Feel free to discuss any topic of general interest, so long as nothing you post here is likely to be interpreted as insulting, and/or inflammatory, nor clearly designed to provoke any individual or group. Please be considerate of others feelings, and they will be considerate of yours.
Scientists and public advocates have debated the issue for more than 30 years as the use of dyes in food — especially foods marketed to children — has risen steadily. Consumption of food coloring has doubled since 1990, according to some estimates.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended Thursday that the agency further study the link between food coloring and childhood hyperactivity but said products that contain the dyes do not need package warnings.
The committee, made up of doctors, scientists and consumer representatives, narrowly voted 8-6 that food packages don't need warnings flagging food colorings that could affect attention deficit disorder in children. Packages now must list the food colorings, but there is no warning about a possible link to hyperactivity.
The panel agreed with the FDA and affirmed that there is not enough evidence to show that certain food dyes cause hyperactivity in the general population of children. They also agreed that diets eliminating food dyes appear to work for some children with behavior problems.
The red emphasis in these quotes is mine, of course. So why did they reach the conclusion that label warnings about behaviorial problems should not be added to foods containing dyes? Because:
The advisory committee reviewed links between the dyes and attention deficit disorder in a two-day meeting. The FDA has said it agrees with studies that say for "certain susceptible children," hyperactivity and other behavioral problems may be exacerbated by food dyes and other substances in food. But it has found no proven effect for most children.
IOW, in their professional opinion, unless a clear majority of children are affected, (as verified by extensive random, double-blind testing, of course), no warning labeling is needed. Well Doh! It kind of appears that this esteemed panel is sort of in the back pocket of the food manufacturing industry, doesn't it.
Remember when we once thought that the FDA was formed to look out for consumer interests?
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
This really p***** me of! There is NO reason why an artificial food coloring EVER needs to be in any food. And in my experience, they are not good for many kiddies. Saying that "most" have no problem is ridiculous for something that has no business at all being added to a food in the first place. Can you tell how angry I am?
Hugs,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
I'm with you Polly!! This makes me nuts. My kids don't seem to be affected, although my daughter was sensitive to yellow#5 as a baby, so I assume she still is. I saw a news report about this FDA meeting where they interviewed the director of Center for Science in the Public Interest (I love them), and then a rep from a food industry association. The food industry rep argued that food would be less appealing to the consumer and more expensive to produce if they had to use natural food colorants, and those extra costs would trickle down to consumers.
I'm really trying not to flip into rant mode at the drop of a hat (especially now that my hat's been knocked into the creek...), but...
Why do they think more brightly colored food is more appealing? I don't need them to color it with 'natural' ingredients, either. Sometimes we eat beige-ish things. Anyone over the age of 5ish can grasp that blueberry pie filling and blueberries are related foods that aren't exactly the same color. No one under five is in charge of shopping. Of course, if they train generations of consumers to prefer hotter pink things, brighter yellow things, neon blue things, they will buy them.
I love how they blame those unlucky enough to be "susceptible." Yes, sure, these ingredients exacerbate problems in the "susceptible" - so, what, they were asking for it? They should knock off being susceptible? They should figure out they're susceptible before purchase & consumption - exactly how? Does it count for nothing that the labeling would help keep the problem from occurring?
It seems to me that adding a non-food ingredient to a food has to be justified as safe and non-harmful - not that someone should have to prove it's a problem.
And also: Dear Food Industry Rep: If you leave out the colors altogether, it will be cheaper. You're already paying the marketing geniuses a whopping fortune to get us to put things in our mouths, against our better judgment. For crying out loud, make it a public health, "we did this for you" issue.
We're already exacting our tiny revenge, by not buying these things, in unison. I wish it got 'em a little deeper in the pocketbook.
I sat and shook my head when I heard that story on the news. In 1991 my oldest son came home from Nursery school literally bouncing off of the walls. When I asked him what he had eaten at school, he explained that it was orange day--he had eaten orange jello, drank tang, and other assorted orange foods. It was then that we realized he was sensitive to food coloring and went to great lengths to keep it out of his diet right down to prescribed medications and children's tylenol. Thankfully, that's when some of those products started coming out with clear products. I looked up all the antibiotics in the PDR for ones that were colorless and what they treated for when they needed antibiotics, which was a big help to the pediatrician because he didn't even know. I made an effort to provide the cupcakes for school parties and made as many of the goodie bags for parties as I could. We found my youngest son was also sensitive to food coloring as well. Ditto for all of the above for him as far as schools and parties and medications. It was hard to tell whether food coloring had any effect on my middle son though.
And the following day after a slip-up with either of my sons getting food coloring? They were VERY cranky. It was like they crashed.
When I heard that news story, I realized I was about 20 years ahead of the research. Geez, all they had to do was ask me! LOL!
I have heard so many stories like yours from parents over the years. And I myself reacted to 3 dyes on the MRT - yellow #5, red #40, and green #3.
When I think about it, many of the foods that are dyed are unhealthy. I guess that's how they trick us to eat them. I'm not crazy about preservatives either. Food is supposed to rot - not sit on shelves forever.
Uh oh, I'm starting my rant again, so better sign off.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
I'll carry your rant forward just an inch before restraining myself ;) A friend of mine once turned down my whole wheat bread, saying "I'm a fan of progress," in a friendly, but older-wiser tone. I opined that the benefit isn't to the eater - it's to the shipper, the distributer, the middleman. Bacteria and vermin prefer the whole grain.
Taking the spoilable nutrition out of wheat to make it store longer surely saved a lot of people from starving - I'm not against progress. Adding preservatives, though - I think even less of that 'step forward' went to benefit the eater.
All this bread pondering was, of course, before MC. I feel lucky to have access to real food; just a few miles from here, in less fashionable neighborhoods, there's poor availability even of bad supermarkets.
Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
