IgG food-intolerance panels

1. Introduction

Version followed: consumer IgG food-intolerance panels as sellers describe them (YorkTest's food intolerance test as presented on a Boots Health Hub page; YorkTest's earlier "FirstStep" programme as summarised in the UK Advertising Standards Authority's 2021 ruling; a US direct-to-consumer IgG panel as reported by STAT in 2018), read against the published positions of EAACI (2008, as endorsed by AAAAI in 2010), CSACI (2012), ASCIA (2024) and the British Dietetic Association (2022). This guide describes the panels as their sellers present them and sets out the psychotherapist's own work alongside them; the psychotherapist does not order, sell, interpret, recommend or design diets from these tests.

What it is. A blood sample, usually a home finger-prick, is sent to a laboratory that measures food-specific IgG antibodies (one seller states all four IgG subclasses) against a panel of foods; one current UK panel lists about 200 food and drink ingredients. Results are presented as foods to which the person is said to be "intolerant" or "sensitive", and are typically paired with a nutrition consultation and an elimination-diet programme [source: Boots Health Hub page on YorkTest; ASA ruling 2021].

The sellers' model of change. Sellers equate a raised food-specific IgG level with food intolerance; removing the flagged foods is held to relieve symptoms. In the ASA ruling, the advertiser defined food intolerance as a "food-specific IgG reaction" and its advertising linked elimination to relief of migraine and (on its website) depression [source: ASA ruling 2021]. US sellers have pointed to small elimination-diet studies and argued that professional views diverge [source: STAT 2018].

The professional-society position, in one line. Allergy societies state that food-specific IgG reflects exposure to (and tolerance of) foods, not allergy or intolerance, and advise against using it to diagnose or to plan diets [source: AAAAI 2010 endorsement of EAACI 2008; CSACI 2012; ASCIA 2024; ADLM test-utilisation guide].

The psychotherapist's role. The clinical work is the person, not the test: what the result means to them, what they now believe about food and their body, whether their eating has narrowed, whether a child is affected, and whether they are getting proper medical and dietetic assessment. Several sources flag eating-disorder relevance directly: the BDA notes that such kits may give people with eating disorders false explanations for symptoms caused by under-eating and may reinforce food rules [source: BDA 2022]; ASCIA lists "food anxiety" among harms of unnecessary avoidance [source: ASCIA 2024].

2. Framework

2a. The method as sellers present it

Purchase. Sold online, through pharmacies and through practitioners; CSACI reports direct sale through pharmacies and promotional material placed in physicians' waiting rooms without consent [source: CSACI 2012; Boots page].
Sample. Home finger-prick with a lancet; sample posted to the seller's laboratory [source: Boots page]. One US seller reported by STAT does not test anyone under 18 [source: STAT 2018].
Results. Delivered online as a list of foods with raised IgG; one UK seller's results go to an online "Wellness Hub" [source: Boots page].
Consultation and diet. A telephone consultation with a nutrition practitioner, who advises whether an "elimination diet programme" suits the customer [source: Boots page]. The earlier UK programme described in the ASA ruling comprised an initial screening test, further food-specific tests, an elimination diet and nutritional-therapist consultations [source: ASA ruling 2021].
Reintroduction procedures, duration and food lists are not described here (and fall outside this guide's scope).

2b. Who offers it

Direct-to-consumer laboratories, pharmacies and some nutrition and complementary practitioners [source: CSACI 2012; Boots page; STAT 2018]. CSACI does not support licensed physicians or pharmacists offering the test and states that food reactions should be diagnosed and managed by a trained, accredited professional such as an allergist or clinical immunologist [source: CSACI 2012].

2c. Regulation and status (one line each)

UK (advertising): the ASA upheld complaints in 2021 that YorkTest's ads misleadingly implied an IgG test could identify food intolerances and that IgG-guided elimination could relieve migraine and depression; it also noted that CE marking is not evidence of efficacy [source: ASA ruling 2021]. CAP guidance (June 2025) says claims that testing identifies intolerances need a robust evidence base, and cites a further 2025 ruling against IgG-test claims [source: ASA/CAP AdviceOnline].
UK (medical device/IVD status): status of individual kits under MHRA in-vitro-diagnostic rules [uncertain: not verified].
US: reported in 2018 as laboratory-developed tests not regulated by the FDA [source: STAT 2018]; any change since under FDA laboratory-developed-test policy or CLIA [uncertain: not verified].
Canada: CSACI strongly discourages food-specific IgG testing and does not support physicians or pharmacists offering it [source: CSACI 2012].
Australia: ASCIA lists IgG food testing among non-evidence-based tests it does not recommend; online allergy tests are not Medicare-rebated [source: ASCIA 2024].
Norway (example of national paediatric practice): IgG testing is not part of the standard allergy work-up and is absent from the national paediatric guidance [source: Tidsskriftet 2020 commentary].
Evidence status (one line): allergy and laboratory-medicine bodies recommend against use for diagnosing food allergy or intolerance or planning elimination diets [source: AAAAI 2010; CSACI 2012; ADLM; ASCIA 2024].

2d. The psychotherapist's framework alongside it [synthesis]

No manual exists for the psychotherapist's role; the following phases are a working structure.

Notice and ask (any session): routine, non-judgemental inquiry; record what was tested, when, by whom, what was cut out. Move on when you know whether eating has changed.
Understand (woven into ongoing therapy): meaning, hopes, explanatory model, what the result has done to daily life. Move on when the client's own goals are clear.
Screen for risk (same sessions, revisited): eating-disorder and ARFID features, children in the household, weight loss or growth concerns, known or possible IgE allergy, financial strain. Any red flag moves straight to coordination or safeguarding.
Decide and coordinate: values-based discussion of next steps; with consent, contact with GP/paediatrician, allergist or registered dietitian. Move on once a medical/dietetic route is in place or the client has made an informed choice not to pursue one.
Ongoing work: health anxiety, food anxiety, somatic symptom focus, family conflict; monitor eating breadth and wellbeing at review points.

Format: within ordinary individual, couple or family sessions; no separate session count is specified by any source.

3. Guiding principles

Curiosity before correction. Ask what the test meant to the client before giving any information; corrective facts land better once the person feels understood [synthesis].
Stay in role. You are not the allergist or dietitian: you do not interpret results, design or endorse a diet, or recommend a test; route clinical questions to qualified professionals [source: CSACI 2012 on who should diagnose food reactions; synthesis on role].
Name the professional consensus accurately and once. Societies state IgG reflects exposure, not intolerance; say this plainly, attribute it, and do not argue repeatedly [source: AAAAI 2010; CSACI 2012; synthesis on delivery].
Symptoms are real. A client's gut, skin, headache or fatigue symptoms deserve proper medical assessment whatever the test said; ASCIA notes that non-evidence-based testing can delay effective diagnosis [source: ASCIA 2024].
Track the breadth of eating, not the test. The clinically important variable is how much the person's diet, weight, growth, social eating and food anxiety have changed [source: CSACI 2012; ASCIA 2024; Merck Manual ARFID].
Eating-disorder lens always on. Test-driven restriction can mask or reinforce an eating disorder [source: BDA 2022].
Children get extra protection. Elimination diets risk poor growth and malnutrition in children [source: CSACI 2012; STAT 2018]; involve paediatric care and apply safeguarding thresholds [synthesis].
Allergy safety first. A negative or low IgG result does not exclude IgE-mediated allergy; reintroducing a food a person reacts to can be dangerous [source: AAAAI 2010; CSACI 2012].
Autonomy without abandonment. Adults may choose to keep using the test; respect that while keeping the door open to medical and dietetic care [synthesis].
No commerce, no conflicts. Do not sell, refer to, or receive benefit from testing or nutrition services; declare any personal or financial connection [synthesis; specific code provisions uncertain: not verified].
Document. Record the test, foods excluded, risk screen, information given, consent decisions and coordination [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

All interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work alongside a client's use of IgG panels. None involves ordering, interpreting or acting on a test result, and none sets diet content, quantities or durations. Where no source covers the step, it is marked [synthesis].

4.1 Routine, non-judgemental inquiry and recording

Purpose / when: at intake and whenever a client mentions food intolerance, bloating, "sensitivities", a new diet or a home health test. Establishes the facts without signalling disapproval [synthesis].
Steps:
1. Ask open questions about any health tests, diets or practitioners the client uses, in the same tone as asking about medicines [synthesis].
2. If an IgG panel is mentioned: what kind of test, who supplied it, whether a nutrition consultation followed, what was advised.
3. Map the change: which foods or food groups are now excluded, for how long (ask, but do not prescribe), any weight change, meals skipped, social eating avoided.
4. Ask who else in the household is following the results, especially children.
5. Ask whether a doctor, allergist or registered dietitian is involved.
6. Record the above factually in the notes, including the client's own words for the problem [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Some people I see have tried home food tests or special diets. Have you done anything like that?" / "What did the results suggest, and what have you changed since?" / "Is anyone else at home eating this way now?"
Watch for: shame or defensiveness (pace the inquiry); a long list of excluded foods; excluded whole food groups (BDA flags this) [source: BDA 2022]; children included; no medical involvement. Working when the client discusses the test openly and the record shows what has changed.

4.2 Exploring meaning, hopes and the explanatory model

Purpose / when: after 4.1, to understand what drew the client to the test and what the result does for them (relief at an explanation, control, distrust of medicine after being dismissed, identity, community, a family member's influence) [synthesis].
Steps:
1. Ask what was happening when they decided to test, and what they hoped to learn.
2. Ask what the result means to them about their body and health.
3. Explore experiences with medical care: were symptoms investigated, were they believed?
4. Ask what has improved and what has become harder since the result.
5. Reflect the function the explanation serves (e.g. a sense of order or control) without endorsing or debunking it.
Example language (illustrative): "What were you hoping the test would tell you?" / "It sounds like having a clear list felt like getting some control back after a long time of not being taken seriously." / "What has this way of eating cost you, if anything?"
Watch for: the result becoming the whole explanation for wide-ranging symptoms (low mood, fatigue, anxiety); signs that the explanation relieves distress about eating or weight (see 4.6). Working when the client can describe both benefits and costs of the change.

4.3 Accurate, attributed information on request

Purpose / when: when the client asks your view, or when a risk (child, eating disorder, possible allergy) makes it necessary to share what professional bodies say. Supports an informed decision; not a debate [synthesis].
Steps:
1. Ask permission: "Would it help to hear what allergy specialists say about this test?"
2. Give the attributed position in two or three sentences: allergy societies in Europe, the US, Canada and Australia state that food-specific IgG mainly reflects that a food has been eaten (exposure and tolerance), not allergy or intolerance, and advise against using it for diagnosis or diet planning [source: AAAAI 2010; CSACI 2012; ASCIA 2024]; UK advertising regulators have ruled against claims that IgG tests identify intolerances [source: ASA 2021; CAP 2025].
3. Add the safety point: a low IgG result does not rule out a true (IgE-mediated) allergy [source: AAAAI 2010; CSACI 2012].
4. Separate the test from the symptoms: the symptoms still deserve assessment by a doctor and, for diet, a registered dietitian [source: ASCIA 2024; BDA 2022].
5. Ask what the client makes of this; stop if it becomes adversarial.
Example language (illustrative): "The allergy societies' view is that these antibodies mostly show which foods you've been eating, not which ones are causing problems. That doesn't mean your symptoms aren't real; it means they deserve a proper look."
Watch for: the client feeling judged or foolish (acknowledge money and hope invested); you sliding into advising on foods (stop and route to the dietitian). Working when the client can hold both their experience and the professional view.

4.4 Values-based decision support

Purpose / when: when the client is deciding whether to buy a test, continue an elimination diet, retest, or seek medical/dietetic assessment. No published decision aid specific to IgG testing is cited here [uncertain: not verified]; the approach is [synthesis].
Steps:
1. Clarify the decision in the client's words.
2. Elicit values (e.g. feeling well, eating with family, saving money, being taken seriously).
3. Lay out options neutrally, including medical assessment, dietetic support and continuing as now.
4. Offer ASCIA's questions to ask any provider: the published evidence, risks and benefits, side effects, cost and rebates, the provider's qualifications, and why the person's doctor has not suggested it [source: ASCIA 2024].
5. Summarise the client's choice and record it; agree what would prompt a review (e.g. weight loss, more foods dropped).
Example language (illustrative): "What matters most to you as you decide this?" / "ASCIA suggests some questions to put to anyone offering a test. Would you like to go through them?"
Watch for: pressure from a seller, practitioner, partner or online group; decisions made in a state of high health anxiety. Working when the choice is the client's and they can explain it in terms of their own values.

4.5 Coordination with the doctor, allergist and dietitian

Purpose / when: whenever symptoms are uninvestigated, foods or food groups are excluded, there is weight loss or growth concern, a child is involved, or an IgE allergy is possible. Sources state that food reactions should be diagnosed by trained professionals (allergist/clinical immunologist) using history, skin-prick or specific IgE tests and food challenge [source: CSACI 2012; ADLM], with dietetic support [source: BDA 2022].
Steps:
1. Explain why contact would help and obtain written consent specifying what will be shared [synthesis].
2. Share facts only: the test used, foods excluded, eating changes, weight or growth concerns, psychological observations (anxiety, possible eating disorder).
3. Do not ask the doctor to interpret the IgG result for you; ask what assessment they recommend.
4. Encourage referral to a registered dietitian for any continuing restriction [source: BDA 2022].
5. Never advise on medicines or supplements; route to the prescriber or pharmacist.
6. Agree who monitors weight, growth and nutrition, and how you will be informed.
Example language (illustrative): "Would you be OK with me letting your GP know which foods you've stopped eating, so they can check you're getting what you need?"
Watch for: refusal of consent (respect it unless a safeguarding or serious-risk threshold applies; document); a GP unaware of the diet. Working when a named professional is monitoring nutrition and symptoms.

4.6 Eating-disorder, ARFID and restrictive-eating screening

Purpose / when: whenever test results have led to food exclusion, and especially with weight loss, rigid food rules, distress at eating "wrong" foods, or a history of eating disorder. The BDA notes that such kits may give people with eating disorders false explanations for symptoms caused by under-eating and may reinforce food rules [source: BDA 2022].
Steps:
1. Ask about weight change, menstrual change, dizziness, preoccupation with food, rules about food, guilt after eating, avoidance of meals with others [synthesis].
2. Ask about body image and weight/shape concern, which distinguishes anorexia nervosa from ARFID [source: Merck Manual ARFID].
3. Screen for ARFID features: restriction driven by fear of adverse consequences (e.g. choking, vomiting; fear of symptoms after eating is a related clinical question [synthesis]), low interest in food, or sensory aversion, with weight loss, faltering growth in children, nutritional deficiency, reliance on supplements or tube feeding, or marked psychosocial impairment, and without body-image disturbance [source: Merck Manual ARFID, paraphrasing DSM-5-TR].
4. Consider orthorexic patterns (rigid preoccupation with "pure" or "healthy" eating causing impairment); there is no agreed diagnostic category, and published criteria and tools vary [uncertain: not verified].
5. Use the validated eating-disorder screen your service uses; do not reproduce instruments [synthesis].
6. If positive or uncertain: arrange medical review (weight, physical observations, bloods) and referral to eating-disorder or ARFID-capable services with consent; treatment options for ARFID include CBT and family-based treatment [source: Merck Manual ARFID].
7. Severe or rapid restriction is a medical matter: nutritional deficiencies in ARFID can be life-threatening [source: Merck Manual ARFID]; re-nourishment after significant restriction can carry medical risks, including refeeding syndrome and electrolyte disturbance, and must be medically supervised [uncertain: not verified].
Example language (illustrative): "Since you stopped those foods, has your weight changed? Do you find yourself thinking about food a lot more?" / "How do you feel if you end up eating something on the list?" / "Are you worried about your weight or shape, or is it more about what the food might do to your body?"
Watch for: relief at having "permission" to restrict; the list growing over time; secrecy; panic or rituals around food; cold intolerance, fainting, amenorrhoea [synthesis]. Working when restriction is being assessed and managed by appropriate services and food breadth is stable or widening.

4.7 Allergy-safety and medical-risk recognition

Purpose / when: whenever a client describes reactions suggesting a true allergy (rapid swelling, hives, breathing difficulty, collapse) or plans to reintroduce foods based on a "normal" IgG result.
Steps:
1. Know the key risk: people with IgE-mediated allergy may have no raised IgG to the allergen and could be wrongly encouraged to reintroduce a dangerous food, risking anaphylaxis [source: CSACI 2012; AAAAI 2010].
2. If the client reports allergic-type reactions, advise urgent medical assessment and, where appropriate, allergist referral; do not discuss reintroduction yourself.
3. Emergency symptoms during or after eating: follow emergency procedures [synthesis].
4. Note other medical harms named by sources: nutritionally inadequate diets [source: AAAAI 2010], impaired growth and malnutrition [source: ASCIA 2024; CSACI 2012], delayed diagnosis [source: ASCIA 2024].
Example language (illustrative): "What you describe sounds like it needs checking by a doctor before any food is tried again. Can we sort that out today?"
Watch for: the client using a "green" result as reassurance about a food that previously caused a severe reaction. Working when allergic-type reactions are being assessed medically.

4.8 Children and young people: consent, assent and safeguarding

Purpose / when: a parent has tested a child or applies their own results to the family diet. Exclusion diets in children risk poor growth and malnutrition [source: CSACI 2012; STAT 2018]; Norwegian commentary warns of false diagnoses and unnecessary dietary restriction in children [source: Tidsskriftet 2020]. One US seller does not test under-18s [source: STAT 2018].
Steps:
1. Ask which foods the child no longer eats and whether a paediatrician or GP knows.
2. Explore the parent's worry and hopes with empathy; parents are usually trying to help [synthesis].
3. Hear the child's view in age-appropriate terms; seek the child's assent to any plan and respect their voice in line with local law on consent [synthesis].
4. With consent, inform the child's doctor and encourage paediatric dietetic review.
5. Apply safeguarding thresholds where a child shows faltering growth, weight loss, nutritional deficiency, or is denied needed medical care; consult your safeguarding lead and refer per local procedures [synthesis; specific safeguarding guidance uncertain: not verified].
6. Watch for the child developing food fear or ARFID features (see 4.6) [source: Merck Manual ARFID on childhood onset].
Example language (illustrative): "You've gone to a lot of trouble to find answers for your son. Can we make sure his doctor is in the loop so his growth is being checked?" / (to the child) "What's it like for you having these food rules?"
Watch for: the child's diet narrowing; school or social eating avoided; parental escalation of testing. Never name the child in external communications beyond what referral requires. Working when a paediatric professional is monitoring growth and nutrition.

4.9 Pregnancy and breastfeeding

Purpose / when: a pregnant or breastfeeding client is restricting foods on test results [synthesis].
Steps: ask about restriction; with consent, inform the midwife or obstetric team and encourage dietetic input; do not advise on foods or supplements [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Your midwife would want to know about these changes so they can make sure you and the baby are getting what you need. Shall we let them know?"
Watch for: restriction combined with nausea or vomiting; eating-disorder history. Working when the maternity team is aware.

4.10 Health anxiety, food anxiety and somatic-symptom work

Purpose / when: when the client's main difficulty is fear of symptoms, repeated testing, bodily scanning after eating, or persistent physical symptoms that remain distressing after appropriate medical assessment. ASCIA names food anxiety as a harm of unnecessary avoidance [source: ASCIA 2024]. Cross-reference Domain II for health-anxiety and somatic-symptom protocols.
Steps (established CBT principles; specifics [synthesis]):
1. Formulate the cycle: symptom or worry, interpretation ("this food is harming me"), safety behaviours (avoidance, checking, retesting, online searching), short-term relief, longer-term narrowing and maintained fear.
2. Agree goals in terms of living (eating with friends, travel) rather than symptom elimination.
3. Reduce safety behaviours collaboratively (e.g. retesting, reassurance seeking).
4. Graded, exposure-based food work only after medical clearance that the food is safe for this person, and coordinated with the dietitian on which foods; the therapist addresses the anxiety, not the diet content.
5. Attention-training and interoceptive work for symptom scanning, as in Domain II.
Example language (illustrative): "When you notice a twinge after lunch, what goes through your mind? What do you do next?" / "What would you be doing more of if food didn't feel so risky?"
Watch for: exposure attempted without medical clearance (stop); dropout from avoidance of the topic; new tests replacing old ones. Exposure contraindications: possible IgE allergy, active eating-disorder medical instability, consent not freely given. Working when avoidance and checking reduce and life activities widen.

4.11 Commerce, cost and group pressure

Purpose / when: the client has spent heavily on testing, subscriptions, supplements or programmes, or belongs to an online or practitioner community that reinforces restriction. CSACI reports individual costs and aggressive marketing, including promotional material placed in physicians' waiting rooms without consent [source: CSACI 2012]; ASCIA notes that unnecessary treatments carry significant costs [source: ASCIA 2024]; STAT reports patients' frustration at money spent [source: STAT 2018].
Steps:
1. Ask non-judgementally about money spent and planned spending.
2. Explore feelings of sunk cost and hope.
3. Identify pressure points: repeated retests, upselling, testimonial-driven groups, family or partner pressure.
4. Support the client's own spending decisions in line with their values (4.4).
5. Keep your own practice free of conflicts: no sales, referrals for benefit, or affiliate links; declare any connection [synthesis; specific APA Ethics Code provisions uncertain: not verified].
Example language (illustrative): "It's hard to step back after putting money and hope into something. What would you want to do next if cost weren't a factor?"
Watch for: debt, secrecy from a partner, an escalating sequence of tests. Working when spending decisions feel chosen rather than driven.

4.12 Reporting routes

Purpose / when: misleading advertising, harm to a client, or a professional offering these tests outside their scope.
Steps:
1. UK advertising: complaints about ads to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has ruled on IgG-test claims [source: ASA 2021; CAP 2025].
2. Products/devices: national device or IVD regulator (UK MHRA; US FDA; Health Canada; Australian TGA) [uncertain: not verified].
3. Consumer protection: e.g. US FTC, Australian ACCC, Canadian Competition Bureau [uncertain: not verified].
4. Professionals: the relevant registration or licensing board for a regulated professional offering the test or unsafe diet advice [synthesis].
5. Children: local safeguarding/child protection procedures (4.8).
6. Discuss with the client first unless safeguarding requires otherwise; document the decision [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "If you feel the advert misled you, there's a body you can complain to. Would you like information on that?"
Watch for: reporting used as a substitute for the clinical conversation. Working when the client knows their options and any mandatory duty has been met.

5. Handling problems

Sources describe harms and professional positions but not psychotherapy-specific problem handling; all guidance below is [synthesis] unless a source is tagged.

Client is committed to the result and feels attacked by any question. Return to meaning (4.2); acknowledge the symptoms and the relief the result brought; ask permission before sharing any information (4.3); keep the focus on their goals. Illustrative: "I'm not here to take anything away. I'm interested in whether this is giving you the life you want."
Client asks you to say which foods to cut or reintroduce. Decline clearly and kindly; you are not qualified to advise on diet; offer coordination with a registered dietitian (4.5) [source: BDA 2022 on dietetic support].
Client asks whether to buy a test, or whether you "believe in" it. Give the attributed professional position once (4.3), then hand the decision back with values work (4.4). Do not recommend or endorse.
Stuck: symptoms persist, more tests are bought, the excluded list grows. Name the pattern; formulate it as a maintenance cycle (4.10); screen again for an eating disorder or ARFID (4.6); escalate medical coordination. An expanding list is a risk signal, not a treatment failure to be solved with more testing.
Non-adherence to medical or dietetic referral. Explore barriers (prior dismissal, cost, fear of being told it is "in your head"); problem-solve access; keep the door open; document. If weight or growth is falling, the threshold for insisting on medical review rises.
Overwhelm or panic around food in session. Ground first; do not continue exposure-type discussion; return to stabilisation; review medical status before any food-related exposure work (4.10).
Rupture after you shared the professional view. Acknowledge the impact ("I think what I said landed as dismissing you"), validate, and re-establish shared goals; avoid repeating the information.
Client also sees a nutrition practitioner who promotes the test. Do not disparage the practitioner; with consent, focus coordination on the GP and dietitian; flag any safety concern (child, weight loss) to the medical team; consider reporting routes only where a clear regulatory or safeguarding issue exists (4.12).
Family conflict: one partner or parent is convinced, the other is not. Use a family-meeting format focused on shared concern for wellbeing rather than on the test; bring in the child's doctor where a child is involved (4.8).
Possible true allergy dismissed because IgG was "normal". Treat as a safety issue: urge medical assessment before any reintroduction [source: CSACI 2012; AAAAI 2010].
Suspected eating disorder the client denies. Share observations non-judgementally, explain why a medical check matters, request consent to contact the GP; if medical instability is suspected, follow your service's risk procedures and current eating-disorder guidance.
Child's growth or nutrition at risk and parent refuses medical input. Consult your safeguarding lead and follow local child-protection procedures; document reasoning (4.8).
Financial harm or debt from repeated tests and programmes. Normalise sunk-cost feelings; involve financial support resources if needed; consider reporting misleading advertising (4.11, 4.12).
Your own stance. Notice frustration or a wish to "rescue" the client from the test; take it to supervision. Equally, avoid colluding by appearing to endorse the result.
Conflict of interest. If you or your practice have links to testing or nutrition businesses, declare and remove them from client care (4.11).

Sources

Organisational, regulatory and journal sources:

Cited as summarised by the above [uncertain: not verified]: Stapel SO et al., EAACI Task Force report, Allergy 2008, "Testing for IgG4 against foods is not recommended as a diagnostic tool" (as summarised by AAAAI 2010 and CSACI 2012).

[uncertain: not verified]: MHRA, FDA, Health Canada and TGA device/IVD status of individual kits; consumer-regulator routes (FTC, ACCC, Competition Bureau); orthorexia criteria and screening tools; refeeding-syndrome guidance; APA Ethics Code conflict-of-interest provisions; national safeguarding guidance.

← Previous · XII-182Hair mineral analysis Next · XII-184 →Thermography in place of mammography