Open access to science eprints
TheSparc provides both scientists and the general public free open access to scientific papers that are important for the survival of people and planet
ISIS Report 01/10/07
Food Colouring Confirmed Bad for Children
Food Standards Agency Refuses to Act
New study confirms link between attention deficit hyperactive disorder and
artificial food colours, but the UK Food Standards Agency is downplaying
the evidence and offering misleading advice, coinciding with an aggressive campaign
of disinformation from industry. Prof.
A fully referenced
version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website, and is available for download here
Read the list of ingredients on the label
of a tin or packet of food carefully and you will often find
several identified only by a number;these are additives for flavouring, colouring and preserving.
As the additives
are seldom found in food prepared at home, many people are concerned about
how safe they are, especially when consumed by children and
over a period of many years. While the additives have been tested, this
may have been some time ago. Furthermore, each of additives would have been
tested separately, whereas a typical food product will contain several in
combination, and most people consume more than one such product in the course
of a day.
Announcing a new Report from ISIS. The most complete up-to-date summary of the dangers of GM agriculture in 52 pages. Buy Now, or download here
Link to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
One area of concern is attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) in children. The prevalence of ADHD has greatly increased
over the past fifty years, and it has been widely suspected that some artificial
food colourings (AFCs) are contributing to that.
long ago as 1975, physician BenFeingold pointed out that the increase in what he called
H-LD (hyperkinesis and learning disabilities) was correlated with the growth
in consumption of soft drinks and synthetic flavours since World
War II . Drawing also on his clinical experience, he wrote: “I
believe that it is more than suggestive that a relationship exists
between H-LD and the artificial colors and flavors in our food.” There have
been a number of studies since, and while the results have not been conclusive,
they have certainly not been reassuring.
In 2004, two researchers at Columbia University
carried out a meta-analysis of this work, i.e.. they used statistical techniques
to combine results from different experiments. They found that even allowing
for publication bias and other limitations, there was evidence that some AFCs
contribute to hyperactivity .
Shortly after this result
appeared, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned a team at Southampton
University to conduct a further investigation. This was a follow up to an
earlier study of children on the Isle of Wight carried out in 1999-2000, which had reported a connection
between AFCs and ADHD, but had not led
to action because the results were again considered inconclusive .
The Southampton Study
The Southampton group carried out a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled
crossover trial in which they gave children two different mixes of additives
in amounts that corresponded to what they would get if they ate about five ounces
of sweets a day. The mixes each consisted of a commonly used preservative, sodium
benzoate (E211) and four colourings: Mix A, Sunset yellow (E110), Tartrazine
(E102), Carmoisine (E122), Ponceau 4R (E124) (This is the same mixture that
was used in the Isle of Wight study); Mix B, Sunset
yellow (E110), Quinoline yellow (E104), Carmoisine (E122), Allura red (E129)
The children enrolled in the study were 153 3-year-olds
and 144 8/9-year- olds; they were
observed and rated by teachers and parents and the older children were also
given a computerised test of attention.
FSA met in secret
and delayed its response
In May 2007, reports began to appear in the media that the Southampton study had found a link between food colouring and ADHD and
had submitted their report to the FSA. The FSA’s Committee on
Toxicity (COT) had met in closed session on March 20 (its meetings are usually
open), and decided not to reveal the contents until they had been peer reviewed
and published in a scientific journal.
It is hard to
find a justification for the FSA’s decision. Despite what has been
written recently by people who
ought to know better, peer review is not the sine
qua non of science. Basically, it involves two or three unpaid
referees reading a manuscript and deciding whether on the face of it (and
it has to be on the face of it, because they see neither the experiments nor
the researchers’ notebooks) the paper is worth publishing, possibly with alterations.
It is a useful part of the process of research, but it is inherently limited
in what it can achieve.
In any case, not all science is peer reviewed. In particular, many of the results
submitted by commercial companies to regulatory authorities like the FSA to
be used in decisions about health and safety are never refereed. They are never
published in journals, so the scientific community at large is not given the
opportunity to judge the quality of the work. On the contrary, much of what
is submitted to regulatory authorities is hidden from public review and even
the authorities themselves on grounds of “commercial confidentiality”.
What could a journal’s referees do that the members of
the COT could not have done themselves?
Or, if none of the COT had the necessary expertise – in which
case we might ask whether the right people have been chosen as members – they
could simply have asked a couple of experts to review the paper for them,
and that could have been done in a day or two. With results that could have such major implications for public
health, it was wrong to delay for the six months or more it typically takes
before an article appears in a journal.
FSA still fails to take decisive action
In the event, the paper
did pass peer review and was finally published in the Lancet in September 2007. The researchers
did find a link between artificial food additives and hyperactivity in children
. Mix A, but not Mix B had a significantly adverse effect compared with
placebo for all 3-year-olds; for the 8/9-year-olds, both Mix A and Mix B had
a significant adverse effect compared to placebo. The researchers conclusion
was unequivocal (see Box 1).
What the scientists say:
findings, in combination with the replicated evidence for the AFCA effects
on the behaviour of 3-year-old children, lend strong support for the case
that food additives exacerbate hyperactive behaviours (inattention, impulsivity,
and overactivity) in children at least up to middle childhood. Increased
hyperactivity is associated with the development of educational difficulties,
especially in relation to reading, and therefore these adverse effects could
affect the child’s ability to benefit from the experience of schooling. These findings show that adverse effects are not just seen in children
with extreme hyperactivity (ie, ADHD), but can also be seen in the general
population and across the range of severities of hyperactivity (emphasis added).
“We have found an adverse effect of food additives on the hyperactive
behaviour of 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children. Although the use of
artificial colouring in food manufacture might seem superfluous, the same
cannot be said for sodium benzoate, which has an important preservative
function. The implications of these results for the regulation of food
additive use could be substantial.”
is clear and unusually strong for a scientific paper, and you might have thought
the FSA would have taken some appropriate action: to ban the additives, or
at least start phasing them out, or even just to insist on some warning labels
similar to those on foods that might contain nuts.
Instead, at this point, Dr Clare Baynton of the
FSA said that the additives were safe and approved for use in food. “It is for a parent to know what foods their children are susceptible
to and whether their children react to to specific types of food” .
The FSA did announce that it was revising its advice
to consumers. This advice, however, is not to be found in the shops or on
the products themselves. But if you go to the FSA website and click on “Colours
and hyperactivity” and then on “Agency revises advice on certain artificial
colours” – which you aren’t very likely to do unless you know what you are
looking for – you find the most feeble and misleading advice  (see Box
2), which is considerably at odds with the strong conclusion of the scientific
report  (compare with Box 1).
What the FSA advises:
“After considering the COT’s
opinion on the research findings we have revised our advice to consumers:
if a child shows signs of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) then eliminating the colours used in the Southampton
study from their diet might have some beneficial effects.
“However, we need
to remember that there are many factors associated with hyperactive behaviour
in children. These are thought to include genetic factors, being born prematurely,
or environment and upbringing.
“The Agency has shared
these research findings with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
which is currently conducting a review of the safety of all food colours
that are approved for use in the European Union, at the request of the European
Commission. This review is being undertaken because of the amount of time
that has elapsed since these colours were first evaluated.
“If parents are concerned about any additives they should
remember that, by law, food additives must be listed on the label so they
can make the choice to avoid the product if they want to.”
Once again, the FSA is guilty of ignoring
and downplaying scientific evidence of serious food hazards, and to the most
vulnerable in our population. (We have recently documented this in the case
of GM food and feed  (GM Food Nightmare
Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham, ISIS scientific publication).
study specifically drew attention to adverse effects not just in children
with ADHD, but also in the general population. Vague reference to premature
birth, environment or upbringing that might be associated with hyperactivity is simply irrelevant and misleading in this
context. The FSA is leaving it to parents – those who manage
to find the advice in the first place -
if they are concerned,
and the clear implication is that most of them shouldn’t be. The FSA’s
press release, contains the phrase, “ if real” in referring to the “observed
increases in hyperactive behaviour”.
It is up to the parents to look for the E numbers. Or
presumably, as children often buy their own sweets, it’s up to parents to
teach their 8 year-olds to look for the E numbers. If the products are sold
unpackaged, they are expected to check with the vendor or the manufacturer,
and what they should do about food served in restaurants or school dinners
is not explained.
Industry meanwhile, has begun its aggressive campaign of disinformation. Speaking
for the Food and Drink Federation, Julian Hunt said , “It is important to
reassure consumers that the Southampton study does not suggest there is a safety
issue with the use of these additives.” This is surely a misrepresentation of
what the Lancet paper said, but not many consumers are going to read
The FSA is clearly not doing its job of protecting consumers. It appears more
concerned to protect the interests of the food industry in unnecessarily delaying
decisions, and then in failing to act and downplaying and misrepresenting the
evidence when it goes against the industry.
what the FSA and the Food and Drink Federation would have us believe, the
Southampton study  confirms the evidence that some food additives can have
an adverse effect on children’s behaviour. In some this may be serious enough
to be classified as ADHD; in others it may be milder and perhaps not be recognised
as a specific condition at all, but still enough to detract from their experience
in school and, presumably, in other ways as well. We should also ask what other effects these additives may be
having, and whether they really affect only children.
The sensible way forward is surely the one suggested by the Southampton group
at the end of their paper. A substance such as sodium benzoate may or may not
be hazardous, and we must do our best to find out. But at least it serves a
useful function, and in the end we may well decide that, even applying the precautionary
principle, the possible risk is outweighed by the advantages in using it. But
where additives serve no useful function, or one that could be served by other
substances that we know more about, then they should be banned or phased out.
There is no reason to risk our health and that of our children merely to have
foods that come in colours that make them easier to sell.