In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
Julia Bradbury went under cover to reveal how a 'food intolerance' test available from high street gyms, spas and chemists is a waste of money.
It's called the Kymatika K-Test and is marketed as a 'revolutionary' non-invasive way to diagnose food intolerances. The test costs on average £30, and, according to the company that developed it, is the culmination of three and a half years of dedicated research.
However, when Julia took the test twice in the same afternoon, she got very different results.
Tricks your body
At a branch of Superdrug in London, Julia was asked to sit down and place her hand on a black box, with her fingers resting on special pads. A nurse told Jules the machine "would bombard your body with 40 different sequences, so it tricks your body into thinking you've had 40 different foods".
A few minutes later the test was complete. Jules paid £30 and left the Superdrug with a print out of her results.
They showed she had no actual intolerances, but did have a 'sensitivity' to onions.
Different results
Later that afternoon Jules tried the test again, this time at an independent chemist in another part of London. It looked like the same black box, and the same procedure, but the results were completely different.
This time Jules was advised she did have intolerances, and should actually cut out certain foods from her diet. These included milk, lager, apples, bananas, garlic and onions.
Other members of the Watchdog team also each took the test several times on different days. They were all given different results each time.
No medical proof
Dr. Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science, was not surprised at the inconsistency of the results. He says there is no medical proof to show that the test is reliable: "I would have very serious concerns about any nurse or pharmacist who was endorsing this frankly ridiculous voodoo science product," he said. "The bottom line is they have presented no evidence to show this machine diagnoses food intolerance."
He also expressed his concern that the test was being made available at all: "I think it could be practically harmful because people will exclude food groups that they don't need to. People may have a genuine medical problem which gets missed because of this theatrical machine."
Catherine Collins is the Principle Dietician at St George's Hospital in London. She is also concerned about the K-Test: "It gives you food exclusions which are not as a result of any proper scientific scrutiny. Following the advice long term could mean developing nutritional deficiencies."
Scrutiny
Watchdog has found that the test results cited by the makers of the K-Test do not stand up to scrutiny. To be considered as valid evidence, tests on any medicines or products have to be conducted in a controlled way and which does not appear to be the case with the K-Test. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is currently investigating the Kymatika K-Test.
Watchdog contacted the people behind the K-Test. They said that: "The K-Test is based on scientific research, and clinical evidence. We do not accept that the results are unreliable and we do not recommend two K-tests a day. The product is substantially cheaper than alternative food intolerance tests available on the market.
"We don't think the K-test could be detrimental to health and well-being. Its focus is to act as an indicator of an individual's digestive profile and to help identify food substances which may be causing problems to that individual. This is in line with the food exclusion practice of many GPs and healthcare specialists in helping to support individuals.
"We havn't seen the results of the tests [carried out by the Watchdog team] so cannot comment on these. However it's clear that repeat tests were conducted within a very short time period. This is in conflict with our standard operating procedures and training materials which state that customers should only use one test per day. We understand that your team were advised of this accordingly at the time.
"The information contained within our website aims to provide factual information to support those in need of it. The website also provides options for alternatives should people choose to exclude foods, therefore we help ensure they retain an appropriate nutritional balance."
When Watchdog contacted Superdrug they said: "At the time of going to market we believed it was the best test available on the high street without the patient having to take a blood test. The test is easy for the patient and links into an online nutritionist via the Kymatika website. We make it clear to our customers that this test is intended to indicate food intolerances and sensitivities: it's not an allergy test and it's not a medical device. If there's a pre-diagnosed condition or if symptoms persist, a doctor should be consulted.
"As with any customer feedback, we will review the information provided by the BBC before making a decision. Every product or service that Superdrug offers its customers goes through a rigorous quality control process before the decision is taken to stock it. Kymatika provided us with evidence and testimonials from an extensive trial carried out using over 500 people. We've also been provided with subsequent studies as they've been completed."
