Infants' Food Allergies Less Common Than Parents Believe

[Guest nini]

Open Original Shared Link

as most of us have come to learn a lot of food intolerances or sensitivities cannot always be confirmed by quantifiable test results... This study, In my opinion, does more harm to Parents who are learning to trust their instincts as opposed to relying on test results...

discuss...

[VydorScope]

During the course of the study, infants whose parents reported symptoms of food hypersensitivity underwent open food challenges. If these challenges suggested food hypersensitivity, the children then underwent double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges, which are considered the "gold standard" in diagnosing food hypersensitivity.

Nini, what is wrong with that test? Sounds like a darn good test to me.

[Guest nini]

the particular one that they did for this study? maybe nothing... my point was that parents should not be discouraged from trusting their instincts versus testing that may or may not confirm parental instinct...

[ravenwoodglass]

I read this article also. My main concern with it is they seem to be mainly testing histamine or allergic reactions more than intolerance. As many of us know there is a big difference in symtoms and reaction time between the two. They used skin prick tests for confirmation of reaction and intolerances do not show up this way.

[jerseyangel]

I read this article also. My main concern with it is they seem to be mainly testing histamine or allergic reactions more than intolerance. As many of us know there is a big difference in symtoms and reaction time between the two. They used skin prick tests for confirmation of reaction and intolerances do not show up this way.

That is what went thru my mind, too. How many of us have been through the skin prick type testing, only to find we are not *allergic* but most definately intolerant to a particular food! The article and study were fine, but I think that Nini is right in that allergy testing is not always the last word.

Editing myself here--I re read the article (again) and it says they did 2 types of food challenges, and they uncovered more intolerance than the allergy testing. I hope I got it right this time . I can be dense! That is really good news--

[VydorScope]

THats not what I get when I read it it clearly, to me, states they tested via the FOOD CHALLENGE and thats what most of you use here. The skin prck got exactly 1 sentence in the entire aritcle, it was just an aside. Seems to me their testing was very valid, in this case.

[shai76]

Our ENT and pediatric gastroenterologist agree that testing is unecessary, and we should go by how we feel our son reacts to the food, not by tests. They say he could turn out allergic to everything on the tests and then we would have a problem, or it could turn out he is allergic to nothing but he could still have reactions to foods. So they ask us to keep him on an elimination diet for as long as possible. However, I am thinking of asking for a RAST test again because it would be nice to have a starting point of where to begin with reintroducting things into his diet. He has had accidental exposure here and there, so we know he is still allergic to milk and corn, and soy intolerant. I'm definitly not giving him nuts at all for a few more years.

Also, That would be hard to put a one year old through skin prick testing. I wouldn't do it. Most of the time they draw the blood and do the RAST for such young children. They can test for more that way, and the child does not have to sit through all those pricks, then wait, then more pricks, then wait. And they can be dangerous. I had an anaphelectic reaction once to skin prick testing, so I can't do it ever again.

[Mango04]

THats not what I get when I read it it clearly, to me, states they tested via the FOOD CHALLENGE and thats what most of you use here. The skin prck got exactly 1 sentence in the entire aritcle, it was just an aside. Seems to me their testing was very valid, in this case.

I interpreted it differently. The article seems to state that if a food challenge suggests an allergy, but a skin prick test (or other clinical testing method) proves otherwise, then the child should not be put on any sort of restricted diet, for fear of inadequate nutrition. The article does not address the fact that a food intolerance, rather than an allergy, could be causing illness. I don't agree with the article. If I stop eating casein becasue I believe it makes me sick, and then I get a skin prick test that clinically proves I'm not allergic to milk, should I definitely assume that I should continue to eat casein? Um...no, because I have a casein intolerance, which can't neccessarily be clinically proven.

[AndreaB]

Interesting article.

I know that my infant son is extremely sensitive to ANY gluten that I ingest. He will break out with eczema. He's been eczema free since I cut out Rice Dream milk. I still have to do away with the gluten shampoo's ecetera. I plan on having him go through enterolab when he's old enough to get a sample from. I would be curious to see how he would come out in an allergy test. I'm not to keen on giving him gluten though, especially with how he reacts through the breastmilk. Maybe I can have everyone tested for allergies at some point. Very expensive since we have to pay for it out of pocket.

[shai76]

I also found the article too short and inconcise to really show the public the seriousness of adverse reactions to food. For example, living without wheat and dairy won't kill anyone, even if they are not allergic or intolerant to it. But articles like this tend to give people the impression that their sisters kid who is casein and gluten intolerant is not really allergic so her mom is just being fussy and paranoid. It's giving people a little bit of information instead of showing them the whole picture. The old saying is true that a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.

[AndreaB]

I interpreted it differently. The article seems to state that if a food challenge suggests an allergy, but a skin prick test (or other clinical testing method) proves otherwise, then the child should not be put on any sort of restricted diet, for fear of inadequate nutrition. The article does not address the fact that a food intolerance, rather than an allergy, could be causing illness. I don't agree with the article. Many people misunderstand food intolerances becasue they have no idea these are different than allergies. If I stop eating casein becasue I believe it makes me sick, and then I get a skin prick test that clinically proves I'm not allergic to milk, should I definitely assume that I should continue to eat casein? Um...no, because I have a casein intolerance.

Good point.

I had allergy testing done and found out I had an allergic reaction (IgG) to wheat, spelt, rye, gluten and gliadin for the gluten products. I was o.k. for barley and oats. Enterolab says I am intolerant to gluten. Soy allergic and intolerant. Dairy I have allergic reaction but am not intolerant.

I didn't understand the difference until I started reading more on this board and got my enterolab results back.

[Mango04]

Yeah, I think that if an average person is reading that article, and the person suspects that his/her child could possibly have a "food allergy", then, if anything, they might decide that taking their child off of the possibly offending food would not be the best thing to do because A) they are risking not providing their child with adequate nutrition and B.) the extensive testing they would need to go through to prove the allergy would just be too complicated, and they shouldn't put the child on the restricted diet until the allergy is clinically proven. Just my take. The article definitely does not provide enough information for such a serious subject. It could definitely be misleading. I think it's incorrect too. Aren't there thousands of kids who suffer from illness due to undiagnosed food sensitivities? I never thought there was an abundance of kids on restricted diets for no reason. Maybe the wheat and dairy industries paid a lot of money to get this article written lol.

[Guest nini]

I also found the article too short and inconcise to really show the public the seriousness of adverse reactions to food. For example, living without wheat and dairy won't kill anyone, even if they are not allergic or intolerant to it. But articles like this tend to give people the impression that their sisters kid who is casein and gluten intolerant is not really allergic so her mom is just being fussy and paranoid. It's giving people a little bit of information instead of showing them the whole picture. The old saying is true that a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.

this is precisely the point I was trying to make...

Yeah, I think that if an average person is reading that article, and the person suspects that his/her child could possibly have a "food allergy", then, if anything, they might decide that taking their child off of the possibly offending food would not be the best thing to do because A) they are risking not providing their child with adequate nutrition and B.) the extensive testing they would need to go through to prove the allergy would just be too complicated, and they shouldn't put the child on the restricted diet until the allergy is clinically proven. Just my take. The article definitely does not provide enough information for such a serious subject. It could definitely be misleading. I think it's incorrect too. Aren't there thousands of kids who suffer from illness due to undiagnosed food sensitivities? I never thought there was an abundance of kids on restricted diets for no reason. Maybe the wheat and dairy industries paid a lot of money to get this article written lol.

maybe they did! lol!

There study methodology seems to be sound, however they are only looking at allergies and intolerances, allergies can't always be proven... and intolerances can change in some cases... of course not where gluten is concerned, but the article is too misleading to the general public. If my sister read that same article she would think that I am an overproctective, hypochondriac mother that is depriving my child of the nutritional value of gluten.

[AndreaB]

There study methodology seems to be sound, however they are only looking at allergies and intolerances, allergies can't always be proven... and intolerances can change in some cases... of course not where gluten is concerned, but the article is too misleading to the general public. If my sister read that same article she would think that I am an overproctective, hypochondriac mother that is depriving my child of the nutritional value of gluten.

Nini,

My mother would be another one that would say this diet is not necessary and we are overreacting due to this article if she saw it. My children and I have no obvious symptoms (yet). We caught this early thanks to my infant son. My oldest son does have mild malabsorption which we would have never known.

My mom now thinks this diet will be much harder for her to try and feed us than the vegan diet that we were on before these allergies.