In recent years, there has been a growing movement to screen for and diagnose Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) in populations with gastrointestinal diseases, a phenomenon that warrants critical examination in light of the available evidence. At the heart of the issue lies the fundamental overlap between gastrointestinal symptoms and the diagnostic criteria for ARFID. In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, achalasia, or irritable bowel syndrome, the ingestion of certain foods triggers objective and measurable symptoms (like pain, diarrhea, nausea, abdominal distension) that result from well-characterized pathophysiological processes. Faced with this reality, dietary restriction or avoidance constitutes an adaptive, rational, and understandable response, analogous to withdrawing one's hand from a hot surface. However, the screening instruments currently employed, particularly the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), have not been validated for gastroenterological populations and appear to significantly inflate ARFID rates. The study by Fink and colleagues (2022), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, is paradigmatic: in a sample of 289 patients with achalasia, celiac disease, EoE, and IBD, 53.7% met criteria for ARFID according to the NIAS, with 78.4% of achalasia patients reaching this threshold, figures that the authors themselves consider "likely inflated." A factor analysis of the instrument in the same sample revealed a two-factor structure, rather than the three factors originally reported, with the "fear of gastrointestinal symptoms" subscale contributing to half of the total variance, suggesting that the NIAS is structurally inclined to classify as pathological what is, in gastrointestinal patients, an adaptive response to their condition.
The lack of specificity of the NIAS is further corroborated by recent population-based studies. A 2025 investigation involving 4,002 adults in the UK and USA found that 25.8% of the general population screened positive for ARFID, meaning one in four healthy individuals would meet the questionnaire's criteria, raising serious doubts about its utility as a diagnostic tool. This finding is particularly relevant when compared with the prevalence of ARFID in gastrointestinal patients, suggesting that the instrument captures eating behaviors that are, in fact, normative in the general population. The psychiatrization movement extends equally to non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). Shiha and colleagues (2026), in a study published in the UEG Journal, demonstrated that 69.4% of individuals with self-reported NCGS had concurrent DGBI and/or ARFID symptoms, and concluded that "self-reported NCGS may represent a broader syndrome of food-related symptom attribution rather than gluten-specific pathology." This reinterpretation of NCGS as a DGBI phenotype represents a subtle but profound inversion of causality: rather than recognizing that gastrointestinal disease causes symptoms that lead the patient to avoid foods, it proposes that the patient's "fear" or "visceral hypersensitivity" is the origin of the restriction, shifting the problem from the body to the mind.
This trend has been criticized by some of the most respected experts in the field. Helen Burton Murray, PhD, director of the gastrointestinal behavioral health program at Massachusetts General Hospital, has publicly expressed concern about "overpathologizing patients for whom dietary management can be a normative strategy," questioning whether diagnosing ARFID "changes the patient's treatment course and improves outcomes for them." Martin and colleagues (2025) demonstrated that, depending on the severity criteria applied, the rate of ARFID in patients with refractory DGBI ranged from 33% to 49%, highlighting the inherent arbitrariness of diagnosis when applied to these populations. Scarlata and colleagues (2024), in a review article, issued a "call to action" to unravel the nuance of adapted eating behaviors in individuals with gastrointestinal conditions, warning of the "potential for overpathologizing" and the need to distinguish between adaptive responses in patients with known physiological food intolerance and truly maladaptive behaviors in healthy individuals.
The controversy surrounding the low FODMAP diet is particularly illustrative. In response to concerns that dietary restriction might precipitate or exacerbate eating disorders, some authors have recommended psychological evaluation prior to prescribing the diet. This recommendation, however, can be seen as an unnecessary barrier to accessing effective treatment and as yet another example of causality inversion: if the diet reduces objective symptoms, its prescription is a legitimate medical intervention; suggesting that patients should be "screened" for eating disorders before initiating a treatment that could significantly improve their quality of life implies that dietary restriction is, by default, suspect, rather than being recognized as a disease management strategy. The distinction between association and causation is crucial: that patients on restrictive diets may be more likely to screen positive for ARFID does not mean that the diet causes ARFID, the alternative, more parsimonious interpretation is that patients with more severe symptoms (which justify the diet) are also those who benefit most from restriction and, consequently, show greater adherence to it.
In light of this, it is essential to establish rigorous criteria for the diagnosis of ARFID in gastrointestinal patients. The diagnosis should only be considered when dietary restriction persists beyond what is clinically necessary (for example, after optimized disease control), when there are objective consequences such as significant weight loss, documented nutritional deficiencies, or dependence on supplements or enteral feeding, and when the restriction causes severe psychosocial impairment, such as complete social isolation or inability to eat in social settings. In the absence of these criteria, dietary restriction should be viewed as a legitimate adaptive strategy, not a disorder. If the goal is to improve patients' lives, perhaps it is time to resist the temptation to transform adaptive responses into psychiatric disorders and to remember that, in most cases, dietary restriction in gastrointestinal patients is not a symptom of mental illness.
References
- Fink M, Simons M, Tomasino K, Pandit A, Taft T. When is Patient Behavior Indicative of Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) versus Reasonable Response to Digestive Disease? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(6):1241-1250.
- Shiha MG, Sanders DS, Burton-Murray H, Simren M, Palsson O, Aziz I. Prevalence of Self-Reported Non-Coeliac Gluten Sensitivity and Its Association With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction and Disordered Eating. UEG Journal. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.70256.
- Flack R, Brownlow G, Burton-Murray H, Palsson O, Aziz I. The Prevalence and Burden of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Symptoms in Adults With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: A Population-Based Study. Gastroenterology. 2025;170(2):365-374.
- Burton Murray H. Eating Disorder May Be Common in Celiac Disease. Medscape. 2022.
- Martin LD, et al. Finding the Line Between Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder and Refractory Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction Using Lenient vs. Strict Severity Criteria. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2025;37(9):e70043.
- Scarlata K, et al. A Call to Action: Unraveling the Nuance of Adapted Eating Behaviors in Individuals with GI Conditions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024.
- American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
Original essay. Deepseek (AI) was used for data analysis.