Colours and hyperactivity

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )

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.

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?