Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

‘Ratbiter’ has an excellent piece in Private Eye. In an article headlined May contain nuts, they ask Who is Patrick Holford, the British media’s favourite ‘nutritionist’? (issue 1197, p. 29).

The article begins with a critical look at some of Holford’s statements on vitamin C and HIV/AIDS, and also discusses one of Holford’s disagreement with David Colquhoun.

Ratbiter then points out that

Holford is derided by science bloggers, most notably the authors of the punchy HolfordWatch site, but foreigners trawling the British press cuttings would find him popping up as an expert witness more often than Posh Spice at London Fashion Week. (more…)

Christopher Scarfe is a DipION nutritionist practising in Cornwall, who previously claimed to have been a Director of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION). However, we found that some of the biographical information on Scarfe’s website was inaccurate and asked him for more information about this and about his role in the early history of the ION.

We wrote very politely to ask Scarfe some quick questions, and he replied with an unwarranted barrage of unpleasantries - insulting us, our blog, blogs in general, and our lolcats. We’d rather not publish the full correspondence - we don’t think it looks very stylish, and there’s already more than enough ill-framed discourtesy available on the Internet - but if Scarfe wishes to question our account of this correspondence in any way then we will very happily put the whole exchange online. Anyway, while I can take a rude e-mail or two, Scarfe went too far when he criticised the looks of our lolcats: how can you see the cute ickle kitty cat above and say that it looks like it needs omega 3…? (more…)

Prof Patrick Holford’s slapdash attitude to stating qualifications and work experience seems to be strangely contagious: Holford Watch came to this conclusion after seeing the list of ION teaching staff and their qualifications that was provided to Dr Ben Goldacre earlier this year.

Several members of the list have been subject to a cursory Google and a number of them have significant associations with a variety of supplement companies which is entirely understandable; however, that is not the focus of this post. (more…)

Patrick Holford is tremendously proud of what he believes Food for the Brain (FFTB) accomplished during their collaboration with Chineham Park Primary School. So much so that, to the fair-minded, it seems as if he is perilously close to neglecting to acknowledge the tremendous achievements that the Chineham Park Primary School had made prior to the implementation of the project.

Of course, Patrick Holford is a byword for accidental misrepresentation in some parts. Read on

I’m indebted to a columnist in South Africa for the description of Patrick Holford as an “international bowel-whisperer”. The Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) occasionally offers continuing education courses and points for its own nutritionists; there must be a potential Masterclass series or even a future ION diploma in “bowel-whispering” and its cultural vagaries. Maybe bowel-whispering is an exciting idea for Holford’s 100% Health Weekend Workshops and will grab the imagination of those who might otherwise be contemplating a defection to Gillian McKeith (the word was defection, I haven’t omitted an a…Oh, never mind).

Holford seems to have had a harrowing time with a well-intentioned TV interviewer.

Those who have seen Maholwana-Sangqu’s mercifully irregular book-clubbing pogroms, er, book club programmes, will know that her approach to reviewing is rather like Snuki Zikalala’s approach to political commentary. A stack of American mass-market thrillers is presented, the sort in which a sword is pawed, a whore is gored, her jaw half-gnawed, the law is floored, and Dear Reader, ignored, becomes bored. Then invited guests are asked to give their opinion, their invitation apparently based on whether they happened to be walking past in the corridor as the show started. I smaaked it lank, says someone from Accounts. It was really, you know, clever, says a focus puller. I had no idea the Vatican was trying to cover up the secret of Christ’s bloodline, exclaims the Deputy Head of News.

But even with this pedigree, what Noeleen said next was appalling. Holford had been asked to summarise a complicated point in a single sound bite, and, after a few game attempts, gestured at the book and suggested that those wanting a more detailed account of how best to take all joy out of eating should simply refer to Chapter Suchandsuch. Noeleen patted the front cover, as if appeasing a skittish polecat.

“I didn’t finish the book,” she blurted, “because it’s quite big and I only got it a few days ago.”

What would Holford’s prescription be for such lamentable lack of attention and inability to focus? Fish oil is a given, as is the standard recommendation for his own Optimum Nutrition formula.

To be fair to Noeleen, not only is the book big, it contains some ideas that are hard to absorb. A reader informs me that on page 16 of Optimum Nutrition for the Mind we learn that the digestive system contains 100m neurotransmitters and produces many neurotransmitters. According to Holford, it therefore follows that when you eat:

in essence you’re feeding two brains.

No wonder columnists are confused by the proximity and think that he is talking out of whispering to bowels. It’s either that or an innovative re-write of the seminal scene from Alien.

I particularly enjoyed the “sword is pawed” sequence. Is it possible to come up with a similar description for Optimum Nutrition for the Mind? E.g., a pill is shilled, advice is dispensed as are supplements at expense but dietitians are incensed.

This post is dedicated to Dr Sarah Jarvis in response to Patrick Holford’s reference to her during his Hidden Food Allergies seminar at the recent Allergy Show. We also dedicate the Cinnachrome and Chromium Review posts to her in gratitude for her spirited performance on GMTV.

Patrick Holford’s Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) has a remarkable offer-for only £235 and through the marvels of:

Home Study…you will learn more than you ever thought possible and by the time you have completed the course, will know enough to keep you your family and friends in the best possible health.

The course is not modest in scope or ambition. ION’s Home Study Course promises:

You will discover a lot about ‘what makes you tick’, including how food is turned into energy, how to slow down the ageing process, strengthen your immune system, discover and deal with food allergies and addictions, improve your energy and concentration, prepare for a healthy pregnancy, safeguard your baby’s health, be well in old age - and a lot more besides!…

The course is ideal for the layperson who wishes to acquire sufficient knowledge to plan a personal nutrition program for over all [sic] health or for the Complementary Therapist wanting to enhance their practice with sound nutritional advice. [Emphasis added.]

I’m not sure how to reconcile that last part with the disclaimer:

The Home Study Certificate of Completion is recognition that you have understood and successfully completed the course to ION’s standards. It is not a recognised qualification and will not count as points towards a degree. The certificate will not be regarded by ION or any other body as a means to set up in practice as a nutritional therapist. The Home Study is a self-learning program and does not enter into nutritional therapy.

The course has modules about foods that harm or heal; it also offers information about the digestive, cardiovascular, immune and respiratory systems and their diseases. I would be interested to learn more about some of this content.

E.g., an entire module is dedicated to “foods that harm” and those listed include:

coffee; sugar; refined and convenience foods; fats - trans and hydrogenated; salt; red meat; wheat; dairy products; alcohol; chemicals and pollutants in food; GMO - genetically modified food.

It would be fascinating to learn if there is a consensus of the literature on whether or not these foods are intrinsically harmful, as for some of them, their perceived harm may be related to several factors such as the quantity that is consumed as part of the normal diet (e.g., there is plenty of support for the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption for some groups and similarly for the dangers of excess consumption). It may be entertaining to unequivocally demonise foods, but it would be good to know if there is a sound basis for it. E.g., is the claim that GM foods are harmful based on well-received research or discredited studies of scary potatoes?

I assume that somewhere in those modules, there is a guide to how many calories people need throughout the lifecycle. This might be particularly relevant if the modules that cover topics such as hyperactivity and ADD, sugar-free toddlers or discovering/preventing allergies and intolerance recommend the exclusion of particular foodstuffs or food groups. I would also hope that there is some guidance as to knowing the limits of your knowledge and competence and when it is essential that you should consult an appropriately qualified professional, such as a paediatric dietitian. I am a little apprehensive about the inclusion of some of these topics because they are potentially quite serious and may have a significant impact on somebody’s health and quality of life; it seems to me that this may be straying from the remit of keeping “you your family and friends in the best possible health”. In a basic course like this which is concerned with “sound nutritional advice” it may be rather too advanced to cover these topics in the sort of detail that they would demand.

It would be good to know if anyone has pursued this home study course and ‘learned more than they ever thought possible’. I would be particularly interested in learning more about the course materials and the practical tests. Has the course influenced anyone to change their way of eating in a significant manner?

A recurrent theme among the anonymous commenters is that we need to develop compassion and an open mind when we discuss Patrick Holford and his work. I’m unclear as to whether either of these ought to encompass the acceptance of information that is mis-leading or wrong. More recently, a (named) commenter wrote to tell us how impressed she is by Holford:

I certainly don’t agree with everything alternative medicine has to offer, but some of it does work, so please don’t criticise too much!

Nutritionists (as opposed to dieticians) want to help people towards optimum health - who doesn’t want to feel good? Some of us can’t seem to get the balance right ourselves and, since doctors and buying heavily marketed products often doesn’t help (docs, like dietitians, tend to want to cure rather than prevent), we want to ask someone who knows more than us.

Why is it not appropriate to criticise someone when they are wrong? Or do you think that confusing premature mortality figures of 250,000 for cardiovascular disease when the actual figure should have been 60,000 is neither here nor there? What did you think of the WiFi avoidance advice that would turn your domestic wiring into an aerial? Is it acceptable to extol the virtues of a prophylactic pendant that works by faith and magic rather than science? What about Holford’s fauxrious claim that Watchdog had misrepresented the strength of the research literature for food intolerance tests when he was mistaken?

Holford has removed his fauxrious claims about the Watchdog programme but it still exists on the websites of his supporters. In response to some of Jon’s concerns, he has amended some dietary claims and recommendations on his Food for the Brain website and has now reported that he will ask Health Products for Life to amend advice about folic acid supplements. Holford’s testimonial about the QLink also seems to have disappeared.

Holford Watch hasn’t begun to scratch the surface of what is amiss with some of Holford’s claims or his sometimes inappropriate characterisation of the scientific literature. It is difficult to estimate whether these flaws are minor or might have greater significance: it is also difficult to assess how widespread they are among (say) nutritionists who have trained at ION or any nutritional therapist that one might consult. Catherine Collins gave a robust response to the commenter’s misconceptions about the work and scope of practice of registered dietitians. I would dispute the commenter’s implication that a nutritionist will, by default, always know more than ‘us’.

If Holfordism has persuaded somebody that it is inappropriate to comment on unsubstantiated claims, poor research or bad science, is it harmless?

A commenter recently posted some thoughts, opinions and questions that raised the wider question: Is Holfordism harmless? She obviously has a sufficiently strong interest in nutrition to prompt her to consider dedicating time and money to studying it.

I saw Patrick Holford on tv the other day and was quite impressed. I have also been thinking about studying nutrition and looking at his institute as a place to study.

I certainly don’t agree with everything alternative medicine has to offer, but some of it does work, so please don’t criticise too much!

Nutritionists (as opposed to dieticians) want to help people towards optimum health - who doesn’t want to feel good? Some of us can’t seem to get the balance right ourselves and, since doctors and buying heavily marketed products often doesn’t help (docs, like dietitians, tend to want to cure rather than prevent), we want to ask someone who knows more than us.

Why do you not think that people who have studied the subject for a few years and gained a qualification, are qualified to help people in this way?

Who else would you suggest consulting?

I ask this as someone who both wants nutrition / health advice, and who is considering re-training under the nutrition umbrella.

I was a little taken aback at this characterisation of the work and practice of dietitians; I did wonder what had led this commenter to form such a partial opinion. We were very fortunate to have an excellent and robust response from Registered Dietitian, Catherine Collins.

As a practicing Registered Dietitian (RD), I’m concerned about the biased and inaccurate views that you have of my profession.

I guess you’ve been reading prospectuses from ’self-styled nutritionist’ organisations such as ION or CNELM - or perhaps the pseudo-regulatory organisation BANT, which typically make these inaccurate claims. I guess this is their way of trying to justify their ‘nutrition-lite’ practices to people like yourselves who are thinking of training in this field.

RD’s are basically BSc graduate nutritionists with an extra year of study tagged on to the original 3 years to learn and practice the interface of nutrition with clinical disease. As such it gives us a very broad and deep spectrum of expertise which we can use to work in any arena we like.

In the community we work in private practice, health promotion attached to local education and health authorities, self-help groups and organisations, and increasingly sports nutrition (2012 beckons!). Our skills are valued by the food industry, food retailers, and other businesses related to healthcare - or not.

Alternatively - and as in my case - we have the skills to work with the clinically unwell in a hospital setting. Yes, some aspects of our work are dealing with those who abrogate health and nutrition issues until seriously unwell. But my field of intensive care also deals with those unfortunate individuals in the wrong place/ wrong time, and for whom nutrition treads a fine line of providing fluid, electrolytes,and macronutrients in the presence of multi-organ failure.

I take your point regarding the occasional benefits of non-conventional approaches to illness. Yet in the field of nutrition, you will find that the ‘alternative’ do not use a parallel evidence base (such as TCM does when compared to western medicine)- they just misintepret the SAME clinical evidence to promote their practices and wares - as this excellent site demonstrates.

It’s rather ironic of you to agree that “buying heavily marketed products” is not the key to good nutritional health, yet you feel an affinity towards an organisation and an individual which - from this site alone- can be seen to promote products which existing research indicates are futile, or even harmful.

Why should self-styled nutritionists take this approach? I guess it comes down to two reasons -
EITHER
they are unconciously incompetent (so they THINK they know the subject, but they don’t have the ability to translate it accurately or in context for the individual or group)
OR
they are deliberately misleading those who seek their advice…..

But where does that lead dietitians? well, you won’t find us promoting detox or superfoods or megadose vitamins - because ’sexing up’ key nutrition research distorts the context for the public, and we don’t expect our patient to become guinea pigs for future interest - as all the work on high dose vitamins is increasingly demonstrating.

Equally, you won’t find dietitians pestering for column inches and broadcast time. We are well respected in the media because of our sound background, ethical approach and our conduct - incidentally, being the only nutritional professionals regulated by law (HPC Act 2002, formerly the CPSM Act 1980). Just google the term ‘dietitian’/ ‘dietician’ and you can see how we feature ‘out there’.

Finally, I wish you well on whatever nutrition path you take. Check out the dietitians website…or the bona fide Nutritionists website.

You can’t shortcut a route to nutrition, just as you can’t shortcut knowledge of atomic physics - despite what the nutrition-lite lobby will have you believe. If you choose the latter I guess you have to reset your moral compass or ignore the shortfalls in your training when it comes to dealing with the public who trust you……[Minor changes from the original to embed links.]

Depending on your budget, you might also compare and contrast the cost of studying with ION with that of obtaining a Registered Dietitian’s portable qualifications. If you don’t have science qualifications at ‘A’ Level, then ION offers Science Access Courses:

The Science Access courses are designed for those wishing to pursue the Nutritional Therapists’ Diploma/Foundation Degree Course (DipION/FdSc) but having insufficient background in the sciences to support study. The courses concentrate on aspects of these subjects that are relevant to nutrition.

So, you will pay around £3,090 for either the accelerated (3 month) version of this course, or the year-long course (texts and course notes included). You will also need to pick up the travel and maybe accommodation costs of attending the course in Richmond. For the (further) 3 years of the Nutritional Therapy Diploma course, you will need to pay tuition fees of £3,090 per year (I haven’t been able to establish whether the texts etc. are included in this).

If you wish to obtain a BSc in Nutrition Science in association with the University of Luton, you will need to dedicate another year of study and a further £3,000 in fees (if you study full-time, at current prices). I have not yet been able to discover how many ION graduates top-up their diploma with a BSc, nor the degree class that they commonly obtain.

Unlike most tertiary education establishments, ION doesn’t offer an overview of their research facilities, lecturers and researchers online. It would be useful to know the research projects that are in progress at ION and their list of publications. E.g., if I were interested in studying the Sports Nutrition module in Year 3, it might be helpful to know if I could have access to a gas analyser for the study of exhaled breath (e.g., useful for metabolic analysis) or something like one of the latest, very accurate body fat and metabolism analysers; I might want to know if I would be supervised by someone who is certified to conduct blood draws for lactic acid studies or similar. Coracle offers a very interesting overview of research funding in the UK and the research assessment exercise; it would be useful to know if ION is engaged in this sort of academic research .

It might be considerably faster and cheaper to study for a BSc in Nutritional Science; you may be able to qualify as a registered Dietitian in the time that it would take you to study for a Diploma with ION and then top-up to a BSc degree. You can assess for yourself the value of the assurance the DipION/FdSc is accredited by the University of Luton and validated by the British Association of Nutritional Therapists (BANT) and “meets BANT’s stringent requirements for certification of nutritional therapists”.

I’m sure that all of the contributors to Holford Watch wish the commenter well with any future studies and career. However, I am concerned at the role that Holfordism might have played in shaping the mis-perceptions of the role/practice of Registered Dietitians. Further than that, I’m slightly alarmed at the notion that nutritionists have the inside track to ‘feeling good’ or having “optimum health”. To me, this notion not only overlooks the appropriate intervention of professionals such as GPs but it deprecates people’s own commonsense. Is this harmless?

or, The Role of Mineral Hair Analysis in the Sale of Food Supplements

Patrick has set up a charity. Not poorly, fluffy kittens or unwanted donkeys, but a charity dedicated to helping kids do better at schools with better ‘nutrition’. The charity is called Food for the Brain. Being against such a venture would appear to be like being against sunshine or trying to ban Christmas, but I have some genuine concerns about the nature of this charity and will be writing more soon, but for now, I would like to concentrate on one rather strange aspect of it.

The charity sets out to ‘promote awareness of the link between learning, behaviour, mental health and nutrition.’ Great. But this is no Jamie-Oliver-Throw-Out-The-Turkey-Twizzlers-And-Eat-Seared-Carpaccio-of-Beef style campaign. No, this looks like ION for kids - ideas from Patrick Holford’s Institute of Optimum Nutrition being sold to parents who quite rightly want to do the best for their children.

So, we see the usual ION themes - ‘optimum’ nutritional plans, ‘optimum’ health, food supplement regimes, questionable ‘allergy and intolerance’ testing and, what I want to cover today, hair mineral analysis.

The Food for the Brain web site discusses supplements for your kids in some detail and states that the charity uses hair mineral analysis as a diagnostic tool to see what supplements children may need in their school projects. For the schools, Patrick recommends Higher Nature’s Dinochews supplements, an organisation that Patrick Holford, funnily enough, formulates products for and lends his name to. There is also a link to a site called MineralCheck that appears to give independent advice about minerals and hair analysis. (More on this later!)

The idea that our diets may be deficient in minerals, even if we are eating a balanced diet, is popular in nutritionist circles. There are ideas out there in nutri-land that our soils may be depleted from nasty intensive farming and that we should be taking the right supplements to top up. However, scientific sources for this are hard to come by and invariably appear to originate from the suppliers of mineral supplements, as I have previously discussed.

Now, as an idea, diagnosing exposures to heavy metals and attempting to diagnose nutritional mineral deficiencies through analysing hair samples, has been around for some time. The only problem is that it looks like it does not work and has been shown to be flaky in a number of reviews.

Stephen Barret, one of the first reviewers to look at the subject concludes,

Hair analysis is worthless for assessing the body’s nutritional status or serving as a basis for dietary or supplement recommendations. Should you encounter a practitioner who claims otherwise, run for the nearest exit!

Why would a charity, wanting to improve the nutritional status of kids, recommend to put them through doubtful diagnostic techniques? Before we come to any conclusions, let’s look at why hair mineral analysis probably does not work. It might involve a little science. Forgive me, I think it is worth it.

So, according to MineralCheck, Hair Mineral Analysis (HMA) claims to be able to determine if you have an ‘imbalance’ in minerals. You get a report back telling you about:

• Your body’s level of nutrient minerals and toxic metals Mineral ratios
• A list of recommended foods - and those to avoid
• Food allergy indicators
• Body chemistry balance analysis Suplement [sic] recommendations

Email the company and they tell you the following…

The cost of the test is £49 and the laboratory will test for 29 nutritional minerals including calcium, copper, zinc, sodium, potassium, magnesium etc) and 8 toxic minerals (including lead, aluminium, mercury and cadmium). The results are presented as a graph with a report attached explaining them and making diet and where appropriate supplement recommendations. Your sample can be sent by post and the report is returned by post.

All very impressive from a few strands of hair. The problem is that these sorts of analytical techniques are very hard. You are trying to find the levels of trace amounts of large numbers of metals in biological samples and then relate that analysis to an understanding of human physiological function and health. This is the stuff that a hundred PhDs are made off. Careers are devoted to such techniques. Let us walk through some of the questions that would have to be well answered by sound science if we are to get close to the MineralCheck promise…

1. How does the mineral concentration in hair relate to whole body concentration?
   We are not actually interested in hair concentrations as such, but the levels in tissues that need the minerals, such as the blood and other organs. Does hair take up minerals in direct relation to body concentration? It need not. We need to know the answer to this question for each element being analysed.
2. What individual variation is there in hair growth and mineral levels?
   How does age, ethnicity, sex, activity levels and health affect the result? Again, we need to understand this for each element being tested.
3. What levels in hair are normal and what ranges are acceptable?
   And how does this vary across different geographies with different diets and lifestyles?
4. How can we relate these levels to health issues?
   Even if a mineral level is outside the normal range, this does not mean that there is a problem. Mineral levels may be biologically unimportant within a wide range.
5. How best should we collect samples?
   Does using steel scissors introduce contaminants? What about any sample packaging used? Is ‘home’ sampling OK, or do you need controlled lab conditions?
6. How much hair do we need to get a reliable, repeatable result?
   One strand, a bunch, how long should the hair be?
7. Do we need to prepare the sample to remove environmental contaminants?
   Shampoos, car fumes, cigarette smoke and general dirt will be on the hair. Can this be easily removed? Is it absorbed into the body of the hair? Do hair treatments, such as bleaching and colouring, affect the result and how?
8. What analytical technique is best?
   Most techniques are poor at measuring wide ranges of elements, but are good at targeted elements. Do we need several techniques or the same technique optimised in many ways?
9. How do we ensure the right levels of accuracy and precision at an affordable level to the testing laboratory and their customers?
   It is no good having a whizzy technique if it costs millions.
10. How do we get good calibration samples?
    In order to get good results, you need good standard samples to compare against. How can a laboratory obtain known and certified reference materials for each mineral being tested at concentrations similar to that being tested? What analytical technique should be used to certify the references?
11. How should Hair Mineral Analysis laboratories undertake external quality assurance?
    Good laboratories validate themselves against other independent laboratories to make sure they are not systematically getting this wrong. Who will do this?
12. What do bald people do?

Now, the problem is that there are few answers to these questions and much work to be done. It could be one day that we answer these question in sufficient detail to have hair analysis as a useful diagnostic tool. But we are not there yet, and one of the reasons is that other more direct techniques, such as blood or urine analysis, are better tools to put our research energy into.

Given the poor state of the science of hair mineral analysis, one might expect that laboratories offering this service might lead to shabby, inconsistent and meaningless results. And that is what is found. Several studies have looked into the quality of results obtained from commercial laboratories. One 1985 study entitled, “Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam?” concluded,

The reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples sent to the same laboratory and from laboratory to laboratory. The laboratories also disagreed about what was “normal” or “usual” for many of the minerals. Most reports contained computerized interpretations that were voluminous, bizarre, and potentially frightening to patients.

Six laboratories recommended food supplements, but the types and amounts varied widely from report to report and from laboratory to laboratory. Literature from most of the laboratories suggested that their reports were useful in managing a wide variety of diseases and supposed nutrient imbalances. However, commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal.

As this was 20 years ago, we ought to be cautious, but luckily a similar study has been done more recently to see if things have improved. It concluded,

…Variations also were found in laboratory sample preparation methods and calibration standards. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. Laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results.

CONCLUSIONS: Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.

It is no surprise then that QuackWatch calls this technique a ‘Cardinal Sign of Quackery’. Even worse, the American Medical Association issues a policy on the technique which states,

The AMA opposes chemical analysis of the hair as a determinant of the need for medical therapy and supports informing the American public and appropriate governmental agencies of this unproven practice and its potential for health care fraud.

So, why do people including MineralCheck continue to carry out such analyses? It is difficult to conclude anything other than it is very lucrative and a good way of pursuading people to buy supplements. Whilst blood analysis needs qualified practitioners to take and analyse the sample under medical conditions within a strict legal, ethical, and scientific framework, hair analysis requires none of this. Its much easier, and importantly, much cheaper; posting off a hair sample and getting a computer read-out back. Follow that up with recommendations to buy £50 worth of supplements per month, an order form, and a recommendation to repeat the test in a few months time and you are quids in.

Worryingly, there is a danger that, as the technique looks near useless as a diagnostic tool and the recommendations that come from it arbitrary, there is not only the risk that customers will waste their money, but that harm may come too from needless and drastic changes in diet and excessive supplements.

And, as promised, what do we know about the background of the web site MineralCheck? They don’t say much on their pages - no names, no company information, an anonymous email address, but they do give a telephone number. A quick Google reveals that this telephone number is also used by a Mrs Karen Watkins BA(Hons), Dip.I.O.N, MTTS. It turns out that as well as doing Hair Mineral Analysis, Karen is also Principle of Education at Patrick Holford’s Institute of Optimum Nutrition.

My advice for any school or parent involved with programmes to improve kids nutrition, and is using Food For the Brain for help, should be to question Patrick, the Charity Trustees and the Scientific Advisers to the Charity very hard about the value that Hair Mineral Analysis is bringing to the children. If you get evasive answers, particularly questioning the qualifications of those who doubt the advice from Food for the Brain, I suggest you follow Stephen Barret’s advice and ‘run for the nearest exit!’

I’ve already been lucky enough to have a couple of people pass me interesting info about Holford and associates - this has been really useful for the blog, but it would always be great to have more to write about! Just get in touch (you can contact me through my blogger profile) if you’ve got anything you’d like to tell me. Anonymity is assured if you want it*, or you’ll get full credit for any info if that’s what you’d prefer.

I’ve been looking at the stats for this blog: interesting to see where readers are coming from. If any readers from the Institute for Optimum Nutrition, or anywhere else, have anything that they’d like to get off their chest, please do feel free to drop me an e-mail.

* within reason, of course - send me bomb threats etc. and I might decide to tell the cops… But, for all reasonable emails, I will keep sources anonymous.