I would concur that all of the above is sound advice. Following the adage that the least intervention that works is the best intervention, these are likely the place to start. But I have two caveats:

First, depending on how severe the behavior is and how dangerous, more direct management, even "treatment" of some sort, may be advisable.

Second, how long does one wait? This question may be similar to the homeopathic question, when do you make a second prescription? Wait and see. It requires watching, waiting, evaluating.

With apologies for moving into a somewhat theoretical vein, I have to say that I disagree about prescribing or not prescribing for "personality" versus "symptoms." From a psychological perspective, I'd suggest the idea that differentiating "behavior" from "symptom" is pretty tricky business. From a homeopathic perspective (and speaking as a neophyte in this area, I know), my sense is that, if we accept the widespread influence of miasms in our world, then the line between "illness" and "normal personality" becomes shaky.

To conclude, (I know, I like to hear myself talk!), I wouldn't rule out treatment even at this earlly age, if the problems are serious enough and persistent enough. Choose the least invasive approach first, which I would say includes the advice of your colleagues who have posted to this thread, using professional behavioral consultation if needed. After that, its probably personal preference between homeopathic interventions and dietary interventions. I obviously choose the dietary, in part because I don't like to "strengthen" the constitution, so to speak, if that means permitting the body to tolerate its role as a host to unwholesome foods. I would argue that behavioral symptoms may be seen as the body's efforts to throw off the influence of the dairy or other product, and we shouldn't "suppress" those efforts, but rather work with them--eliminate the problem so the body doesn't have to deal with it.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.