Allergy and Intolerance Under Scrutiny by House of Lords

The House of Lords has a Science and Technology Committee that is one of the main investigative committees in the UK. The Committee is a major forum of independent expertise and its broad remit is “to consider science and technology”. The S & T Committee investigates a range of topics including those with public policy implications and assessing health and research priorities. Committee recommendations are largely directed at Government, though they may also have implications for industry, the professions and consumers and the general public.

Presently, Sub Committee 1 is investigating allergy and allergic diseases and their associated range of policy issues. However, because allergy service provision was recently examined by the House of Commons Health Committee and the Department of Health, it is not the primary focus of this enquiry.

The Committee has specified some interesting questions. The questions are designed to:

• define the problem
• explore treatment and management strategies and areas for research
• investigate the impact of government policies (e.g., housing provision or food labelling legislation)
• consider patient and consumer issues.

I have a particular interest in this last area because the Committee is inviting evidence on:

• What can be done to better educate the public and to improve the quality of information that is available to patients and undiagnosed sufferers?
• Are current regulatory arrangements, for example, those governing private clinics offering diagnostic and therapeutic services and the sale of over the counter allergy tests, satisfactory?

I'm particularly interested in this because a lot of the coverage of allergy and intolerance is such sloppy journalism that it adds to the confusion of people who are looking for accurate and helpful information. Nutritionists who should know much better refer to food allergy and intolerance as if they are synonymous: e.g., see the transcript of a web chat on food allergies by Patrick Holford.

I don't think that most consumers are aware of the lack of evidence to support the claims that some over-the-counter DIY diagnosis tests are clinically-validated or have sound science to support them. I know when I've discussed these tests with some people, they assume that approval by, e.g., Medical Devices, MHRA, means that the test is validated. However, that approval may just cover the use of an approved sterile lancet or appropriate cleaning swab, e.g., some of the individual elements of a kit: it does not verify that the test is effective.

The Committee collected written evidence last year (scroll down the page)and is currently listening to oral evidence. The written evidence is of uneven quality and I shall discuss some of it in the future. Some of the oral evidence will be available for a limited time on Parliament Live TV and I look forward to listening to it.

The Committee shall release its recommendations in the form of a report in June.

Flickr credits for the images. 1. question, 2. Questions?