Which?, the Consumers Association, the self-appointed, independent watchdog for consumer affairs ranging from the testing of appliances such as washing machines, cameras and fridges, to cars, legal advice and, more recently, health and supplements, published a report on testing tests for food allergy/intolerance.

Their method of testing the very tests which test for food allergy/intolerance however, leaves a lot to be desired and the results could in fact cause misery and much more for many. Some could even be placed in grave danger should they subsequently decide to follow a different approach to treating their problem.  

Allergy

We know that there are various types of allergic reactions, from mild to potentially life-threatening.     

The fits of sneezing, the runny nose, itchy eyes and feeling absolutely terrible in the hay fever season and, especially at a time when many of us are required to take some of the most important exams in our lives, are mild compared to those who find themselves actually fighting for their very lives after a bee sting or eating one solitary peanut.

These reactions are acute in that the symptoms appear very rapidly from a trigger such as pollen or bee sting venom.

Intolerance

But there are other more chronic or slower reactions that take place in the background which we dismiss and regard as ‘normal' since we all seem to suffer from them in one way or another. These reactions we call intolerance and are mainly linked to foods. The usual symptoms are mainly digestion related such as heartburn, indigestion, flatulence, wind, loose stools, constipation and so on.

Saving Life and Limb

As with any condition which threatens life or limb, when it comes to an allergic reaction, there is only one real option by way of testing and treatment and that is conventional medicine. In truth, this is what drugs and operations do best: save life and limb.

It is when these life-saving measures are used to treat other non-emergency conditions such as chronic illness including food intolerance, that serious problems arise as a consequence which are far worse than the condition being treated.

Food allergy/intolerance

It is for this reason that all tests used to identify foods as the cause of non-acute reactions test for food intolerance as opposed to food allergy although in some people's mind the two are synonymous and interchangeable.

Tests and Testing

To test the viability, effectiveness and accuracy of a test we first need to establish a baseline method of testing to compare with.

For example if we are testing a machine that tests the amount of sugar in various drinks, we must have another machine which is accepted by all to give consistently accurate results to act as standard, for comparison, otherwise the results will just be nonsense.

Useless Opinion

There is no such thing as an infallible machine and humans are more fallible than machines which makes testing by humans not using machines, at worst useless and at best just a matter of opinion.

Machine vs Biology

Coupled with this is that when the tests are carried out on a machine, the machine should stay exactly the same from the beginning of the test to the end and should therefore give consistent results.

When testing a biological entity however, such as a human being, the results are forever changing as a cell is not the same from one microsecond to the next, let alone in the time it takes to conduct the test.  

The Which? Test of Food Intolerance Tests

Having established our parameters, we now turn to the method Which? used to establish the validity or otherwise of the tests used for food intolerance which ranged from blood tests to hair tests.

Baseline Standard Test

For a standard test to test these tests, Which? used a group of specialist immunologists. There was no mention of these people using any machines neither was there any information on what method they normally used to test for intolerances themselves. Yet here they were being used to test other people's tests using their own tests as standard for comparison!

The Results

And the results were published in the Which? Magazine to be read and taken seriously when, in reality, they were nothing but speculation and opinions of a misinformed group of people regardless of how well qualified they may be.

A neurosurgeon may be the most competent surgeon in the land for brain surgery but it does not qualify him/her as an expert on bowel or kidney operations!

Yet this is exactly how Which? arrived at the conclusions of the report:

Intolerance tests ‘feeding on fears'.

Who's feeding on whose fears?

The Conclusion

A word of advice to Which?: STICK TO TESTING WASHING MACHINES AND FRIDGES.  

With warm regards

Sam Shohet

For more information:
01483 522133

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it