, or the DNA at the hair root. Companies used: Bionetics and Integral Health.
Kinesiology – researchers paid between £45 and £70. The tester lies down either touching or close to vials containing ‘food extracts’ and the practitioner applies pressure on legs or arms to test resistance. Companies used: four practitioners accredited with the Association of Systematic Kinesiology.
The test results were reviewed by an expert panel: Dr Adrian Morris, allergy specialist at the London Medical Centre and Guildford Nuffield hospital; Andrew Williams, consultant allergy nurse at Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; and Catherine Collins, chief dietitian at St George’s Hospital, London.
