One fifth of the population report adverse reactions to food. Reasons for these symptoms are heterogeneous, varying from food allergy, food intolerance, irritable bowel syndrome to somatoform or other mental disorders. Literature reveals a large discrepancy between truly diagnosed food allergy and reports of food allergy symptoms by care seekers. In most studies currently available the characterization of patient groups is incomplete, because they did not distinguish between immunologic reactions and other kinds of food reactions. In analysing these adverse reactions, a thorough physical and psychological diagnostic approach is important. In our qualitative review, we present those diagnostic measures that are evidence-based as well as clinically useful, and discuss the various psychological dimensions of adverse reactions to food. It is important to acknowledge the complex interplay between body and mind: Adults and children suffering from food allergy show impaired quality of life and a higher level of stress and anxiety. Pavlovian conditioning of adverse reactions plays an important role in maintaining symptoms. The role of personality, mood, or anxiety in food reactions is debatable. Somatoform disorders ought to be identified early to avoid lengthy and frustrating investigations. A future task will be to improve diagnostic algorithms, to describe psychological aspects in clearly characterised patient subgroups, and to develop strategies for an optimized management of the various types of adverse reactions to food.

A Type D personality disposition can be found in about a quarter of the general population, which is comparable to the prevalence of classical cardiovascular risk factors. In both sexes, an independent association to Type D appeared mainly in psychopathological symptoms. Type D constitutes a relevant and independent risk marker in the community and should receive attention in clinical practice.

No abstract

This investigation confirms previous findings that psychiatric morbidity is high in patients presenting to specialized centres for environmental medicine. Somatoform disorders are the leading diagnostic category, and there is reason to believe that certain 'environmental' or MCS patients form a special subgroup of somatoform disorders. In most cases, symptoms can be explained by well-defined psychiatric and medical conditions other than MCS, which need specific treatment. Further studies should focus on provocation testing in order to find positive criteria for MCS and on therapeutic approaches that consider psychiatric aspects.

Psychobehavioral characteristics in patients with SFD cannot solely be attributed to the uncertainty of a work-up situation. Their predictive value is comparable to that of the traditional measuring of symptom number and severity; hence, they should be considered as SFD positive criteria in Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition.

No abstract

Our data extend previous findings of high psychiatric morbidity in patients with environmental illness. They do not support the notion of a direct causal link between chemical exposure and the psychological symptoms.

The hypotheses were not confirmed.