New additives are all tested very thoroughly, although there are rarely tests on humans – rats, mice, bacteria and human cells cultured in a test tube are the main subjects used for testing. There are quite a few reports of illness among food-workers handling certain additives, which raises the question of whether humans might react differently from these test animals. There has also been some concern about how well tests are carried out. A commercial laboratory in America, which was reponsible for over 30 per cent of the world’s safety testing, was found to have been fabricating their data for many years. Although the laboratory was closed down, many of the additives that were passed as safe on the basis of their tests are still in use.

Concern has also been expressed over the possibility of ‘cocktail effects’ – the unknown impact of eating two or more additives together. A single meal can contain as many as 60 different additives, yet, surprisingly, the effect of additives in combination is never taken into account when setting safety standards. Very few tests have been carried out in this area,

because of lack of resources. One test, in which two preservatives were tested together, showed that they had a much greater effect in combination than when eaten separately. A public health specialist, writing in a book on additives published by the European Commission, comments: ‘It is not scaremongering to say that the possibility cannot be ruled out of two substances, both harmless by themselves, interacting to yield a product which is toxic.

*411\180\8*

If you get a reaction to any food, stop eating it immediately. You may be able to abort the symptoms by taking a mixture of sodium and potassium bicarbonate. It is not known how or why this works, but it appears to do so. However, it is only effective if you are clear of symptoms at the outset – it cannot be used as a general remedy for food-induced illnesses, and in any case, it should not be taken too often. Mix two level teaspoons of sodium bicarbonate (bicarbonate of soda) with one level teaspoon of potassium bicarbonate, dissolve in a small glass of warm water and drink as quickly as possible. Potassium bicarbonate should be obtainable from your chemist, although it may have to be ordered – if you want to try this remedy, rather than just sweating it out when you get a reaction to a food, then you should buy some in advance. Do not test any more foods until the symptoms have completely subsided.

*364\180\8*

A bottle-fed baby, or one that receives solids before three months of age, is exposed to large quantities of ‘foreign’ proteins entering the bloodstream, and there is ample evidence that these can cause allergic reactions. Even a baby that is never bottle-fed is not entirely safe. Proteins from the mother’s food can be absorbed intact from her gut and pass into her breast milk. Although the quantities involved are small, there is little doubt that these can sensitize an atopic child. In fact, the most violent reactions to cow’s milk are seen in children who have been sensitized via breast milk, rather than those that have been bottle-fed from birth. This might seem like a good argument for bottle-feeding, on the face of it, but bear in mind that these violent reactions are rare, whereas the less acute but very troublesome symptoms that might result from bottle-feeding are far more widespread.

The advice generally given to parents of high-risk babies is to feed the baby on nothing but breast milk for the first four to six months of life. Weaning should then be conducted at a very gradual pace, with breast-feeding continuing until the child is a year old if possible. If breast milk is still supplying most of the baby’s food needs, then the amount of solid food eaten can be much less.

*317\180\8*

One aspect of colic is difficult to explain from either viewpoint – the fact that the symptoms tend to disappear or diminish at about three months of age. The traditional explanation is that all mothers with colicky babies – regardless of what sort of people they are or what else is happening in their lives – suddenly become more confident and relaxed at this point. This seems implausible, to say the least, but is there an alternative explanation that is compatible with food intolerance? One possibility is that the colic represents an initial ‘crisis’ reaction as the child is exposed to large amounts of cow’s-milk or other foreign proteins. The child later ‘adapts’ to the problem foods, and the colic apparently clears up, but its sensitivity continues in the form of other, less acute symptoms, such as eczema, asthma or diarrhoea. There is ample evidence from case-histories that this might happen – and the retrospective study described above supports the idea.

*266\180\8*

All of us, patients and doctors alike, are conditioned to think about food and other aspects of our environment in a particular way. As civilized inhabitants of temperate climes, we can indulge in the luxury of regarding ‘nature’ as safe and welcoming, and of thinking of food as entirely wholesome and beneficial. These attitudes are part of our culture, another luxury that we simply take for granted, like armchairs or motor cars. If we are to understand food intolerance, some of these accepted ideas need to be challenged.

Much of the medical prejudice against food intolerance is rooted in the idea that food – as long as it is part of a balanced diet – ‘cannot be bad for you’. What is often forgotten is that our foods were not designed specifically for human consumption, but were drawn from a pool of wild plants and animals that were domesticated by the first farmers.

In the wild, most food items are reluctant food items. They do not want to be eaten, and their efforts to stay off the menu are part of what Charles Darwin called the ’struggle for existence’. Most animals can run away, or fight back, but plants do not have this option.

Their defence is based partly on thorns and prickles, but far more important than these is the array of invisible chemical weapons that pervade almost all plant tissues. Some of these simply taste bad, others cause vomiting or other ill-effects. A few even mimic the hormones of insects or mammals and thus disrupt their growth or sexual development.

Plant-eating animals have, in the course of their evolution, simply adapted to these chemicals in their food. They can detoxify them sufficiently to be able to feed on their chosen food or foods, and the plants can ward them off sufficiently to stay alive. It is rather like the situation between criminals and the police, where each side becomes increasingly cunning, better armed and more ruthless, but neither side ever wins and obliterates the other. The term ‘biological arms race’ aptly describes this situation.

*18\180\8*