They claim to test for over 600 items, not only food intolerances but minerals and toxic metals, intestinal dysbiosis, viruses, bacteria and parasites, oxidation and aging, feng-shui and toxicity, Bach Flower and aromatherapy, heart and the metabolism of fats and veterinary intolerance for dogs and cats.

Some companies claim to use ‘special’ and ‘patented’ devices sometimes called ‘S Drives’ that ‘record’ the test signals to be remotely interpreted by Super computers.

The reality is that there are no independent published studies to back any of these claims and no creditable explanation of how such tests actually work, relying instead on the use of pseudo-science and usually admitting themselves that there is very little evidence to support them.

The websites of companies offering such testing under the category of ‘how does the test work’ give the following explanation:

“We use hair analysis with a technology called bio-resonance;

The bio-resonance therapy works by scanning the hair sample to create a profile of this particular person’s energy that radiates from the DNA. With this profile, we can then scan all of our items against the hair sample profile (the saved DNA energy pattern). If, for a specific reason, a particular item’s pattern does not harmonise with that of the hair sample of the client, then the energy is distorted and therefore does not co-operate, showing as an intolerance. We measure these intolerances on a scale of 85% or higher. So, any items that have caused a reaction on this level or higher are then the ones that are reported back to our clients as their HIGH intolerances.

Bio-resonance technology is a form of holistic therapy, backed by little science, compared to that of blood testing. It is because of this, that a lot of professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) tend to disagree with the results, as there is very little evidence to support them.”

The Advertising Standards Authority (UK) has already ruled against such websites claims [1,2]. It judged that they were misleading, unsubstantiated and could discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought (Source 1 and Source 2).

Given the lack of any creditable evidence to support the efficacy of such testing and the fundamental lack of any scientific explanation about how such analysis actually works, the use of such tests for the identification of any forms of allergy and food intolerance should be actively discouraged, such testing runs the very real risk of harm to an unsuspecting public.

This is compared to blood testing for the presence of food specific IgG antibodies, where the technology utilised is a standard laboratory technique (ELISA) that has been fully validated. Diets prescribed using this type of testing are supervised by suitably qualified professionals to ensure safety and efficacy of such interventions.