Posts Tagged ‘food sensitivity’

The simplest and most certain test for any sensitivity reaction is to expose the person concerned to the substance under suspicion and see what happens. This is known as a

challenge test. With true allergies, challenge tests are powerful tools, but they are also alarmingly close to reality. The risk of provoking a severe reaction requires a very

cautious approach.
By comparison, an indirect test – a roundabout way of seeing how the body responds, such as the skin-prick test (see p. 91) – has the advantage of rarely producing dangerous

reactions. The downside is that indirect tests can be misleading, precisely because they are not like the real-life situation. No indirect test is perfect – there are always

false positives and false negatives (see box on p. 91).
Challenge tests
If you undergo a challenge test with food or an airborne allergen, you will also be given dummy challenges with an innocuous substance which is indistinguishable from the item

being tested. Neither you, nor the tester who is scoring the reaction, should know which is which. This is called a double-blind trial because, to eliminate all possible bias,

both of you are in the dark. (The full name is a ‘double-blind placebo-controlled trial’ – the dummy challenge is also called a ‘placebo challenge’ or ‘control challenge’.)
The double-blind trial is a standard medical procedure and does not imply that the doctors think you are faking symptoms. Psychological forces are powerful things, and just

thinking that you might react to a test can be enough to produce a reaction – the process that generates the symptoms is largely unconscious.
Food challenge
A food challenge – eating the food that is under suspicion – is a key test for food intolerance (see p. 197). It is sometimes used for food allergy and other forms of food

sensitivity too, as a follow-up to skin tests. Some allergists use a food challenge only if the skin test is at odds with actual events reported by the patient. Other allergists

use food challenge more readily, to confirm skin-test results, and to assess the severity of the reaction.
Extreme caution must be exercised with immediate food allergy, because of the considerable risks involved. The test must be done under medical supervision with resuscitation

equipment to hand. A challenge test should never be done for true food allergy without some careful preliminary tests on the face and the lips (see box on p. 23). Even if these

tests produce no reaction, only tiny amounts of the food should be eaten to begin with.
Bronchial challenge
This type of test involves inhalation of an airborne allergen – such as pollen – suspected of causing asthma. Bronchial challenge carries the risk of provoking a severe asthma

attack, and few doctors use it unless there are compelling reasons to do so – such as demonstrating that someone’s asthma is due to an allergen encountered at work.
Skin-prick tests
This is an indirect method of detecting true allergic reactions. It is one of a family of skin tests that use a similar approach. The three different tests in this family are

known as: skin-prick tests or prick tests, puncture tests, and scratch tests.
For the skin-prick test – the technique used in Britain – a small drop of liquid containing an allergen, such as grass pollen, is placed on the arm. The doctor makes a small

prick in the skin, under the drop of liquid, allowing a minuscule amount of the allergen to get into the skin. A positive reaction is recorded if a red bump develops soon

afterwards. For accuracy, the bump must be compared to positive and negative controls (see below).
The puncture method is very similar to the skin-prick test but uses a slightly different technique for breaking the skin. The term prick-puncture test covers both techniques.
With the scratch method, the skin is scratched lightly, and the allergen solution is then applied over the scratch. This method gives less consistent results than prick-puncture

testing.
It is important to include a negative control in the test – a skin-prick test with plain salt water (saline). This should not produce much of a bump – if it does, the skin is

clearly over-reactive and the tests more difficult to assess. The doctor should also include a positive control – a skin-prick test with histamine, the substance that plays a

central role in allergic reactions. This should always produce a bump. If it does not, the skin is decidedly under-reactive, and the tests are invalid.
Taking antihistamines will make the skin under-reactive, and you should stop taking them before the testing, for a period ranging from a day to several weeks – it varies

depending on the particular antihistamine. Ask your doctor for specific instructions about stopping these and other drugs before testing.
Skin tends to be over-reactive to testing in people with dermatographism (see p. 52). Blood tests for specific IgE,
such as RASTs (see p. 92), are needed for anyone who has this condition. Eczema sufferers with a rash over large areas of the body may also require blood tests, if there is too

little clear skin for testing.
Skin-prick tests can produce both false positives and false negatives (see box below). Some allergic diseases will give a lot of false negatives and relatively few false

positives, while for others the reverse is true. The allergen itself influences the rates of misleading reactions: for example, tests for soya allergy are notoriously

unreliable, whereas those for peanut are far more accurate. The age of the person being tested also makes a difference. With all these influences at work, interpreting the test

responses is a real art, and the doctor’s experience counts for a lot.
All sorts of people offer skin-prick tests, including alternative practitioners. Get them done by a qualified doctor, preferably by an allergist, who will know how to make sense

of the reactions.
Note that the purpose of these tests, and of blood tests for specific IgE, is to identify the allergens that are bringing on your symptoms, not to predict how strongly you will

react to those allergens. The tests may give some Indication of the intensity of your reaction, but they cannot be regarded as a good guide to how you will respond to the

allergen in the future.
The safety record of skin-prick tests is very good. Occasionally a systemic reaction (anaphylaxis) occurs with these tests, but there are no records of any deaths. Nevertheless,

if you suffer from severe asthma or have experienced anaphylactic shock in the past, it is advisable for the doctor to have adrenaline and resuscitation equipment available.

Those with strong allergic reactions to latex may also react badly if they are tested with an allergen that cross-reacts with latex (e.g. cypress pollen), not just when tested

with latex itself. Taking beta-Mockers (see box on p. 150) increases the risk of a life-threatening reaction for anyone in these higher-risk categories.
False positives and false negatives
Apart from challenge tests, none of the tests used for allergy works with 100% accuracy. Most give both false positives and false negatives.
A false positive means that there is a positive test but no actual reaction when the allergen is encountered (e.g. eaten or inhaled). A false negative means that there is a

negative test result despite a genuine reaction (as shown by a challenge test, for example).
A test that gives relatively few false positives has good positive predictive value – in other words, if it suggests you are allergic to something, you probably are.
A test that gives relatively few false negatives has good negative predictive value. If it comes up negative, you are probably not allergic to that allergen.
Some tests for allergic reactions show good positive predictive value but poor negative predictive value, while for other tests the reverse is true.

Investigating Food Intolerance

COLICKY BABIES
If you have followed the measures described on pp. 78-9 but have had little or no success in reducing colic symptoms so far, it makes sense to look into the possibility of a food sensitivity reaction (either intolerance or a mild allergy) to food proteins. This is a very different problem from lactose intolerance (an inability to digest the milk sugar, called lactose, due to a shortage of lactase - see p. 79), although the two can get entangled, creating a complex and confusing set of responses.
The complications arise because, when there is diarrhoea as a result of allergy or intolerance (or from any other cause, including infections) it temporarily strips the gut of its lactose-digesting capacity. This problem is called secondary lactase deficiency, and it will correct itself quite quickly once the real cause of the diarrhoea is eliminated.
Unfortunately, the routine medical tests for lactase deficiency do not distinguish between this temporary problem and the much rarer primary lactase deficiency, which is inherited and life-long.
So if your child has had these routine tests, and you have been told that they show primary lactase deficiency, it remains possible that the real problem is a reaction to milk proteins (or proteins from other foods), and that the lactose intolerance is an effect of this, which adds to the diarrhoea, but is not the root cause of it. If so, eliminating the offending food from the baby’s diet (or the mother’s) will produce impressive results, whereas reducing or eliminating lactose only helps a little.
The purpose of the dietary investigations described here is to discover which foods are causing problems for your baby. In the case of bottle-fed babies, the answer is usually cow’s milk – and this is often the culprit for breast-fed babies too, but not necessarily.
For a breast-fed baby it can be any food that the mother is eating. A tiny proportion of what the mother consumes goes through into the breast milk, and these few molecules of food are enough to provoke a reaction in the child.
Bottle-fed babies
For bottle-fed babies, proceed as follows:
•    Change to an alternative milk-free formula (see box on p. 66). Wait two weeks before concluding that there is no improvement – recovery can take time – and try another type of formula before you decide this is not the answer.
•    If there is no joy with alternative infant formula, consider the possibility of relactation: stimulating the flow of your own breast milk once again. Breast-feeding support groups (see page 255) can give you advice. Avoid all dairy products while breast-feeding and take a calcium supplement.
For babies who are old enough, and who have severe symptoms, early weaning is one option, but this must be done very carefully:
•    Keep all dairy products out of the baby’s diet – read labels carefully on prepared foods and know all the different names used for milk (see page 173). Test beef cautiously as it shares some proteins with milk.
•    To avoid new food sensitivities developing, keep eggs, fish. wheat, chocolate and oranges off the menu until the child’s first birthday, then introduce them gradually. Avoid peanuts and other nuts for three years if possible.
•    Keep maize (corn) out of the diet for the first six months, because it is a common ingredient in formula feeds, and the child may have become sensitive to it. Note that some medicines contain corn syrup, but this will only affect those who are very sensitive. A pharmacist can check the full list of ingredients in medicines, and suggest alternatives.
•    No food should be given to the baby every day, or in large amounts. You can use unusual starchy foods, such as sweet potatoes, yams, culnoa and millet (see p. 195), to ring the changes. These all make excellent baby foods.
•    Never force a child to eat any food that is disliked. Try serving it again, once or twice, but give up if there are still fierce objections to the smell or taste – these are often a sign of intolerance or allergy.
•    Ask your doctor to refer you to a paediatric nutritionist so that the diet can be checked. A calcium supplement will probably be needed. Other vitamins or minerals may also be lacking.
Breast-fed babies
For breast-fed babies, the approach is quite different – the main focus here is on what you, the mother, eat and drink.
Firstly, start keeping a food diary, and a record of the baby’s symptoms. Are there any detectable patterns? Does the colic get worse if you drank red wine on the previous day, for example? Note that sometimes the time-gap is more than a day, but it should be reasonably consistent for any one food.
At the same time, eliminate all items other than breast milk from the baby’s diet, including:
•    any solids (e.g. baby foods)
•    fruit juice
•    medicines or vitamin drops that contain other ingredients (e.g. colouring or corn syrup)
•    nipple creams containing arachis oil (peanut oil).
Ask your doctor or pharmacist for alternative versions of medicines or vitamins, without added ingredients. Give boiled water to make up for fruit juice. Wait a week or so to see if things improve.
For the next stage, cut out coffee, tea and all alcoholic drinks. Allow a week for this, and continue with the food/symptom diary meanwhile. If there is no improvement, go on to the next stage, while still avoiding coffee, tea and alcohol.
For the next stage, compile a list of suspect foods, based on your food diary. Add to this list:
•    cow’s milk and all milk products
•    any foods that you craved when pregnant
•    any foods that you normally eat in large amounts
•    anything you dislike but have been eating because it’s ‘good for you’ or ‘good for the baby’
•    any of the following foods if you eat them regularly: eggs, wheat, oranges and other citrus fruits (lemons, grapefruit etc.), tree nuts, peanuts, fish, chocolate, chicken and beef.
Once you have your list prepared, talk to your doctor. Say that you would like to try eliminating cow’s milk for two weeks to start with, and then – if the colic has not cleared up – all the other foods on your list as well (again, for two weeks). You will need to take a calcium supplement. If there is strong opposition to your plans, based on a fear that your diet will be inadequate, ask for a referral to a nutritionist. Obviously this needs to be arranged promptly. The fear of under-nutrition, which is dangerous for both yourself and the baby, is a very reasonable one, but with sensible precautions any mother can safely carry out this investigation.
Eat at home during this time, as you cannot possibly know all the ingredients in cafe or restaurant meals. Read the labels on packaged meals and watch out for synonyms (see pp. 172-4).
If your baby recovers, and you want to pinpoint the problem food so that your diet becomes less restricted, you can test foods individually. Wait until there has been no sign of colic for a week. Choose one food and eat a portion every day for a week. If the colic does not reappear, cut out this food again and choose a second food to test – again, eat this daily for a week. Stop eating the food sooner if the colic returns. (Foods that proved safe can be reintroduced again later, but you need a break after the testing week.) Test cow’s milk last.
Some babies get better during the exclusion phase but do not respond to any of the foods when tested. The temporary break from the problem food seems to be all they need to lose their sensitivity. In such cases, the mother can go back to an unrestricted diet, but not to exactly the kind of diet she ate before – no food should be eaten every day, nor in large quantities, or the colic may return.
Many babies get over their sensitivity after one or two months without the problem food, so it is worth testing again after a while, especially if you are eating a very restricted diet.
Where cow’s milk turns out to be the offender, goat’s milk or sheep’s milk might be tolerated, but wait until the baby is completely free of symptoms and experiment cautiously. Alternatively, drink one of the new milk substitutes now available (see p. 183).
If the baby clearly responds to a food in the mother’s diet (for example, cow’s milk or peanuts), this food should be given cautiously when first introduced to the child after weaning, in case he or she has a true allergy to it. An allergy test may be helpful in deciding whether to introduce the food at all.

Allergy: Selecting the Right Food

An avoidance diet is for people who already know what food or foods affect them, and simply need to

avoid those foods. A diagnostic diet is for those whose symptoms suggest that they might be suffering

from food sensitivity of some kind, and who cannot be diagnosed by indirect methods such as skin tests,

because true food allergy is not involved. A diagnostic diet is intended primarily to show whether or

not food is causing the symptoms.
The diagnostic diets themselves fall into two basic categories. Firstly, there are diets that, by a

process of elimination, identify a particular food (or foods) as a cause of symptoms. Called

elimination diets, these are used to diagnose idiopathic food intolerance (see p. 74) and certain other

kinds of sensitivity reactions to particular foods. An elimination diet is purely diagnostic - simply a

means to establish which foods are at fault. To this end, all commonly eaten foods are avoided at the

outset, and each food is then tested individually. Once an elimination diet is complete, the

information gathered is used to establish a suitable avoidance diet. For example, if milk, wheat and

oranges caused symptoms during the testing phase of the elimination diet, those foods are all avoided

in future.
Secondly, there are specific diagnostic diets, which are a great deal simpler to carry out than

elimination diets. A specific diagnostic diet aims to reduce the intake of a particular substance that

is found in certain foods. The substances concerned -histamine or nickel, for example - are known to

cause particular symptoms in susceptible people.
A specific diagnostic diet simply cuts out all the foods that contain large amounts of the substance
under suspicion. If this diet alleviates the symptoms, and does so consistently, it is plausible that

the substance concerned is indeed the culprit. However, the diet should be stopped and then started

again, preferably several times, to check the response. Once the sensitivity is confirmed in this way,

the avoidance diet which follows is basically the same as the diet used for diagnosis.
Note that there is no agreed terminology for these different kinds of diet, and the definitions given

above will not necessarily be followed in other publications. You may even come across ‘elimination

diet’ being used to mean ‘avoidance diet’, which is particularly confusing. If you are consulting other

sources of information, check the context carefully to see what meaning is intended.
There is one odd man out in this chapter - the diet to protect against asthma, described on pp. 206-7.

It is neither an avoidance diet nor a diagnostic diet, but a health-promoting diet of the kind commonly

advocated to combat other widespread conditions, such as cancer and heart disease. In fact, it has a

remarkable number of similarities to diets that reduce the risk of these other diseases.
The anti-asthma diet is immensely healthy, whereas many avoidance diets carry a risk of malnourishment.

An allergic individual following any kind of restrictive diet - especially a child - should be

medically assessed for the possible risks. That is why it is important to talk to your doctor before

starting any dietary treatment or investigation. A referral to a dietician or nutritionist may be

necessary, and your doctor can arrange this.
When malnutrition does occur as a result of self-treatment, there are often very complex factors at

work. One potential hazard with dietary treatment is that psychological problems can easily become
entwined with obsessions about food. Eating can be a potent form of self-expression, or a way of

exerting control over oneself and others. Many doctors have seen patients who are mistakenly convinced

that food sensitivity is at the root of their health problems, or those of their children. In some

cases, no amount of objective evidence to the contrary will deflect people from such beliefs.
A few people with mistaken beliefs of this kind impose very restrictive diets on themselves - or

sometimes on the whole family. The food rules that they establish may be a way of limiting contact with

the outside world, avoiding other problems and issues by making diet the central focus, or simply

making demands on other people’s time and attention.
The current fad for identifying ‘food allergy’ using very dubious diagnostic tests (see p. 93) will

probably send many more psychologically vulnerable people down this route.
Another unhelpful trend in the dietary field is the wholesale (and usually ineffective) use of

vitamins, minerals and other supplements for a great variety of diseases, including allergy and other

forms of sensitivity. It is important to realise that none of the sensitivity diseases described in

this book has nutritional deficiency as its primary cause, so supplements are not a major part of

treatment in most cases. For the majority of people with some kind of sensitivity disease, a supplement

will make only a small difference, if any. However, it is true that, with some sensitivity problems,

certain supplements may be helpful to certain individuals. The use of Vitamin C in asthma (see p. 207)

is one example of this, and there are some other instances mentioned in Chapter 2.
Generally speaking, it is better to get the vitamins, minerals and other nutrients you need (such as
antioxidants) from food, not from tablets. Studies of adult-onset asthma have shown that only natural

Vitamin E protects against the disease: supplements have no effect.
Many vitamins and minerals, along with various plant and animal extracts, are now referred to as

nutriceuticals - in other words, substances that are classed as nutritional supplements for legal

purposes, but are being marketed as if they were medicinal drugs (pharmaceuticals). Many doctors are

concerned about this, if only because of the duplicity involved. These substances can be sold freely to

the public only because they are, in theory, nutritional supplements, yet they are actively promoted to

the public as if they were drugs.
The marketing is usually indirect, to avoid falling foul of the law, but very effective nonetheless.

Advertisements for the product avoid making any medicinal claims, since these would be unlawful, and

just speak vaguely of ‘health-giving properties’. The specific medicinal claims are made in magazine

articles (which often appear right beside the advertisement), penned by journalists who have been

supplied with a great many ‘facts’ - actually unsubstantiated claims -by the manufacturer of the

supplement. These claims are reproduced uncritically, so the journalists are simply acting as

mouthpieces for the manufacturer. There is no law preventing this.
This is a ruse that circumvents important laws intended to protect consumers from misleading

advertising. Few of these products are likely to be damaging - although there are concerns about some,

especially beta-carotene supplements (see p. 207). What matters here are the large amounts of money

being made from products that frequently have few benefits for those who take them.

What exactly is in ready-made food? People with food sensitivity, especially those with severe food

allergy or coeliac disease, need a simple answer to this question, but frequently they don’t get one.

Research among food-allergy sufferers has found that, in the course of a year, half of them

inadvertently eat the food they are trying to avoid, owing to a lack of information about ingredients.

Restaurants and canteens are responsible for many of these accidents, and most of the fatalities (see

p. 111), but packaged food also plays a part.
Unfortunately, many food ingredients that are potentially allergenic, such as milk and eggs, appear in

packaged food without this being stated on the label in everyday language. The information is usually

there somewhere, however – you just need to know what words to look for.
Decoding food labels
The problems with food labels fall into two general categories:
•    some of the ingredients are described using technical terms. These are usually specific

constituents of the original foodstuff e.g. lactalbumin, one of the proteins found in milk.
•    some manufactured ingredients can be made from different starting materials. So an item such as

‘edible starch’ could be made from either wheat or maize (corn), while ‘hydrolysed protein’ could be

made from soya, maize or yeast, sometimes with wheat added.
One day, no doubt, manufacturers will realise what a burden this type of obscure labelling imposes on

their allergic customers and will start using plain language. In the meantime, food-allergy sufferers

just have to learn all the terms that may be used for their culprit food or foods.
Labels used in health-food shops and delicatessens are another matter altogether. Here the problem is

with exotic-sounding items, such as kamut, which is actually an allergenic food (wheat).
Maize (Corn)
Items always made from maize: cornflour, cornmeal, cornstarch, dextrose, polenta
Items sometimes made from maize: baking powder, cereal starch, edible starch, food starch, glucose

syrup, hydrolysed protein, hydrolysed vegetable protein, malt, malt flavouring, modified starch,

modified food starch, starch, textured vegetable protein, vegetable gum, vegetable protein, vegetable

starch
Note that the gum on envelopes and stamps is sometimes made from maize, and that many medicines contain

cornstarch.
Eggs
Items always made from eggs: ovalbumin
Items sometimes made from eggs: lecithin (In fact this is rare in foods – lecithin is usually derived

from soya. Only in pharmaceuticals is lecithin likely to be derived from egg.)
Terms used for egg on cosmetics and toiletries: Ovum
Fish
Be very cautious when travelling. The use of fish meal as an ingredient of spicy sauces is common in

Southeast Asia, and in some parts of Africa. The strength of the spices may make the flavour of the

fish undetectable.
Milk
Items always made from milk: casein, casemate, lactalbumin, whey
Terms used for milk on cosmetics and toiletries: Lac
If you see the term ‘dairy-free’ on standard packaged foods, you can safely assume that the contents

are free from goat’s and sheep’s milk, as well as cow’s milk. But be more wary with homemade or locally

produced foods labelled ‘dairy-free’ - some
people think that ‘dairy’ refers only to cow’s milk.
Parev or pareve is a term used for kosher (Jewish) food that contains neither milk nor meat. However,

there can be contamination with traces of milk.
Lactose is a sugar produced from milk, and while it is not allergenic itself, it may contain a trace of

allergenic milk proteins. The amounts involved are tiny, and will only affect the most sensitive

individuals.
The label ‘non-milk fat’ sometimes misleads people if they just glance quickly at labels. The fact that

a product contains non-milk fat does not, of course, mean that it is entirely milk-free -remember to

look for all the synonyms of milk (see above).
Nuts
Items always made from nuts: frangipane, marzipan, praline
Standard packaged food will almost always include the nuts by name, but if you are buying other food

(e.g. from a stall selling home-made food) watch out for the above names.
Be very cautious about unrefined nut oils (see p. 110). Almond essence may be produced chemically, in

which case it is safe, but some is made from real almonds and could be allergenic.
Terms used for nuts on cosmetics and toiletries: Prunus, Juglans, Bertholletia, Corylus
Peanuts
Items always made from peanuts: arachis oil, groundnut oil satay sauce
Unrefined peanut oil should be avoided. This is not much used, and unlikely to be encountered except in

Indian and Oriental cooking. Most groundnut oil sold in Britain and Europe, or used in packaged foods,

is refined and considered safe (see p. 110).
Alternative names: arachide, beer nuts, cacahuete, earth nuts, goobernuts, groundnuts, monkey nuts
You are only likely to encounter these names on imported food, or when travelling. Always be very

careful with Indian or Southeast Asian food, where the use of peanuts is very common and often not at

all obvious. Avoid chocolate from Poland, which often contains peanuts that are not declared on the

label.
Items sometimes made from peanuts: hydrolysed vegetable protein. (The usual source is soya or wheat,

but some is derived from peanuts.)
Terms used for peanut on cosmetics and toiletries: Arachis hypogea, Arachis oil
Sesame
Items always made from sesame or containing some sesame: gomashio, halva, hummus (houmus), tahini, the

drink Aqua Libra
Alternative names: ajonjoli, berme, gingelly, teel, til, simsim
Check carefully for sesame in any food from a health-food shop or a stall selling home-made food, and

in foods from the Middle East, or Chinese packaged food (e.g. stir-fry oils). Sesame oil is always

unrefined and therefore allergenic (see p. 110). Watch out for contamination by traces of sesame in

bakeries and delicatessens where goods are sold unwrapped.
Term used for sesame on cosmetics and toiletries: Sesamum indicum
Shellfish
Items sometimes containing shellfish: curry paste, fish sauce and other sauces/pastes used in Southeast

Asian cooking
Standard packaged food should mention shellfish specifically, but you may need to read the label

carefully. Be cautious about bottles of imported sauce, and home-made or takeaway food.
Soya
Items always or usually made from soya: miso, soy sauce, textured vegetable protein, tofu, vegetable

protein
Items sometimes made from soya: hydrolysed protein, hydrolysed vegetable protein, lecithin, vegetable

gum, vegetable starch Changes in ingredients
Unfortunately, the ingredients of a product can change without any obvious warning on the label, or any

change in the packaging. You should always check the label in detail, every time - even on foods that

you have eaten before without any trouble.
Wheat
Items always made from wheat: bran, flour, graham flour, hard flour, strong flour, wholemeal flour

(there are non-wheat brans and flours, of course, but the words ‘bran’ or ‘flour’, without any

qualification, usually mean wheat)
Regional names for particular types of wheat: bulgur or bulgar wheat, Chilton, couscous, dinkel, durum,

einkorn, farro, fu, kamut, semolina, spelt, triticum, triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye)
Items sometimes made from wheat: baking powder, cereal binder, cereal filler, cereal protein, cereal

starch, edible starch, food starch, hydrolysed protein, hydrolysed vegetable protein, modified food

starch, modified starch, starch, textured vegetable protein, vegetable protein, vegetable starch.
Assume that bread, crispbread, pastry, pasta and noodles are made from wheat, unless definitely

labelled otherwise (and read the label in detail too, because a little wheat is often added to items

such as rye bread and rye crackers).
Note that buckwheat is not wheat at all - it is not even a cereal. Nor does it commonly affect

coeliacs, as is sometimes claimed, though a few coeliacs may develop an intolerance reaction to it,

through eating it very regularly.
For more information on avoiding gluten, see p. 177.
Yeast
Items usually made from yeast: leavening
Items sometimes made from yeast: hydrolysed protein, hydrolysed vegetable protein
Labelling loopholes
Manufacturers do not have to include on the label:
•    Any ingredients used in an earlier manufacturing process e.g. yeast used to make bread for

breadcrumbs, wheat flour added to spices or mustard powder during the grinding process, or bread used

to innoculate blue cheeses with mould -this can leave minute traces of gluten in the cheese.
•    Residues left by substances used during processing, such as wheat flour used to dust processing

lines or prevent dried fruits from sticking together. Manufacturers do not need to declare these

residues on the label because the substance serves no function in the final product and is present in

amounts that are considered insignificant. The vast majority of those with coeliac disease or food

allergy will tolerate such microscopic traces, but the most sensitive individuals may not. Some

coeliacs are even affected by food additives manufactured from cereals (see p. 177).
•    The individual constituents of a composite ingredient (such as salami on a pizza), if that

composite ingredient makes up less than 25% of the finished product. This is called the 25% rule. As

from November 2005, this is all set to change, thanks to the European Parliament. The contents of a

composite ingredient like salami will be listed in full. A few composite ingredients with officially

defined contents (such as jam, or chocolate) can be listed just as ‘jam’ or ‘chocolate’ if they make up

less than 2% of the product. Likewise herb mix or spice mix, if less than 2%. But there are certain

items that must always be listed if they are anywhere in the product, and however small the amount.

They are: milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, sesame, mustard, celery/celeriac, fish, crustacean shellfish

(shrimps, prawns, crab etc), soya, wheat and all other cereals that contain gluten. Sulphur dioxide and

sulphites must be listed if more than 1 Oppm. This list will be reviewed from time to time.
`May contain’ labels
Labels reading ‘May contain nut traces’ are springing up like weeds on packaged food. Similar labels

relating to sesame, milk and eggs are also starting to appear.
Allergy sufferers, suddenly unable to eat foods that they formerly enjoyed, feel very frustrated about

this development. Many suspect that these labels are often just a defensive tactic - warning off

consumers with food sensitivity when the chance of the food containing the allergen is actually very

small. The danger is that some allergy sufferers may stop taking the labels seriously. Teenagers, in

particular, are increasingly dismissive of ‘May contain’ labels, and this is a huge worry for parents.
Could the need for ‘May contain’ labels be eliminated altogether with more careful factory procedures?

The problem here is that, with nuts, perfect cleaning of production machinery is extremely difficult.

Most machines have nooks and crannies in which a nut from one production process can become lodged,

only to free itself later during the making of a non-nut product. It is quite possible that someone

could encounter a whole nut, or substantial pieces of nut, in a non-nut product. That is why no one

with nut allergy, even if it is relatively mild, should disregard ‘May contain nut traces’ labels.
Some makers of confectionery and biscuits have now set up dedicated nut-free production lines, with

stringent precautions to avoid any possibility of contamination. This allows them to market products

that are guaranteed nut-free. If you cannot purchase these locally, you may be able to order them by

mail or over the Internet (see p. 255).
Note that packaged foods that have been produced on nut-free production lines in the past can be

switched to different production lines, that necessitate a ‘May contain nut traces’ label.
In some cases, a product is manufactured in two separate places, one of which is nut-free, while the

other is not. Consequently, the same product may sometimes be sold with a ‘May contain’ label and

sometimes without. Don’t disregard these labels, however illogical they might seem.
Packaging errors
As most people with food allergy are now aware, ready-made foods sometimes go out in the wrong

packaging. Alarming cases that have occurred in recent years include hazelnut yoghurts labelled Toffee

Yoghurt, and Vegetable Bake (containing nuts) sold in packets intended for Vegetable Lasagne (no nuts).
Manufacturers are increasingly aware of the hazards and when mistakes are discovered, allergy

information websites and organisations such as the Anaphylaxis Campaign are quickly informed, so that

they can alert allergy sufferers.
Belonging to such an organisation (see p. 255), and/or checking websites regularly, is definitely

recommended for anyone with food allergy. However, you should bear in mind that no information service

can protect you completely from this hazard. The odds against it are high, but one day you might just

be the unlucky person who first discovers a packaging error by suffering an allergic reaction. To

protect yourself as far as possible:
When is a nut not a nut?
Those with nut allergies often worry about eating nutmeg and coconut. In fact, allergic reactions to

these are rare. People with nut allergy are no more likely to react to nutmeg or coconut than anyone

else.
Tiger nuts or chufa nuts are not nuts at all, but the roots of a sedge plant – they are most unlikely

to cross-react with true nuts.
Peanuts, botanically speaking, are not true nuts at all. They are legumes (pulses). There can be

cross-reactions with soya and/or lupin (proceed very carefully with this novel food ingredient) but

reactions with other pulses are rare. Cross-reactions with tree nuts such as almonds and Brazils are

quite common however (see p. 15). Many people with peanut allergy can in fact eat tree nuts, but they

should be aware that a cross-reaction could develop at some stage.
Because cross-reactions between tree nuts are so common, doctors tend to speak simply of ‘nut allergy’.

However, it is possible to be allergic to one type of tree nut, without being allergic to others.
•    always check that the food in the packet looks like the photograph on the packet
•    double-check, when you serve the food, by noting the conspicuous ingredients of the meal

(carrots, for example), and ensuring that they are indeed on the list of ingredients – any discrepancy

should make you suspicious
•    note the smell and appearance of any ready-made food, before you taste it. Do this even for

very simple things such as flavoured yoghurts
•    only have a very tiny mouthful at first, and if you have any tingling of the lips or other

symptoms, however mild, stop eating immediately (this is helpful for true food allergy only, not for

coeliac disease)
•    be especially cautious about vegetarian food if you are allergic to nuts or soya.
Latex in food
Those with latex allergy may react to very small traces of it in food. This sometimes occurs with

packaged food or restaurant food that has been prepared by workers wearing latex gloves. On one

occasion a highly allergic individual reacted to a water glass that had been handled by someone wearing

latex gloves. The amounts of latex involved are minuscule, and only affect those with severe latex

allergy. However, there is a strong case for workers handling food to wear non-latex gloves, especially

with the rise in cases of latex allergy.
There are also reports of people with latex allergy reacting (usually very mildly) to cold-seal

adhesives in food
wrappers, such as those used for ice cream. The reaction only occurs if the wrapper actually touches

the lips or mouth.

Immune reactions to food
`When I finally found someone who could say what was wrong with me, it was such a relief. I can’t tell you how much ill-health and pain and misery I’d had up to that point. I’m immensely grateful to the doctor who sorted the problem out for me. My life has been transformed.’
Richard has eosinophilic gastroenteritis, one of the rarer immune reactions to food. Like all rare diseases, it can escape diagnosis for a long time. IgE (the allergy antibody – see box on p. 12) is sometimes involved in eosinophilic gastroenteritis, but it is not an essential part of the reaction. Those who, like Richard, do not make IgE antibodies to the problem food will not give positive skin-prick tests. For them, the possibility of food being responsible for their symptoms may well be overlooked*.
Another difficulty for patients such as Richard is that most of the non-IgE immune reactions to food affect babies and children exclusively. A few of them can also occur in adults, but this is very rare, so it’s not something that automatically springs to mind when the doctor is searching for a diagnosis.
Eosinophilic diseases
The key event in these diseases is the arrival of large numbers of immune cells called eosinophils (see p. 19) in the walls of the digestive system. If the eosinophils converge on the tube leading down to the stomach (the oesophagus) the disease is called eosinophilic oesophagitis, and the symptoms include reflux (regurgitation) of food, occasional vomiting, refusing food (in babies), stomach pain and disturbed sleep.
If the stomach is the focus for the eosinophils, this is eosinophilic gastritis, and there is vomiting, pain, poor appetite and therefore poor growth. There can also be obstruction of the stomach outlet which may, in a few babies, produce pyloric stenosis (the main symptom is projectile vomiting).
When eosinophils flock to the intestines as well as to the stomach, the disease is called eosinophilic gastroenteritis. In
terms of symptoms, the picture is not much different from the previous condition, but there can be diarrhoea as an additional symptom, and babies may be irritable and puffy in appearance.
These conditions are most common in babies, but sometimes they continue through childhood. Very occasionally they occur in adults too.
Heiner’s Syndrome
This disease affects babies only, and is very rare. It is a severe form of cow’s milk sensitivity leading to wheezing and haemosiderosis (bleeding into the lungs). The child usually seems sickly, growth is slow, and there may be recurrent bouts of pneumonia. A full diagnosis requires blood tests to check for anaemia, examination of sputum under the microscope, and a biopsy or lavage (see p. 92) from the lung. The only effective treatment is to remove cow’s milk from the diet completely. Needless to say, this must be done under full medical supervision.
Other reactions to food
The cause of these diseases is not fully understood, but the immune system is clearly involved.
Dietary protein entero-colitis syndrome
In babies, the symptoms begin with general irritability and vomiting between one and three hours after a feed. Unless the offending food – usually cow’s milk – is withdrawn promptly, there will be bloating, diarrhoea (usually containing blood), anaemia, and poor growth. Older children have similar symptoms, while adults suffer terrible nausea, plus stomach pains and vomiting.
Nickel in food
Nickel and other metals in food may cause immune reactions for those with sensitivity to such metals (see pp. 55-6). The symptoms are usually in the skin, but there can be a few digestive symptoms too.
Dietary protein enteropathy
The main symptom here is diarrhoea, usually very severe. Often babies vomit their feed as well. Most have little appetite, and if the offending food is not withdrawn they suffer from poor growth, anaemia and other signs of malnutrition. This is because damage to the lining of the gut prevents nutrients from being absorbed properly. Older children show similar symptoms.
Dietary protein proctitis
This is a far less severe problem. The babies with this disorder look healthy, but there is inflammation in the bowel and small amounts of blood are passed with the faeces.
Diagnosis
There are two aspects to diagnosis:
• what kind of disease is it?
• what food or foods are causing the reaction?
Your doctor will probably try to answer the first question by looking inside the digestive tract with special equipment (endoscopy) and by taking a small sample – a biopsy (see p. 92).
A blood sample may also be taken to look for raised levels of immune cells and antibodies. Skin-prick tests or RAST tests (see pp. 91-2) will be tried to rule out the possibility of true food allergy – and because IgE may play a small part in these other forms of food sensitivity (in the eosinophilic diseases, for example).
Often the tests yield no very clear answers, especially in babies, and an exact diagnosis is not possible. But failure to answer the first question does not mean that the second question should be ignored. Pinpointing the culprit food or foods is vital.
Identifying the food is easier the younger the child, simply because the range of foods eaten is so much smaller. Cow’s milk is the most common offender when the disease affects young children – particularly bottle-fed babies, since standard infant formula is made with cow’s milk. Your doctor will prescribe an alternative formula (see box on p. 66) for you to try. For older children and adults, an elimination diet will probably be required to identify the food concerned. Among young children, likely offenders include soya, egg, wheat, rice, chicken or fish. A simple elimination diet, similar to that used for atopic eczema (see p. 198) may be adequate. You must have full medical supervision for this.
In the case of eosinophilic reactions, skin-prick tests may help identify the foods concerned, but are usually of limited value, so an elimination diet is again necessary. Where adults are affected by eosinophilic diseases, sensitivity to several different foods is likely, so identifying the offending foods usually requires the most exacting form of elimination diet, using an elemental diet for the exclusion phase (see box on p. 196). The symptoms are very slow to disappear: it can take up to eight weeks of avoiding the foods before your ailing digestive tract recovers. Don’t give up too soon.
Treatment
Avoidance is the only way here. Special infant formula (see box on p. 66) is required for cow’s milk sensitivity in babies.
In the case of eosinophilic reactions, some doctors may use steroid tablets as an additional treatment, just for a few weeks, to get the inflammation under control. Some new studies show that the anti-leukotriene drugs (see p. 149) are very effective for eosinophilic gastroenteritis.
Controversial topics
According to some doctors, a reaction to food may, on rare occasions, produce vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels).
Vasculitis itself is a well-recognised condition. The blood vessels are damaged by inflammation, and become more leaky. Symptoms often begin with a general swelling (angioedema), and an outbreak of small red blotches deep in the skin — especially on the legs — where small amounts of blood have escaped. These blotches later turn purplish, then yellow, before fading. This type of rash is known as purpura. Sometimes there are larger emissions of blood, resulting in spontaneous bruising.
Many different conditions can cause vasculitis, but only a few doctors would agree that food sensitivity is one of them. The inflammation could be caused by circulating immune complexes containing food antigens bound to antibodies (see p. 13). There is evidence, in some patients, of a direct effect on the cells called platelets that cause blood to clot.
Equally controversial is the suggestion that food sensitivity can be the cause of trouble for some children with kidney disorders. Some research groups have found that a few children with certain kinds of kidney disease recover on an elemental diet (see box on p. 196). All those affected have a classical allergic disease such as asthma or atopic eczema as well, and they tend to be sensitive to several different foods, plus pollen or other airborne allergens. Circulating immune complexes might be involved here, but no one is sure.
Some cases of food-related rheumatoid arthritis and palindromic rheumatism (see p. 76) could be due to immune complexes involving food molecules becoming deposited in the joints, but it is not the mechanism in all, or even most, of those affected.

The days when doctors wanted their patients to obey orders and ask no questions are largely gone. Patients with allergies and other forms of sensitivity - or their parents -

have to play a key role in managing the disease. Most doctors now recognise this, and encourage their patients to learn about their illness, its diagnosis and treatment, and to

be partners in their own medical care.
Quite apart from this, there are aspects of allergy management where few doctors can afford the time to become experts. The nitty-gritty details of dust-mite avoidance or food

labelling practices are good examples. You can usefully supplement your doctor’s treatment here, by informing yourself.
But where should this process stop? That is a difficult question which doctors are increasingly forced to consider. One modern phenomenon, being discussed in many medical

journals at present, is the abundance of medical information on the Internet. Some doctors dread the arrival of patients who have logged on the night before their appointment

and are armed with a huge number of facts about their illness -some accurate, some utterly wrong and some highly debatable. But other doctors welcome the fact that patients are

actively interested in their health problems.
The reactions of doctors to ‘Internet patients’ highlight an issue that also runs right through this
book - that of medical orthodoxy. Who decides what is true and what is false in medicine, and how do they do it? Make no mistake - this is a deep and abiding problem which

afflicts not just scientific medicine, but science in general.
If a doctor, confronted with a web-page claiming that allergies are caused by space aliens intent on
destroying Western civilisation, snorts ‘Rubbish!’, he or she is not, strictly speaking, taking a scientific approach. In science, you should consider all the different

hypotheses.
In theory, science works by questioning everything and taking nothing on trust - but you can’t make much practical progress if you stick rigorously to that approach. Neither

scientists nor doctors start their careers by running experiments to establish the truth of everything they were ever taught. At some point in science, and in scientific

medicine, you have to assume that certain things are probably true, and proceed accordingly. If you make significant progress working on those assumptions, then the chances are

they were correct. But a good scientist always remembers that they are only assumptions.
Scientific medicine rests on a huge number of assumptions. Some of these are clearly accurate - for example, that eating wheat triggers coeliac disease -and it would be

time-wasting to argue about them. But this ‘fact’ about coeliac disease began as just a theory (see p. 70), and a highly debatable one. It has taken time for it to become

substantiated by more and more evidence.
Some medical assumptions become enshrined as facts rather too quickly. Fifty years ago, orthodox medicine accepted as a ‘fact’ that many asthmatic children had ‘intrinsic

asthma’, which was psychological in origin. Research since then has shown that there is almost always an allergy underlying childhood asthma. Many other examples could be given

of medical ‘facts’ that are overturned by subsequent research.
Doctors thirst for certainty, something that is quite understandable when they are faced with so much human need. A significant part of the healing power of medicine comes from

placebo effect (see p. 233), and that relies on patients having faith in the doctor. The traditional way for doctors to cultivate that faith was by assuming an air of absolute

certainty - about their diagnosis of the patient’s illness, about the treatment, and about medicine in general. This need for certainty has always hastened the transformation of

assumptions into facts.
The fatherly authoritarian attitude of old-fashioned doctors was, in large part, a reflection of how little they had in the way of useful treatments, and how much they relied on

placebo effect. Modern doctors have far more genuinely effective remedies to offer and can afford to take a different approach. Many now rely on a different kind of authority,

one based on intelligence, good information, flexibility, curiosity and openness. It’s a form of authority that allows a doctor to say ‘I could be wrong…’ or, ‘Let’s try this

and see what happens…’ without losing face.
Unfortunately, there is another powerful force at work in this complex situation, and that is quackery -the age-old business of selling phoney cures (see p. 209). Official

bodies within the medical community try to curb quackery by weighing the evidence about novel treatments and coming to decisions on their validity. This can be very useful. But

in deciding what is, and what is not, good scientific medicine, medical organizations always run the risk of mistaking their own unverified assumptions for facts.
Establishing criteria for good treatment is essential in medicine, but when this develops into dogmatism, that is decidedly unhealthy. Among the treatments that are being

dismissed as valueless today, there are
several that deserve a fairer hearing.
Some of these treatments have been shown to work by the most excellent of scientific methods. The use of elimination diets in Crohn’s disease is a good example - for some

patients, there is a huge and sustained improvement, suggesting that their disease was caused, at least in part, by food sensitivity. The tactic used by those who want to reject

this evidence is simply to ignore it. When scientific review papers (summaries of all the current knowledge and latest research) are written about Crohn’s disease, the research

on diet is usually not mentioned. Evidence that is routinely ignored in this way slips into oblivion because most doctors only have time to read the review papers, not the

original research reports.
Occasionally - and this is even more shameful -good scientific evidence that goes against the grain of current orthodoxy is actually misreported in review papers. This happened

with an impeccable scientific study showing the benefits of an elimination diet for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis. By missing out certain key facts, a review author

managed to give the impression that the results of this study supported the conventional view on the subject (that diet makes no difference to rheumatoid arthritis), whereas

they actually disputed the conventional view.
Unthinking rejection of new treatments often occurs with currently untreatable diseases such as autism and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). Such medical problems always attract

experimental treatments, just as they always attract sheer quackery, and sorting out one from the other is not easy - it takes time, and a clear-headed approach, not knee-jerk

dismissal.

FOOD SENSITIVITY IN ASTHMA, ECZEMA AND OTHER ALLERGIC DISEASES
In 1995, medical researchers in North Carolina, USA, asked over a hundred dermatologists how they treated atopic eczema. All used standard treatments such as moisturisers and steroid creams, but only 14% mentioned the possible role of food to the parents of children with eczema.
Between them, the dermatologists in this study treated about 17,000 children with atopic eczema per year. Using the most widely accepted estimates for food sensitivity in atopic eczema –38% of eczematous children are sensitive to food – one can calculate that there were over 5000 children in this study area who might perhaps have benefited from avoiding a problem food, but whose parents were never told about this treatment option.
North Carolina is by no means unique. The situation is much the same in other parts of the world, which adds up to millions of children and parents not even being told about a treatment that is frequently effective.
Other allergic diseases (see right) can also be triggered by food, although the percentage of patients affected is much lower than for atopic eczema. Here too, many doctors are unaware of (or sceptical about) the possible role of food.
These reactions are best described as ‘food sensitivity’. They cannot be called food allergy (see p. 62) if there are no symptoms in the mouth or gut and if skin-prick tests are negative – as is often the case. Negative skin tests suggest that the reaction is not IgEmediated (see box on p. 12).
However, in some children with atopic eczema. the skin-prick tests to culprit foods are positive. When these foods are eaten after a period of avoidance, such children sometimes suffer an
immediate reaction, with symptoms typical of true food allergy. For these individuals, their atopic eczema seems to be a symptom of IgE-mediated food allergy.
How can an atopic eczema reaction in response to food be IgE-mediated in one individual and not in another? Research is finally beginning to answer this question (see pp. 18-19).
The allergic conditions that may sometimes be induced, or simply aggravated, by a non-immediate reaction to food are:
• atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis)
• asthma
• perennial allergic rhinitis (constantly blocked or runny nose)
• chronic sinusitis
• secretory otitis media (’glue ear’).
In all of these conditions, many other causes exist. Except in the case of eczema, the other causes are far more likely than sensitivity to food. This fact will weigh heavily with your doctor, whose instinct, quite sensibly, is to look for likely causes first.
Taking asthma as an example, food sensitivity is relatively unusual as a primary cause, whereas allergy to airborne items. such as pollen or house-dust mite, is very common. Food probably affects only 8-10% of asthmatics overall, but is much more important for those with brittle asthma (the most severe and unstable form), affecting as many as 60% in a recent study.
The pollen connection
People who suffer from both birch-pollen allergy and atopic eczema may have worsening eczema when they eat certain fruits and vegetables, e.g. apples and carrots. These same foods cause Oral Allergy Syndrome (see box on p. 63) in some with birch-pollen hayfever, but they can aggravate eczema without causing Oral Allergy Syndrome.
Diagnosis
Consider other likely allergens first. Look at p. 28 for the airborne allergens that could play a part in perennial allergic rhinitis, chronic sinusitis, secretory otitis media (’glue ear’), and asthma. Only in the case of children with atopic eczema is food a prime suspect (between 38% and 69% of children with atopic eczema are affected by food), but even here there are a lot of other factors to consider (see pp. 43-4).
If you do decide to investigate the role of food, don’t abandon basic treatments in the meantime. By neglecting these. you could make the whole problem a great deal worse.
There are various clues that food is at fault:
• If you have other symptoms that suggest food intolerance (see p. 76). These problems often seem to go together with food-induced asthma or rhinitis.
• If you have noticed that a particular food makes your symptoms worse. Where there is intolerance to one food, there could well be intolerance to another, which you have not noticed.
• If you have exercise-induced asthma (see p. 41) and sometimes respond severely to exercise but sometimes have little or no reaction. Sensitivity to a food or foods may be instrumental in changing the response to exercise.
• If you have brittle asthma – but you must get your doctor’s consent for an elimination diet. Foods must be tested under medical supervision as severe life- threatening asthmatic reactions can occur on testing.
• If there are also digestive problems such as diarrhoea, vomiting or belching. This is a strong clue in the case of children with atopic eczema. Symptoms such as diarrhoea frequently precede atopic eczema, and it seems likely that a reaction to food in the gut increases the leakiness of the gut wall, allowing more food molecules through to the blood.
• If there is pronounced eczema around the mouth in children (but this can also be due to constant licking),
• For adults with atopic eczema, if there is a persistent rash on the hands, or the lips. Where there is a blistering rash on the hands that erupts at regular intervals, food is often the problem – or it may be metal contaminants of food such as nickel (see pp. 55-6). In general, food sensitivity is rarer among adults with atopic eczema than it is among children.
Skin-prick tests (see p. 91) for commonly eaten foods are worth
trying in all the diseases – if they give a positive result, they should
be noted, but if they give a negative one, they should be disre-
garded. The many alternative tests being marketed (see p. 93) are
highly inaccurate and unlikely to help.
Research from Tampere University Hospital in Finland suggests that babies are much more likely to give false-negative skin-prick tests for food than older children and adults with atopic eczema. The Finnish researchers found that 52% of babies with atopic eczema give a negative skin-prick test despite having a genuine reaction when tested by food challenge. In an attempt to tackle this problem, they have devised a patch test, similar to those used for contact dermatitis. The patch test, in which food is applied to intact skin and left there for two days, gives false negatives in only 39% of babies.
The best way to detect food-sensitive eczema, according to Dr Erika Isolauri. who heads the Finnish research team, is to use both tests, and take note of a positive reaction to either. This detects 80-90% of eczema-causing food reactions in infants.
Few other doctors are currently using patch tests for atopic eczema; because so much controversy surrounds this topic, and no standardised method has yet been devised. You may be lucky and find a specialist who does these tests.
To confirm the role of particular foods in atopic eczema, a food challenge test is essential, having first avoided the food carefully for two weeks. Great care is needed in testing (see p. 198).
If you cannot get suitable tests done. a simple elimination diet will be needed (see p. 198).
Treatment
There is a choice here, between avoiding the offending food, or eating normally and controlling the symptoms with drugs.
The difficulty comes when parents have to make this decision on behalf of their children. Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence as regards the consequences of this decision. Treating food sensitivity can reduce the eczema symptoms substantially in the short term, but it does not necessarily improve the long-term prospects for the child. Orthodox doctors tend to think that eating a normal diet is much better for a child nutritionally and socially, and they have a point.
Doctors with a special interest in food sensitivity generally believe that treating the problem at source, rather than just suppressing the symptoms with drugs, must take the pressure off the child’s immune system, and give the child a better chance of growing out of sensitivity reactions in the long run.
The decision is yours – but it is vital that the diet is not more of an encumbrance than the disease itself, and that the child’s interests come first (see pp. 170-71). Whatever you do, don’t allow a child to become malnourished (see p. 198).