Comments from the Food
Intolerance Network (FIN)
on the recent Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) factsheet “Effects of artificial colours on
children's behaviour”
See the original FSANZ factsheet at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2007/effectsofartificialc3658.cfm.
Bold emphases below added by FIN.
6 September 2007
“New research into the possible effects of artificial food colours
on children’s behaviour was published on 6 September, 2007 in the medical
journal The Lancet. This study has been reviewed by experts in
the United Kingdom and is described by the Food Standards Agency there as a helpful additional contribution to our
knowledge on the possible effects of
artificial food colours on children’s behaviour.”
COMMENT
from FIN: Over 30 years of research have consistently
shown that there are negative effects from colours. The few studies which did
not support this view can be criticised on procedural grounds. The latest
study, published in the Lancet on 6//9/2007, is a gold-standard double-blind
placebo-controlled study with over 300 children. It is time to stop minimising
the harm and to stop talking about “possible” effects – effects are proven by
the best that science can manage. To say otherwise is patronising to both
science and parents.
“Food Standards Australia New
Zealand (FSANZ) is aware of the study and we are currently examining it.”
COMMENT
from FIN: Whoopie doo! In the UK the Food Standards
Authority has warned parents not to feed these additives to their children and
have arranged a meeting with industry to see what they are doing to “eliminate
artificial colours, which are superfluous in foods”. What will it take to have
FSANZ act to protect the consumer instead of the food industry?
“Adverse reactions to foods and
food additives occur in a small
proportion of the population. These reactions are not the same as allergies
but may include rashes and swelling of the skin, irritable bowel symptoms,
behavioural changes in children and headaches.”
COMMENT
from FIN: Every time we are reassured that food additives
only affect “a small proportion of the population.” The scientific facts are
otherwise. In a preliminary study by the same research group from Southampton
University, conducted on the Isle of Wight, 51% of children showed behavioural
reactions to several food colours and one food preservative according to
parent’s ratings if placebo effects are ignored. Even the conservative World
Health Organisation says that 20-30% of children are affected by sulphite
preservatives (found in dried fruit and sausages, for instance) and that these
should be phased out, while Australian research says the figure is nearer 60%.
These are the MAJORITY of the children in our schools. If FSANZ has evidence
about this “small proportion”, let them produce it!
“Additives, including artificial
colours, may not be included in foods unless they are approved and included in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards
Code. Artificial colours which are in a food or drink to perform a function
must be identified on the label with either its name or its specific code
number.”
COMMENT
from FIN: The
approval process is fundamentally flawed because it does not include tests on
children (“it would be unethical to do so” I was told) and does not take into
account any behavioural and learning effects. So an additive can be proven to
cause behavioural effects but it would be still be safe and approved according
to FSANZ. Who is this flawed process protecting? What is the cost to our
education system of having disruptive children in every class?
“Parents can use this
information to identify when the additives included in this study are in their
child’s diet, but it should not be assumed that simply taking these additives out of a child’s diet will eliminate these
symptoms. If you think you or your child has a food intolerance we
recommend you seek advice from a medical practitioner or accredited practising
dietitian.”
COMMENT
from FIN: FIN has
recently supervised trials at three schools, including teaching over 300 young
children how to read labels. It is noteworthy that children don’t know which
additives to avoid and frequently are unable to read the labels because they
are illegible due to size or colour, or they are too young to read. Surely the
appropriate public health response would be to remove these additives proven to
cause harm from the food supply, not to continue to provide them when safe
alternatives exist? The responsibility should be on FSANZ to protect consumers
and not to allow proven harmful additives into the food supply and then expect
parents and children to take responsibility for negotiating the world of
chemicals and ingredients labels.
“FSANZ has recently
published “Choosing the Right Stuff - the official shoppers’ guide to
food additives and labels, kilojoules and fat content” which is
available in bookshops. This guide provides consumers with the information
they need to purchase products that do not contain the food additives they wish
to avoid. Lists of food additives are also available free from
FSANZs website at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/publications/choosingtherightstuff/index.cfm
“The New Zealand Food Safety
Authority has also produced a pocket
sized booklet entitled ‘Identifying Food Additives’”
COMMENT
from FIN: Needless
to say, these booklets do not identify those 60 additives out of about 400 to
which people may react – even the sulphites, to which so many asthmatic
children react, are not mentioned as a problem.
Comments
by Dr Howard Dengate based on FSANZ Factsheet as of
