Welcome to New Time

Each week we bring you new articles and opinions from people working in the orgo-eco-ethical sector

 

Home . Contact Us . Living Ethically

---

Food intolerances*
a view from both sides of the fence

It is time to draw on science to establish once and for all whether food intolerance is genuinely a modern scourge.

That means fewer accusations from all camps and a lot more commitment - from governments, health services and the food industry - to clinical studies that will unravel an issue we barely understand.

In the absence of data, gut feelings are leading to an explosion in self-diagnosis. The UK dairy council claims that 45 per cent of Britons now believe they are intolerant to food of one sort or another.

Earlier research by the British Nutrition Foundation put the figure for British people classifying themselves as food intolerant at one-fifth of the population. But the same study reported that while doctors generally thought food intolerance was rising, there were no medical investigations available to support or refute the claim.

Indeed, some of the evidence suggests that there is nothing so likely to produce food intolerance as cutting out specific foods: meaning that the current surge in awareness of allergies as a potential health problem may end up putting in place a food-intolerant population of the future.

As it is, the lack of evidence is now leading to deeply entrenched emotional stances. Journalist Felicity Lawrence alluded to this problem in her 2004 book ‘Not On The Label’. And, within the last two months, Carole Caplin has warned against promoting milk consumption because of rising milk allergy, in her column for the UK’s second best-selling Sunday newspaper, the Mail on Sunday. She also wrote another article entitled: ‘How to wean yourself off milk’.

This kind of campaigning stance has only pushed the food industry the other way. The UK Dairy Council put out a press release rubbishing Caplin’s stance, while a senior figure in the bakery industry has completely rejected any problem with industrial bread in the strongest of terms.

We need more quality research into the whole idea of food intolerance. This research needs to include real patients and address the fact that current diagnosis testing is not up to the job. Only then may food intolerance come in from the fringes of medical thinking too. The problem lacks resources and respect in the mainstream health service, but a vicious circle develops as patients are forced to seek ‘alternative’ practitioners. This only dents further the credibility of patients - who may be suffering genuine allergies - with the science-based mainstream.

Studies have been done and a variety of books have been written, but not in the form or the depth necessary for us to be clear whether the problem is as widespread as is suggested. Yet, food intolerance is a problem. Food intolerances and allergies do exist, possibly in greater numbers than is now thought in some circles, and we should not shy away from it.

New statistics from the European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients’ Associations claim that four per cent of adults and eight per cent of children in the EU now have food allergies.

The list of ingredients with the potential to cause allergies or intolerances continues to grow, including nuts, wheat, eggs, tomatoes, dairy (lactose), yeast, seafood, soy and even citrus fruits.

However, unless an allergic reaction in the body can be proved, as with the gluten allergy in coeliac disease, symptoms of food intolerance sufferers remain very generic. They may include a range of problems, such as depression and migraines to bloating and abdominal pains.

The status quo for food companies has recently changed adding fuel to the fire, from 25th November last year, the EU began enforcing new rules requiring food firms to declare on labels whether a product contains potential food allergens. Accurate diagnosis of patients and competent testing for allergen content will be essential for the food industry in light of the increasingly litigious nature of the court system.

Several firms have launched testing kits for potential allergen content, while a new Food Allergy Research Consortium has just been launched in the US with $17m for five-year’s research.

These are at least steps in the right direction, yet it will take a lot more money and a lot more commitment to serious medical study to improve knowledge of food intolerance worldwide.

*Footnote, Vegetarian Society definition of intolerance and allergy

“Food allergy is often mistaken for food intolerance. It is important to note that allergy is only one of a number of possible reasons for food intolerance.

Food intolerance can be defined as a condition where particular adverse effects occur after eating a particular food or food ingredient. Genuine food intolerance is different from psychologically based food aversion, where a person strongly dislikes a food and believes that a food produces a particular reaction.

A genuine food allergy is when a specific immune reaction occurs in the body in response to consuming a particular food. Allergies often run in families, and people who are allergic to some foods may also be allergic to other environmental factors, such as house dust, animal fur and pollen.

A true allergic response involves an altered or abnormal tissue reaction to an antigen. An antigen can be a protein, a substance bound to a protein, a food additive or less commonly, a polysaccharide. The antigen combines with an antibody and produces an immune response, which results in cell damage and the release of histamine. The immune system plays an essential role in our bodies in protecting us from the invasion of harmful substances. An allergy occurs when the mechanism operates inappropriately in response to a harmless substance such as a particular food protein.”

For more information see http://www.vegsoc.org/info/allergy.html

Posted: 30 January 2006