hungry for science

MY child has ADHD and we have known for a long time that certain additives make her behaviour worsen. She becomes more agressive and very hyper when she has eaten/drunk anything with these additives. It is difficult to avoid them at times, especially as sodium benzoate is in some medicines (penecillin, antibiotics) that have to be taken to clear up infections. Also sweets which are full of "bad colours" are given in party bags and at school when it is someones birthday, and the stigma of having ADHD is increased when they can't have what all the other children are having. I think they should be banned in all food/drink/medicine specifically aimed at children. Smarties have taken the colours out, so it is possible.

Posted by Anonymous on September 06, 2007 at 11:17 AM BST #

Does the study take into consideration the sugar content of the drinks and the quantity consumed, as the children could just be experiencing a sugar rush.How can this be seperated from the other ingredients in the beverages like artificial sweeteners and sugar to ensure that the colours and preservative listed were the causal factor?

Posted by Lee on September 06, 2007 at 12:42 PM BST #

I use to be a Production Manager in a Food additives company. The details on Safety Data Sheets supplied with the chemicals used for the manufacture of flavours scared me silly. We should all be aware that it is not just colourings (that reminds me I purchased a large food quality stainless steel sink for washing utensils used on colourings and within 6 weeks the sink had holes in it). I am now very careful to look at food labels

Posted by Roy Martin on September 06, 2007 at 01:07 PM BST #

Having listened to a radio debate this morning following the publication of the Southampton study in the Lancet, I can only despair at the appalling standard of science reporting we have to endure in our media. The general gist of the debate was whether there should be a blanket ban on additives (E-Numbers)! Whilst some phone in participants rightly brought the debate into its proper context by naming the specific additives to which the study relates, the redio presenter persisited on repeating the question "Should we ban E-Numbers from children's food?".The issue of this sort of sensationalist and uninformed media representation of science has been raised by you previously and this I feel is is another example of the difficulty scientists face in delivering messages to the public.

Posted by Wyn Jones on September 06, 2007 at 01:29 PM BST #

So based on this new research how is this going to affect the approval status of these ingredients? Is this study going to launch an investigation into whether the approval for these should be withdrawn?

Posted by Anonymous on September 06, 2007 at 01:48 PM BST #

This research backs up the findings of other studies and it is time that we recognise that diet, including artificial additives, can influence mood, behaviour and learning potential. Other dietary factors can also affect the function of the brain and advice form a Registered Dietitian is crucial.Emma Mills ( Registered Dietitian )

Posted by Emma Mills on September 06, 2007 at 02:22 PM BST #

Is it possible to have some precisions on the named additives and artificials colours?Thank youRegards

Posted by Sophie Soumah on September 06, 2007 at 02:44 PM BST #

I am amazed it has taken so long for this to become public. 13 years ago my then 3 year old boy was diagnosed as hyperactive and our health visitor gave us a sheet of additives known to affect children. This list didn't include sodium Benzoate, but we ruled it out of his diet ourselves by carefully monitoring his diet and only putting in one known additive at a time, watching his behaviour. Simply by cutting out processed food, my little boy went from one who was awake from 5.30am to midnight with an attention span of seconds, to a lovely boy who could sit with me, watch videos and stay still enough to play games and read stories. He quite literally changed completely in the course of just 3 days.We also found he reacted to certian natural colours, Granny Smith apples, oranges and cucumbers also cause a drastic change in his behaviour.I'm not saying it was easy, all his food was cooked and prepared from fresh ingredients. Ice cream was a frozen banana liquidised with natural yoghurt. If he wanted crisps, I made him prawn crackers, fried at home and sweets were home popped corn with a sprinkling of icing sugar! He had to take his own food to parties as he could become so angry, he was a danger to himself and other children. Even fruit juices had to be pasturised to avoid natural colours that affected him. His diet stayed the same for 2 years until his Christmas list was for just a packet of maltesers and a curlywurly.After that he was occassionaly, birthday, christmas and such, allowed sweets etc, but we would monitor it carefully and be prepared for the concequences, at home normally.As he got older and was able to understand what happened to him if he ate these foods, he became able to control the impulses brought on by them, but we watched his diet carefully until he was 10, before beginning to relax the restrictions and let him learn how to control himself.I am relieved to say he "outgrew" the affects, more or less. Even at 16, he can still be a little wired if he has cola and we have had to ban any of the caffeine drinks.The rewards for us, far outwieghed the inconvenience of altering our families diet.There is always hope.

Posted by Sarah Taylor on September 06, 2007 at 04:28 PM BST #

Our daughter, whom we adopted as a baby, always became sicker when we gave her Tylenol, which is red. At age three, she developed massive hives from eating red licorice. Every time we gave her meds or food with certain red dyes in it she had a massive temper tantrum emotional meltdown. Here in Canada, we cannot find children's Tylenol without red dye, so have to use Advil Blueberry flavour. Her teachers, who ignored us and served her red-coloured juice, and her physician, who prescribed a red sulfa drug, say they have never heard of red dye sensitivity. When are the schools and med manufacturers going to take this dye issue seriously?

Posted by Anonymous on September 06, 2007 at 05:00 PM BST #

The work which has been carried out is highly valuable I'm sure although I wonder if it's just a confirmation of what we already know. As manufacturers we are responsibly replacing artificial materials with natural alternatives but we seem to be missing the fact that these so called " natural " raw materials contain components which in themselves are highly unpalatable. Whilst they may contain process additives including potassium hydroxide, to name but one, to serve a technological purpose, I have questioned on many occassions what the effect of these ingredients are doing to the health of the consumers we provide for.

Posted by Anonymous on September 06, 2007 at 05:20 PM BST #

I completely agree. I think it is quite extraordinary that these additives have only just been given what is seemingly still a very tentative alert by the FSA. I was frankly astonished by the vague and foggy vacillations demonstrated by the FSA Senior Toxicologist just now in an interview with Jon Snow.My eldest son is 29 next week and he had a range of distressing symptoms as a 3 year old which resulted in a range of painful hospital tests with little result. Eventually we introduced an additive free diet and within 3 weeks he was a different child. His hyperactive behaviour calmed down and his constant stomach upsets disappeared. He continued faithfully with his exclusion diet provided by the Hyperactive Childrens Support Group until he was a teenager and is now able to eat anything he likes. This is not rocket science - and he is not unique.Given the alarming rise in behavioural problems amongst children and young people and the resultant social problems both in and outside of school I am astonished that the FSA do not feel that they have a responsibility to help parents to manage their children's diets in the safest way possible simply by issuing a ban on the worst offenders. It makes perfect sense.I have spent the past 25 years working in children and young people's services and have often seen the impact of poor diet at first hand. Yes, there are other contributory factors to ADHD and hyperactivity etc but these food colourings are unnecessary and can add significantly to social problems in children and young people and therefore society in general.This should be a simple thing to fix - and please especially think of the most vulnerable children here whose parents may not be aware of this. Quite simply, it is the responsibility of the FSA to act now!

Posted by J Bell on September 06, 2007 at 06:47 PM BST #

I am amazed that this whole controversy goes round in a circle, without anyone doing anything positive and lasting about it! My daughter became hyper when consuming food colouring such as E104 about 28 years ago, when she was aged 2. At that time, there were studies and articles suggesting they should be removed from foods which did seem to happen. Her behaviour changed drastically for the better, once I became an avid label reader and concentrated on home-made or natural products.However, it seems with a new generation of children these "nasties" have come back yet again to cause problems. Why don't we follow countries like France where they are banned? One single example - a well known "orange" drink consumed in France had just orange juice, water, and some sugar in it. That same product bought in UK also contained a colouring! Which caused a reaction in my children... Why oh why can't manufacturers just leave well alone. We don't need brightly coloured food.Parents also need educating to beware what they are giving their (sometimes) small children. It's the long-term effects on their health that bothers me, it's time legislation caught up with practice.

Posted by DizzyD on September 06, 2007 at 06:54 PM BST #

Picking up on a comment earlier with respect to additives in medicines. As a child my youngest son - now 26, suffered with acute ashthma which often required hospitalisation. Later on I worked out that various food colourings and flavourings contributed to his condition - and sometimes quite substantially.In the most extreme case an additive in the Ventolin asthma medicine he was prescribed had a dramatic effect in as much as he stopped breathing within 2 minutes of it being administered. Once recovered from this attack, doctors in hospital once again gave him a dose of the medicine despite my warning them - and of course it happened again. It was only at that point that they agreed the flavouring was responsible. Talk about counter-productive! Any additive of this kind should be removed from children's medicines - there are plenty of natural alteratives to enhance flavour. Chemical additives are harmful to many children and are not medicines!

Posted by Jo Bennett on September 06, 2007 at 07:02 PM BST #

Good that the FSA has at last acknowledged this. But we've had research going back over 50 years that found that some additives, especially colours (which were originally designed for use in plastics!) can cause extreme and disruptive behaviour in some children.For example, some years ago, Great Ormond Street Hospital found a staggering connection between certain additives and behaviour (and migraine and other health problems), but the findings were debunked. Similar story with the MAFF report in 2002: clear recommendations by the researchers, debunked by the FSA and CoT.But these additives can be disastrous for some children - and their families. At least, follow Norway's example and ban the lot. It doesn't need EU approval - already some countries ban individual additives.Enough pandering to the food and additive industries. Let's put children first.

Posted by Mary Whiting on September 06, 2007 at 10:55 PM BST #

So far this press release has been unhelpful to those of us who diagnose and treat children.There is little information available on how the research was carried out and in particular how the levels of behaviour were measured. My guess is that we will see that there was a 'significant' change in some sort of score.It is so important that the public and researchers understand that this is not the same as showing a 'real' difference in behaviour. A change of 0.5 or 1 point on a Connors scale may be a statistically significant change and yet in fact may mean nothing in real, clinical life.I feel this is an untimely, insufficent release of information, leading to parents making changes off their own backs.I hope I can eat my words and that the research has real meaning, but I note in the above blog from Andrew Wadge the words 'possible effects' and we should be so aware of those words.

Posted by Anonymous on September 06, 2007 at 11:05 PM BST #

I very concern about the effects about the effects of artificial food colouring on hyperactive children as I involve in ice cream manufacturing. Altough the research on food colouring like Sunset Yellow, Carmiosine and tartazine still not conculsive, these food colouring allow to be used under my country, Malaysia, Food Regulations 1985. In the interest of consumer safety and food producers I would like to ask Andrew Wadge, Food Standards Agency Chief Scientist, the best possible option course of action to be follow by food producers until the research finding by Southampton University conclusive evidence shown there is in fact a link of current approved artificial food colours on the hyperactive children. Thanks and with best regards.

Posted by Han Fook Chew on September 07, 2007 at 03:58 AM BST #

I do not normally take part in blogs, however I find my frustration at the FSA too much to bare. It talks of the importance of good science - yet it applauds a flawed study which is based on a cocktail of colours and preservative (perhaps the FSA can can give details of which drinks on the market it has found to contian 6 colours in one product). As parents of hyperactive children will testify research is required but this needs to be done properly and not sensationilised to justify research funding - if an ingredient is unsafe then we need to know and take action. Poor research and bad reporting has resulted in people calling for E numbers to be banned; again perhaps the FSA can take some time to educate people as to why the E numbering system was set up in the first place. - ascorbic acid, better known as Vitamin C has got an e- number as do hundreds of 'approved' ingredients which often go by their real name on labels because manufacturers are aware of the unwarranted (in most cases)biased against the letter 'E'. I have been in the drinks industry in a technical capacity for over 20 years and this debate was raging then - lets get some proper research done and better labelling legislation. I have much more to say on the subject but I feel bias has overtaken a common sense approach.

Posted by Anonymous on September 07, 2007 at 09:32 AM BST #

There is an urgent need to re educate the end consumer to accept that colour in a manufactured/processed food does not have a bearing on the taste of that product but is only added to satisfy a perception that if a product looks natural its taste will be correct.The company i work for has over the last year experienced increasing pressure by some of the multiples to remove colour or replace with a natural extract . We would like nothing better than to be able to oblige but the end result without the colour additive looks bland and unpalletable.The trials using natural extracts have not come upto scratch and the cost is high leading to an additional 25 and in some cases 40% increase on the cost of the product.Colour in our product represents 75 parts / million and one of only 3 ingredients added to the raw material another of those being water.

Posted by Anonymous on September 07, 2007 at 10:20 AM BST #

Having known about the E-number debate for many years, I have never allowed my children to consume foods loaded with artificial additives and colours. Whilst I try to keep heathier alternatives in the cupboard at home and the children 'trade in' the stuff they've been given at parties, it's often very awkward to turn down sweets offered to them. Last weekend they were given some lovely 'traditional' Norfolk rock .. I was dismayed to see it is loaded with additives, including the notorious tartrazine. To echo a point already made - if Smarties can go E-colour free, why can't all the rest? However let's not lobby to ban all 'E' numbered ingredients - some of them are traditional, safe, everyday cooking foodstuffs - though mid-shop I struggle to recall which ones are OK.

Posted by Amanda Gash on September 07, 2007 at 10:21 AM BST #

I must Echo the Comments of DizzyD - accept in the terms of Tartrazine E102 - I Thought this had been banned years ago. I Was amazed to find is still being used ... I Quickly had a look at some labels on some flavoured squashes we have at home, and it occured to me that manufacturers are allowed to declare Sodium benzoate E211, as Either Preservative (E211), or under its Name Sodium Benzoate. - There should be a law as to how they are declared.Now we come on to E128 One again inconsistency has reared its ugly head with regards to Food Policy.I Will reiterate, if a Food stuff is BAD / Dangerous then it should be RECALLED.I Will stress that I agree with the correspondant (Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 07/09/2007 - 09:32) about Flawed research, but Tartrazine E102 has been on the Watch List for Years.I will also put in my feelings about aspartame (E951) - How many people know that it is BANNED from putting into products aimed at the Under 3's (By EU Law).... Accept for medical Products. It confuses the Brain, it makes unpalletable foods acceptable. You do not get the energy from the Aspartame Based Foods the brain is expecting from products natuarally occuring in sugar. It use has already been banned inside meatproducts, so why is it sill allowed in soft drinks and other foods.It is used in very many diets, now an arguement could be offered that a diet is a medical need, and i would agree - But that is the ONLY reason I feel it should be used in products. It should not be used for the general population - studies have linked Aspartame to so many problems, its use should be me illegal NOW.Back to Flawed Research - Why did the FSA include 5 Colours & 1 Preservative in the studies? Surely the 2 Artificial sweeteners widley used to fool consumers into eating/drinking products which would otherwise be unpalletable would have also been worthwhile including.!

Posted by MajorStare Pseudonym on September 07, 2007 at 01:04 PM BST #

Hello, If I may echo Lee's comments posted yesterday, how did (or did...) this study take into account the different effects caused by the sweetners used in the artificial drink and the sugars occuring naturally in the orange juice? I have always been told that sugars present naturally in fruits and vegetables are much easier to digest and provide a "better" kind of energy to the body than most of the sugars added to food (whether "real" or "artificial"). Whatever the answers to these questions, thank you for doing this study. I would strongly urge you to continue the good work. Sincerely, Pierre Cenerelli

Posted by Pierre Cenerelli on September 07, 2007 at 03:13 PM BST #

RE: Research and evidence on artifical additives in food and drink.Born in the late 1980s, I grew up eating a great deal of processed food including mushy peas and tinned stewing steak, both of which can be loaded with artificial additives. Colours which are not necessary but which can, in many people, cause hours of hyperactivity and pain. Things should be their natural colour.The Food Standards Agency has LET DOWN A WHOLE GENERATION OF PEOPLE by adding additives to food. In school, many cannot concentrate on their lessons for they are so drugged up on all the 2,000 chemicals their bodies have been fed. Is it any wonder we're turning out illiterate youngsters? In my opinion, organic produce is the way forward - nicer and tastier without the headaches and wind. Standard food has been bulked up with chemicals to make it cheaper - no wonder we've got to snack between meals! Diglicerides of fatty acids? No, I want proper, natural food!

Posted by Sick of Chemicals on September 07, 2007 at 05:11 PM BST #

steve H,Well said. Remember that one letter does not say enough, write more expressing the things you have said to MP(s), MEP and even the EU Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas with respect I find that he is supportive at stoppping GMO,his web sit

Posted by Katie's Mum on September 08, 2007 at 10:16 AM BST #

Parents have been trying for at least 40 years to tell you so called experts that hyperactivity is tied not only to food colorings, but also artificial sweeteners and other unecessary additives.In 1972 I had a friend with a 10 year old son who was all but uncontrollable. They decided to go to as much of a natural food source as possible. The boy got better, but very very slowly, so slowly the parents had not realized how much better he had become. One day he begged for a coke and had been behaving well for so long the boy's father decided to let him have a treat and gave him one. Within 10 minutes he was bouncing off the walls, totally out of control. It took another 6 months for him to get back to where he was and after that he would refuse anything with artificial anything or overly sweetened anything. He said the experience was horrible and did not want to go through it again.When are the so called experts going to learn to pay attention to parents when it comes to children? They know their children better than any Doctor of anything (especially psychology) or any teacher.

Posted by Anonymous on September 08, 2007 at 01:46 PM BST #

It is an absolute scandal that it has taken more than 40 years for the developing anecdotal evidence of the harm that the food processing industry has been doing to successive generations of children and society in general, by the use of artificial colours and preservatives to prompt this welcome, but limited (why only a handfull of colours and one preservative?) piece of research.It is quite clear that this definitive piece of research should lead to an immediate ban on the use of the offending chemicals, and a major step up in funding to examine all the rest.

What is an even bigger scandal is the fact that even though we now have a Food Standards Agency all we get is bluster and obfuscation about, quote - ""both the study and the science underpinning it are very specialist and complex and require careful interpretation."" and no action at all from FSA. This is a complete betrayal. It's your research paid for with our money, so You should act on it immediately. A limp warning to parents about them perhaps considering avoiding giving these chemicals to children already suffering ADHD symptoms is a disgracefully weak response> You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Prehaps Andrew Wadge will return to this blog to respond to the overwhelming criticism of the FSA's response to this national crisis in confidence in our food supply and its standards watchdog.

As to my original question - it is clear to me that the FSA is more about protecting the interests of multinational food corporations and biotech companies, than it is about looking out for the interests of consumers. Please demonstrate that this is not the case by banning the food colourants and preservatives implicated in damaging our children.

Posted by Actgreener on September 10, 2007 at 02:08 PM BST #

We await any response to the issues raised in this blog from Andrew Wadge or any other representative from the FSA.There are clearly questions raised relating to the research that has been reported here and whether is does in fact stand up to 'good science' and scrutiny.These issues are raised by parents and professional staff, including docors who treat children.For the FSA to not have reacted to these questions in an appropriate way just raised the question of how confident they are in the published research and should make the FSA consider how it uses such a 'blog' in the future.I hope that the Lancet will carry some debate on the issue, if only in the letters section and that the FSA will highlight any such debate in the future so families and clinicians can be fully informed.

Posted by Anonymous on September 11, 2007 at 03:08 PM BST #

The Food Standards Agency has misled the public by failing to explain clearly that all children can be affected by artificial food colourings when releasing its report on food additives last week, claims the Soil Association, the Hyperactive Children's Support Group and Sustain in a letter sent to FSA chief Dame Deirdre Hutton on Monday and published yesterday. The letter alleges that the FSA did not accurately reflect the conclusions of research on food additives it commissioned from the University of Southampton when presenting them to the public last week.Peter Melchett, policy director for the Soil Association, said that while the FSA could not legally implement a ban on artificial food colourings, he would like to see it acknowledge the significance of the research. He also suggested it urgently press the European Food Safety Authority to consider a ban.Come on Dr Wadge - please let us have your response to these criticisms and let us know what you are going to do to stop these chemicals harming another generation of children. We need strong action now.

Posted by Andrew on September 12, 2007 at 12:10 PM BST #

Thanks very much to all who've commented. I can't think of another topic that's generated so much feedback so quickly, expressed with a strength of feeling that I don't think we've seen on the blog before.Your concerns and comments have resonated with me, particularly the steps many of you have taken to change your childs' diets and the effect it had on hyperactive behaviour, or on other aspects of the research and its results.I suppose if anything it confirms to me the importance not just of making sure the science is right, but also about winning hearts and minds when you come to communicating that science.Tomorrow we're meeting with food industry and consumer representatives. We'll be discussing with industry the actions they're taking with regard to the colours mentioned in the research. I hope this will go some way to addressing some of the very real concerns that people have.As well as reading all your blog comments, I've also been following the media coverage generated in the last few days, particularly those commentators who want to know, along with many of you, why we're not calling for a ban on additives, or at least the colours that were studied as part of this research.Deirdre Hutton, the Agency's Chair, made clear in Saturday's Financial Times that we can't simply ban something unless there's a clear risk to public safety, and there's nothing in the science that would allow us to make a case to the European Commission for an immediate ban. I made a similar point on the Today programme last week. Some of you have cited France, Norway and Sweden as countries where colours are banned. This is not the case. Food additives legislation is harmonised throughout the EU and all Member States permit the use of these colours. This also applies to countries in the European Economic Area (EEA) such as Norway.Some of you wanted to know why we confined our research to six colours alongside the preservative sodium benzoate, and why these particular colours. We looked at these because these colours have historically been the subject of most concern in relation to possible effects on children's behaviour. Also, these particular colours were most likely to be found in food marketed to children when the study began.If we'd looked at a wider number it would have placed too great a burden on the families who participated in the research. This would not have been feasible. This issue is gathering pace since we published our research last week. We're putting pressure on the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to address the matter as a matter of urgency so that further regulatory discussions can be taken without delay at a European level.Also, the Agency's Board will be discussing next steps and progress so far at its Open Board Meeting in London next week. Some of you have commended us for doing this research. It's because we believe in putting consumer first that we took the lead on this issue by commissioning the research in the first place.By the way, if you want to access the final research report, by the way, it's now available on our website.

Posted by Andrew Wadge on September 12, 2007 at 04:18 PM BST #

I have a few questions on the recent Southampton study, claiming to show a link between the consumption of azo dyes and behavioural disorders in children.Why are all azo dyes being incriminated, when 2 mixtures were used?What controls were used?When and where will the full study be published?ThanksRob Fairhurst

Posted by R Fairhurst on September 15, 2007 at 03:41 PM BST #

Why is the FSA's section all about e numbers completely devoid of a list or link as to where you can look them up? Seeing a number on a label when you are shopping is impossible anyway. Names are what we need. And for heaven's sake stop talking about science and winning over hearts and minds. Common sense is what's needed where food is concerned, with science as an important but secndary helper. We were eating millenia before we had laboratories, and people knew what was safe or not. Science has become the new God and it's sacrilege to criticise it. And it's very interesting to see the food company apologists claiming that everything they do is fine or progressive. The cheapest things are the most full of additives and they are often in places where they are easy to buy when you don't have much money, not in main stream shops. And many well respected brands of squash have sodium benzoate in them. A large proportion of additives are bad for children full stop. If they were meant to be there they'd be in the food in the first place. And what about Aspartame, which is not permitted in some countries I think? A sugar free squash is full of rubbish as a rule, and yet we are still being told that even well diluted fresh fruit juice is bad for children's teeth. Ban artificial additives including sweeteners unless there are medical reasons why certain people need them, or unless they are essential for preservation of primary food stuffs.And one final comment - if you don't read well, or can't read, or are partially sighted, that tiny print on the label is not going to help you to make an informed choice.

Posted by Anonymous on September 17, 2007 at 04:01 PM BST #

I notice in your blog on food additives, you write: 'There's nothing in the science that would allow us to make a case to the European Commission for an immediate ban. 'This is not correct.Prof Jim Stevenson told the FSA board last week that the food additives studied by his Southampton team do harm health. Consequently, there is sufficient evidence to make a case to the European Commission for an immediate ban. Prof Stevenson was asked at the board meeting if the evidence shows a serious risk to human health. He said: 'I think in terms of psychological health it is.' He added: 'We know that hyperactivity in young child is a risk factor for, for example, later difficulties in school. Certainly it is associated with difficulties in learning to read. 'It is also associated with wider behavioural difficulties in middle childhood, such as conduct disorder.' Importantly, he added: 'I feel that the effects we are seeing here are sufficiently great to represent a threat to health.'Who should the public believe? Prof Stevenson, who has been praised by you and others for his 'excellent' research, or you? Your blog and the FSA website should accurately reflect the views of the lead researcher on this project. Why have you not done this? I note you claim that the Southampton research shows no causal link. I believe this is at odds with Prof Stevenson's assessment.The research was not designed to identify the biological mechanism between additive consumption and hyperactive behaviour. To say the research does not show something it was not set up to do, gives a misleading impression.

Posted by Anonymous on September 25, 2007 at 09:35 AM BST #

I note that a recent posting indicates that Dr Stevenson has said that additives DO cause harm. I can not say what evidence he gave to the committee and the wording he used but I do cut and paste the following from the FSA web site itself relating to the Stevenson et al research' Professor Ieuan Hughes, Chair of the COT, said: 'There are constraints when conducting any research involving children. Whilst this research does not prove that the colours used in the study actually cause increased hyperactivity in children, it provides supporting evidence for a link. It is important to stress that the currently available evidence does not identify whether this association would be restricted to certain food additives or combinations of them.' This is clear, the opinion is that the research does NOT prove a link, indeed looking at the language used elsewhere the words might, may and could all turn up.

It is so important that postings are accurate and if not then they are commented on promptly.This blog page is poorly moderated. The aforementioned posting has been on the site for about a week with no comment.

The FSA are in my opinion too sloppy in moderating this discussion. It is leading to inaccuracies and has the clear potential to confuse and mislead the public. FSA please consider carefully what the purpose of this exercise is and if this should be continued in this format.

It is reminisent of the issues that came up about the Wakefield research and the MMR vaccination issue. Researches must be clear about the limitations of their work and it is in this case also the responsibility of the FSA to do the same.

Posted by Anonymous on October 02, 2007 at 03:18 PM BST #

Thanks to the commentators who've posted since I last replied. To address your points - I think the section you're referring to that doesn't link to the e-numbers list is this page on our eatwell website.Fair point - we've now amended the page and included a link.You also make the point about tiny print on labels. We are working with industry and consumer groups on ways to provide better information on labels so that people can make an informed choice. This is also something that is being considered as part of the EU labelling review that is currently underway.Another one of you has referred to Prof. Stevenson's comments to the Board. As well as Prof. Stevenson, we've also looked to the independent scientists who help us to interpret the science. There's also the peer review process that the Lancet paper had to go through before publication. In addition, there's the European Food Safety Authority review of additives to consider. So any decision on further actions will be made after EFSA has completed its review.Finally R Fairhurst has asked some detailed questions about the research, and when the final document will be published. It is not possible to conclude from this study, which of the individual additives, or combination of additives, in the mixtures may have been responsible for the observed effects, or to extrapolate the findings to other azo dyes or other additives beyond those used in the study. The final report documents has now been published on our website. I hope this document will provide more information about controls etc.

Posted by 62.25.106.209 on October 03, 2007 at 12:18 PM BST #

When will the FSA be changing the advice given to parents on the consumption of additives? The FSA Board decided the advice supported by Mr Wadge - issued following publication of the Southampton study - failed to give clear and useful information. Obviously, it is important this is rectified as soon as possible.

Posted by Anonymous on October 04, 2007 at 04:42 PM BST #

Thanks for your comments. You're right, the Board did ask for some clarification. This doesn't change the substance of our advice, but we did post this page, hopefully to make it clearer and more helpful to consumers. The page also explains what's happening next in relation to this issue. Again, this isn't any different to the advice we issued when we published the research. The Agency also agreed to 'road test' the clarity of our advice by holding some depth interviews with consumers. This is already happening and the findings will be presented back to the Board. We're also holding a meeting today with food industry and consumer group representatives to establish what further practical help can be offered to parents who wish to avoid food and drink that contain the additives used in the research.

Posted by Andrew Wadge on October 09, 2007 at 12:17 PM BST #

A month after publication of clear evidence of the harm being done to our children by the addition of ENTIRELY UN-NECESSARY artificial additives to processed foods, and are we any nearer to having the things banned?I hope so, but to judge by the actions of FSA to date, I fear not.Why all the hedging and fudging? Just get on and do what you know needs to be done, before any more children are damaged.The poster who asked a few comments back 'what do we have a FSA for ?' seemed to pretty well hit the nail on the head.

Posted by Actgreener on October 10, 2007 at 07:57 PM BST #

In response to:

Colours and Hyperactivity Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 07/09/2007 - 09:32 It talks of the importance of good science - yet it applauds a flawed study which is based on a cocktail of colours and preservative (perhaps the FSA can can give details of which drinks on the market it has found to contian 6 colours in one product).

Why would all six colours need to be in one product? All children are inherently gluttonous, and will polish off drinks, sweets, crisps etc. It's arrogant of adults to assume that if they don't see evidence of a child eating something then it hasn't been eaten.

Posted by Anonymous on October 21, 2007 at 11:03 AM BST #

Greetings Dr. Wadge!Regarding your recent statement concerning detox diets being "nonsense," first I must ask you, what are you basing this statement on? I have to say that I couldn't disagree with you more for I have seen the benefits of diets high in nutritious antioxidants first hand. Please forgive me for my ignorance, but explain to me Dr. what does Niacin do? Doesn't it flush the body and help rid it of toxins? If you look at what humans consume and chart it on a scale from very good to very bad and then look at people who only consume on one side of the spectrum, I know you'll see a huge difference in health including, but not limited to all sorts of disease and/or cancers, which should prove that what we consume has a direct effect on our health. I would think/hope/pray that is common sense at your level of expertise. There was a Harvard Medical study that proved taking Echinacea combined with vitamin C during the onset of a cold can reduce the impact of the cold by as much as 80%. Tell me Dr. do you think that taking Echinacea and vitamin C is nonsense? Do you think drinking green tea for the benefits of the antioxidant epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG) is nonsense? This also has now been proven as well to reduce the chance of many different types of cancers. I was actually very shocked to here someone in your position say that detox diets are "nonsense." It led me to think that the "F" in FSA stood for Federal instead of Food. Last question Dr. Is the FSA funded by the federal government? Thank you for your time

Posted by BMcEvoy on December 29, 2007 at 06:57 PM GMT #

Is there a list of foods to avoid, or do you have to read each and every label?Or, is there a list of "safe" foods?

Posted by Anonymous on February 06, 2008 at 06:29 PM GMT #

I was grateful to see this reseach and actually naming some of the additives and regognition that it can be a combination that sets the trigger - I see first hand the effect additives can have on my 10 yr old son(rest of Family is fine)- ranges fromm hyperactivy to hands/feet sweling and itchy, which may not sound much but can impact on alot of things like learning and attention - after 5 yrs I know which foods to avoid (I have just started a blog for myself to keep notes). I would like to see some of these additives banned - so what type of research would help to show this or are you doing any further research in this area?

Posted by Hel on February 17, 2008 at 03:30 AM GMT #

It always amazes me that whilst we in the UK are arguing over whether food intolerances exist and, if so, whether anything can be done about them, that in other countries -namely Australia -they take the matter much more seriously. So seriously in fact that the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney has a whole unit dedicated to not only allergies, but food intolerances too. Their web page is very informative and contains a whole section on food intolerance: http://www.cs.nsw.gov.au/rpa/allergy/default.htm I would also highly recommend two other sites that I have found over the last couple of years. The first is also from Australia and contains information, fact sheets and practical advice for sufferers of all sorts of food intolerances: http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/The last link I would recommend is UK based, and despite containing much of the same information as the Australian sites, is perhaps more relevant to people living in the UK:http://www.foodcanmakeyouill.co.uk/I do highly recommend these sites, and would be interested to hear of any others that people may know of.

Posted by Anonymous on February 24, 2008 at 03:26 PM GMT #

I came home from being told that our 3 yr. old was hyperactive and on the autistic spectrum. I got on the web, found this study and took sodium benzoate out of our diet. He has recovered most of his lost development in six weeks. This includes eye contact, speech, social interaction and imaginary play. It worked for us and I am thankful.

Posted by mum in the US on March 03, 2008 at 02:58 PM GMT #

As an adult who suffers from Sunset Yellow (E110) allergy - my symptoms include a sudden onset of chronic full blown migraine, swelling and itching of lips. What if anything is going to be done about the colour's that are added to pharmaceutical items? I have so far in the last 6 months had shingles and ear infections require prescription medicines that were unable to be dispensed easily due to the addition of this ingredient which has no other purpose in the effect of the medication other than cosmetic.The number of problems I have in going out for a meal (try finding out what brand of orange juice somewhere stocks) or in general grabbing something to eat from the supermarket - my partner is learning very quickly what to look for on the back of packets and what symptoms mean I am going to get unwell very quickly.

Posted by Carol Henderson on April 10, 2008 at 02:28 PM BST #

My wife and I had our own 'clinical trial' for hyperactivity in the form of our son.One day we read a random article possibly linking hyperactivity with artificial additives,and dyes. So we decided to try removing them from his diet.The result was amazing, it worked!We had a calm, sensible, and well behaved child again. When we heard of Professor Stevenson's findings we wrote to thank him, for categorically proving what we have known to be true for so many years.

Posted by Steve on May 21, 2008 at 04:34 AM BST #

My youngest son was diagnosed with ADHD and Asbergers. He was put on a Ritalin type drugby the NHS. I decided one day to throw all factory processed food out of the house. From that day on we cooked all food from basic ingredients. Two weeks later all symptons of both problems had gone and I threw his NHS medication down the toilet. In addition his brother who had Asthma also was cured. That was three years ago and everything is fine and they are doing very well at school etc.I have spent the last 3 years working outwhy the additive -free diet worked. Suprise suprise I found out that additves in childrens food in the UK such as ,for example, sodiun benzoate is also used in other industries as a chemical to kill insects etc. No wonder they cause problems when fed to children !! I also researched why the problem is not so great in Mainland Europe. They consume between 300 percent and 1000 percent less additives than we do depending on the country.

Posted by drlloyd2007 on November 16, 2008 at 09:49 PM GMT #

It was not only the half dozen or so food colours which were focused on in the Southampton report. Sodium Benzoate was also ,to say the least, an important part of the cocktail which was under test.However it seems to get forgotten aboutfor some reason. As I understand it this chemical was more than significant in contributing to the outcome of the tests.

Posted by drlloyd on November 18, 2008 at 09:21 PM GMT #

Colours and hyperactivity

More about the blog

FSA on the web

Latest comments

Archive

External links

food.gov top stories

Printer friendly

Contact us

Get alerts

Our Sites