Patrick Holford, IgG Food Intolerance Self-Testing and the House of Lords

Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University and Head of Science and Education at Biocare is a staunch advocate of direct to consumer IgG food intolerance tests and is impressed by the “sound science” that underlies these tests. Holford is convinced that:

The evidence for IgG antibody reactions as a basis for food intolerances continues to grow, including well designed randomised controlled trials, however, some health professionals just haven’t kept up to date. Perhaps it’s because a ‘home test’ takes the power away from the professional and puts it in your hands.

However, Holford is also swayed by the scientific research for a neck pendant that protects wearers from the evil eye of electromagnetic radiation so one might be tempted to generalise from that as to the scientific credibility of some of his endorsements.

Professional organisations throughout the world have issued statements about IgG food intolerance testing that make it clear that:

There is no credible evidence that measuring IgG antibodies is useful for diagnosing food allergy or intolerance, nor that IgG antibodies cause symptoms.

Clinical allergists and immunologists with impeccable research records and many years of clinical experience have explained that there is no scientific support for the role of IgG testing in the diagnosis of food intolerance. One particularly exasperated expert, the redoutable and remarkably compelling Dr Glenis Scadding, Consultant Allergist at the Royal Nose, Ear and Throat Hospital, characterised IgG tests for food intolerance as “a waste of money”:

What I do dispute is that it is worth making any attempt to identify IgG antibodies. We all make IgG antibodies to food….I see no way in which this can be used to guide diet.

I don’t think there’s any point in spending money on IgG antibody tests. You’re better off going to see a dietitian and using an exclusion diet followed by reintroduction. The IgG antibody tests are liable to leave patients on diets that are inadequate and patients often like to think they’re improving. They carry on in the teeth of very little improvement and may end up malnourished.

I think [self-testing kits] should be banned.

Back in 2006, the House of Lords appointed a committee to investigate allergy and allergic disease in the UK. The Committee investigated some important issues with implications for public health and public policy. They heard extensive evidence on the role of appropriate allergy testing and the lack of scientific support for currently available direct to consumer food intolerance or allergy tests.

Well, it rather seems as if the House of Lords Committee has greater confidence in the undisputed expertise of Scadding and other comparable experts rather than Holford who has no original clinical research or even indexed, peer-reviewed publications in this area. In a comprehensive report HL 166-I (pdf from which pg numbers are given), they make a number of good recommendations and provide some useful summaries. Pages 86-88 cover the issue of direct-to-consumer tests such as the YorkTest foodSCAN IgG test for food intolerance and the YorkTestAllergy UK MAST IgE test for allergies to food and airborne allergens, amongst others. The committee noted:

Dr. Gill Hart, Technical Director of YorkTest Laboratories, a company which manufactures such tests, told us that the presence of either IgE or IgG antibodies does not necessarily prove whether a food allergy exists, but claimed that IgG could be used “as a marker that a reaction has occurred” (Q 742). However, there is limited evidence to support this claim.

Furthermore, the EAACI even discredited the use of well validated tests based on IgE antibodies if they are used on a self-testing basis. This was because the tests “cannot be interpreted without a detailed clinical history taken by an allergy-trained individual, thus over the counter and postal testing is open to misinterpretation unless expert opinion is available” (p 70)…

Dr Hart admitted that the mechanisms used in the tests were “unclear…”…

Given the lack of evidence for these services we were concerned to learn that Allergy UK recommended the Yorktest service for food intolerance. The charity acknowledged that a patient’s best option would be to consult a dietician, but noted that “being able to obtain a referral to a dietician who understands food intolerance is extremely difficult on the NHS” (p 303).
[Emphasis added.]

I would hope that the BDA responds to this claim by Allergy UK. I would imagine that the BDA would argue that dietitians have a considerably better knowledge of food intolerance than people who rely upon the results of a test of no proven scientific or clinical efficacy or who find themselves recommending YorkTest on the rather desperate grounds of faute de mieux:

It’s a lack of other places to send these people to. Err, we would give the YorkTest purely because it’s the only one that has undergone trials-particularly for IBS and that’s what we would say, that we would [be] happy to endorse it for, would be for those kind of symptoms. Eh, but, you know, we wouldn’t recommend any other test.

Desperate people searching for solutions do not need to be fobbed off with expensive tests of no proven efficacy in the hope that it will provide a palliative of dubious duration. It is unfortunate that people who are already in distressed circumstances may restrict their social activities because of the perceived difficulty of living with allergies and intolerances that may be inappropriately diagnosed.

Holford Watch is not optimistic that Holford is heeding the expert opinion of others but the House of Lords summed up their advice as follows (pg 87):

We are concerned both that the results of allergy self testing kits available to the public are being interpreted without the advice of appropriately trained healthcare personnel, and that the IgG food antibody test is being used to diagnose food intolerance in the absence of stringent scientific evidence…We urge general practitioners, pharmacists and charities not to endorse the use of these products until conclusive proof of their efficacy has been established.

It almost seems gratuitous to add that the House of Lords aligns themselves with clinical experts in their notion of who is qualified to diagnose allergies and allergic disease (hint, it is not the typical holder of a Diploma ION nor an auto-didact nor self-proclaimed expert; pg 89):

An accurate diagnosis is key to treating an allergic condition adequately, and much depends on taking an accurate patient history with details of a patient’s symptoms, home and occupational environment, temporal and geographic features, relevant family history and any physical signs. Diagnostic tests are often based on skin tests, blood tests and challenge tests. But the results of tests are meaningless in isolation; they have to be interpreted in the context of the patient history, a difficult task which requires a solid training in allergy.
[Emphasis added.]


The report makes interesting reading and there are many useful recommendations that would make a dramatic difference to allergy services within the UK and a significant difference to the appropriate management of allergic disease and the quality of life of many people. One of the most striking recommendations is the unequivocal support for the re-introduction of immunotherapy as a management technique for allergy and allergic disease with appropriate caveats governing the people and conditions for whom/which this is most effective and the setting for such treatment (a specialist tertiary centre).

It is important that an evidence-based approached should be used in the managment of allergies and allergic disease that have the potential to be life-threatening and can have a significant impact on quality of life. It is too common, particularly for parents who are desperate to help distressed children, that desperate people seek private testing that have no scientific or clinical support. Professor Gideon Lack specialises in the allergic mechanisms of asthma in children. He was sufficiently concerned about the importance of appropriate advice and testing that he conducted a survey of the allergy advice parents have received before they attended his paediatric allergy clinic: his findings were both eye-opening and alarming.

We found almost 50% had received alternative health care advice about allergies before coming to see us. I would say that of the children who come to our clinic at least 10% and possibly up to 20% have received unsound advice; these children will face nutritional problems.

The redoutable Dr Scadding may not have achieved her tongue-in-cheek wish that such direct to consumer tests as the ones lauded by Holford should be banned but it is a good sign that the House of Lords report makes such strong recommendations urging charities and responsible professionals not to endorse such tests until there is evidence of clinical efficacy.

Further reading on IgG and food intolerance tests



Filed under Electromagnetic Radiation, EMR, food intolerance, Holford, home test, IgG tests, intolerance, patrick holford

13 responses to “Patrick Holford, IgG Food Intolerance Self-Testing and the House of Lords

  1. Claire

    With regard to the allergen immunotherapy, Dr de Asis has a couple of relevant posts, particularly this one – – where she provides information (in comments) on what patients are most suitable

  2. Good point, Claire. I’ll amend to make it explicit that immunotherapy is not the default standard of care for everybody and must be handled by appropriately qualifed and experienced personnel in an appropriate setting.

    I am mindful of the distressing experience of the mother and son during the peanut challenge that was related as part of a R4 programme on allergies. Despite the mother’s obvious concern that her son was developing a reaction, as reported, the nurse in question continued until the boy developed anaphylaxis. This is a wretched story but indicative of what happens when allergy is not managed by suitably experienced and credentialled clinicians.

  3. Pingback: Patrick Holford and His “Deeply Impressive” Scientific Proof « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

  4. LeeT

    Section 8.23 states “The ways in which complimentary therapists diagnose allergic reactions are considerably different from those used by conventional practitioners. We were therefore disappointed at the lack of response from complementary practitioners to our Call for Evidence.”

    Some one from the Research Ethics Committee of the Society of Homeopaths gave evidence. It is surprising that neither BANT or the ION gave edvidence to the committee given that nutritional therapists diagnose food allergies. One would have thought they would have welcomed the opportunity to give an account of themselves. Surely they work on some kind of ethical basis? Oh no, I remember they do have an ethical code – they just don’t want anyone knowing what it is!

  5. Yes, Lee, homeopaths gave evidence but I wonder if some rather wish that Ms Chatfield of Society of Homeopaths had not…

    Some notable exchanges:

    Lord Taverne asked Ms Chatfield to explain the difference between homeopathy and isopathy and asked her to compare them with “conventional treatments in efficacy and cost”. Despite the assertions about the comparative costs in the written evidence, Ms Chatfield says that she doesn’t have enough information to speak about the comparative costs. Ms Chatfield presents her explanation about homeopathy and isopathy and then, rather charmingly, adds:

    I think homeopaths would consider homeopathy more effective than isopathy but I do not think we have any evidence to show that.

    Lord Broers: I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?

    Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.

  6. As for BANT and ION, I rather think that they rely upon IgG testing etc. Hmm.

  7. LeeT

    Homeopaths often claim their art works due to the fact water has a memory.

    Exclusively here on Holford Watch I can reveal just how it all works. Before treatment they put some of Higher Nature’s “Advanced Brain Food Formula” (formulated by Patrick Holford) in the water. The H2O then has a great memory and …ummm … hey presto:

    I now want a Nobel Prize!

  8. Tea–>nose–>monitor

    However, I’ve seen worse cases of support for prestigious academic positions…

  9. Pingback: Patrick Holford Endorses Allergy/Intolerance Blood Test: House of Lords Wants Responsible Professionals to Cease Endorsement of Such Techniques « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

  10. Nigel

    Even the BBC have swallowed the YorkTest lies. It’s shocking to see the shoddy quality of the journalism that our licence fee funds. A lovely touch in this report is the comment from the “qualified nutritionist” – a title that means nothing. See

  11. Thanks Nigel – that’s interesting (and depressing) to know. The article I’d seen on the BBC site was better – mentioned Yorktest as the sponsor of the survey, but didn’t mention the tests they offer ;) That report you linked was terrible, though :(

    Even more disappointing given that the BBC’s Watchdog carried out a good, and very critical, investigation into Yorktest tests.

  12. Pingback: Common Myths « Holford Myths: what is the problem with Nutritionist Patrick Holford?

  13. Julie Smith

    Wow, I never knew that Patrick Holford, IgG Food Intolerance Self-Testing and the House of Lords. That’s pretty interesting…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s