I've heard of blood testing and then I've heard of some test where they scratch your skin?? Are there any other forms of testing? Which one is the best?

Three main tests:

1) The scratch test that can be preformed in house over the course of a morning.
2) The patch test, which tests contact dermatitus reactivity to allergins and takes a week of not being able to wash or get your back wet.
3) The blood test, you are leeched of a good amount of blood which is sent off to be analyzed and evaluated ($12,000 fee in many cases).

Insurance normally only covers the scratch and patch tests.. it is only after extensive other testing that a blood test is/will be performed and covered.

The most inclusive would be the blood test.. it shows direct blood response to allergins.. while you can get false negative from the skin based testing. However this technique is the most expensive.

Both of the skin tests are valid techniques for guaging your strongest allergies.

Sincerely,
MG

and then again you will most probably be told by your allergist, the way I was, that the Academy of Asthma and Allergists report the blood test has way to much of a chance for false positives...and cannot me relied upon as a sole determining factor.

And you'll be told that the gold standard is the scratch test because it has a 98% accuracy rate. Some years ago the commerical serums used in scratch testing were not stable and caused false negatives. But huge strides have been made in stabilizing these serums now...so much so that the allergist will conclusively say that you are or are not allergic, depending on whether your skin reddens and raises. And in this day and age of law suits...I cannot imagine an allergist leaving himself/herself wide open for a lawsuit if there was even the remotest possibly of you having an anaphalactic reaction to food. I was told that I had the same possibility as that of the general population.....in other words...I have no food allergies, go out and eat anything.