"Food Allergy Diagnosis 'an Inexact Science'"

A food allergy does not have a universally accepted definition, and it does not have accepted criteria for diagnosis. Some people who have severe food allergies may not respond to the common tests, and others may be avoiding certain foods, but they may not even have a food allergy. There is no cure for food allergies, and it is uncertain why people develop food allergies. There are three main tests to see if one has a food allergy, the skin prick test- a small amount of certain foods are put in below the surface of the skin,- blood tests- test blood for the allergy related antibody Immunoglobulin E,- and the patch test- one wears a patch of a possible allergen on their skin for a few days. However, these tests are not positive, or 100% correct all of the time. They do not include how severely one will react to a certain allergen or how they will react if they ingest that substance. Other methods should be considered, because if one relies just on the test alone, many may be over-diagnosed. New guidelines are being worked on and are intended on being out the fall of 2010. The guidelines include physicians to go through the patient's history and exclude other possibilities, then use a skin or blood test, and then (if the test is positive) follow up with giving the patient the allergen in a controlled setting. Regardless of the new guidelines, diagnosing food allergies will continue to be a challenge, but figuring out if one really has an allergy is important, because allergies limiting, socially and nutritionally.

I find this article extremely interesting considering that multiple times this year, I have gone through different tests and such, and I possibly have a food allergy to MSG. Reading this article almost made me laugh from how accurate it is and how opening/informative it was. I knew that telling if someone had a food allergy was difficult, but I never realized it was this difficult. From reading this article, it sounds pretty much like a guessing game. I don't know if it's possible to find a better, more certain way to test a person for food allergies, but I sure wish there was. The article says, "It's a limiting diagnosis; it's difficult socially, it's difficult nutritionally..." this quote is so true. I'm not 100% sure that I have a food allergy, but this year has been extra difficult for me because I've been dealing with the possibility. I got a rash/hives from whatever it is that I'm allergic to, and it really does limit you socially... a lot! Even if other people don't really notice, it makes everything more difficult. With the added stress, and frustration... things would definitely be much easier if there was a clear test that could say 'yes, you are allergic to this allergen,' but, no such luck. I think that the new guidelines they are working on are definitely needed, and hopefully they are successful and show improvement. However, I have a feeling that food allergies will always be a big guessing game, or if they do come up with some way to tell, the test will be so expensive that the average person will not be able to afford it. Doctors and medicine and tests are discovered and are made to help people, so I don't understand why they are all so expensive that so many people can not take the help they need and are offered... I guess life wasn't made to be easy, we all have to have some major challenges. For all of the people suffering from food allergies out there; I feel for you, and, in the future, I wish us all success!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/11/food.allergies.definition/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29