Reality Check: The Facts Behind The Myths

Reality Check: The Facts Behind The Myths
January 1998 -- Perspectives Plus

By: Andrea Allen
Contributing Editor

  The gap between the number of Americans who believe they have food allergies (some 33 percent) and the number who actually do (more like 2 percent) is so great that it begs the question, What are these people thinking?

  The fact is, these perceived "allergies" usually are not imaginary. Experts say that often, the person does have some sort of intolerance or has had an adverse reaction in the past. Trouble is, that adverse reaction may or may not have been caused by the food that is now being avoided so strenuously.

  Here are the facts behind three of the most commonly cited "food allergies":

  Dairy products. A true milk-protein allergy is rare. What's far more common is a genetic condition called lactose intolerance, in which the body does not produce the enzyme lactase necessary to digest the milk sugar lactose. Here too, however, the condition is not as common as some people believe. Only an estimated 6 percent of the Caucasian population is lactose-intolerant, while the percentage is greater among others -- including African-Americans and American Indians. Asian-Americans are most likely to be lactose-intolerant: some 60 percent to 70 percent cannot digest milk products, according to Steve Taylor, Ph.D., of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

  Recent research has shown that some people who are lactose-intolerant actually can consume some dairy products, particularly those that are specially designed for the lactose-intolerant consumer. Yogurt is also a good bet for some people, because much of the lactose is already digested.

  These are important findings, as the recommended intake of calcium keeps climbing: Currently, it's 1,000 milligrams a day for adults 50 and younger, and 1,200 for adults 51 and older. Dietary calcium is important for children, too: Studies have shown that bone density stops building as early as the late teens or early twenties.  Greg Miller, Ph.D., cautions parents from rushing to ban dairy products from their children's diets -- assuming that a true milk allergy is not the problem. When strict diagnostic tests are applied, only 1 percent to 3 percent of infants and children turn out to be truly allergic, says Miller, who is vice president of research for Dairy Management Inc., Rosemont, IL.

  Monosodium glutamate. Like lactose intolerance, MSG Symptom Complex is not a true allergy. In fact, according to the American College of Allergy and Immunology, monosodium glutamate -- MSG -- is not an allergen. So why do so many people report headaches, nausea and other severe symptoms after eating the proverbial Chinese food? Probably because some people have experienced these symptoms at one time or another - and from that point forward, they and everyone around them have ordered restaurant meals with "no MSG."

  According to a 1995 study by the American Societies for Experimental Biology, MSG should be considered safe for most people at normal levels of consumption. Some people do experience the aforementioned symptoms, but only after consuming very high levels of MSG. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and myriad other agencies and organizations have confirmed the safety of MSG.

  If most of the "MSG-sensitive" consumers knew what it was, they might not be so quick to finger it as the cause of their migraines. MSG is nothing more than the sodium salt of glutamate, an amino acid that occurs naturally in all foods that contain protein -- including many vegetables. MSG has been used as an additive for centuries, particularly in Asia, to impart the same savory flavor characteristics as naturally occurring glutamate.

  Many foods actually contain more naturally occurring glutamate than an entire Chinese meal's worth of MSG -- including two distinctly non-Asian staples: tomato products and parmesan cheese. Nonetheless, consumers who wish to identify added MSG can scan the ingredient statement for MSG and glutamate, as well as other additives, such as hydrolyzed protein and autolyzed yeast extract. But if they forget once in a while, it's hardly a matter of life and death.

  Biotechnology. Even the most ardent opponents of biotechnology are not suggesting that bioengineered foods are inherently allergenic. The specter that they are trying to raise is that of allergens being introduced into the food supply through biotechnology. Their argument is that, since the FDA does not require bioengineered foods to be labeled as such, the allergic consumer will be caught unaware.

  As evidence, they point to a widely publicized 1996 study in which University of Nebraska researchers detected an allergenic protein in soybeans that had been genetically altered with proteins from Brazil nuts. While it's true that the study did show that allergens can be transferred from one plant to another in this manner, it also showed something else that was not picked up by the media: the fact that the safeguards are in place to identify allergens inadvertently transferred. And according to organizations as diverse as the Institute of Food Technologists and the Food Allergy Network, that should have been the good news reported from that study.

  Those who are using this issue to press for labeling of all bioengineered foods are trying to advance their own anti-technology agenda at the expense of the truly allergic consumer, according to Taylor. " 'Contains Brazil nuts' is what someone with an allergy would want to see," Taylor says. "But the advocates don't want to see that. They don't have the allergic consumer in mind."

  Indeed, FDA's current policy does require that if a gene is transferred from a crop that's known to be a food allergen, such as tree nuts, the modified food must be labeled accordingly -- unless the manufacturer can show that the allergen has not been transferred. If the manufacturer of the soybeans had wanted to go to market with the bioengineered version, products containing the soybeans would have been labeled "Contains Brazil nut protein."

  FDA determines whether the genetic modification results in an allergen transfer during safety consultations between the manufacturer and the biotechnology policy branch of the Office of Premarket Approval. "For right now, the policy seems to be working well," says Laura Tarantino, Ph.D., chief of the biotechnology policy branch. "Everyone who's been coming in for consultations is aware of the issue."

  In December 1996, a coalition of food scientists, allergenicity experts, medical experts and academics published a "decision tree" approach to detect the presence of allergens introduced into bioengineered foods. A key component of this approach is an immunoassay known as a RAST, or radioallergosorbent test. A RAST is both more expensive and more exact than an ELISA, in that it relies on human rather than animal sera. But for the purpose of detecting allergens inadvertently introduced through bioengineering, it's essential: A RAST can detect a specific allergenic protein, whereas current ELISAs can detect only the presence of, say, peanut protein and not the specific peanut allergen.

  Pending further research, this approach "is the best we can do at the current time," says Taylor, who served on the committee. But improvements are certainly on the way, given the industry's stake in this issue. As the Institute of Food Technologists' Joyce Nettleton, D.Sc., points out, "The creation of new allergenic foods is something that every plant developer wants to avoid. That would be a sure path to the end of the market [for bioengineered foods]."

Back to top