The UK Food Standards Agency recently commissioned a study into the effects of food additives on levels of hyperactivity in children. The study has completed and the report was made available today. Not surprisingly it made the headlines and radio news programmes right from the off, since it provides evidence of a strong causal link between the use of food additives (specifically those used to give food strong colours, and when used in combination) and incidence of hyperactive behaviour patterns.These links have long been suspected, but the FSA has always shied away from imposing a ban on the most likely culprits, claiming it didn't have "sufficient evidence."
ADHD is a modern phenomenon. Pundits argue the toss about whether it has its roots in environmental factors (such as those additives, but also air pollutants, increased electromagnetic activity in the home, widespread availability of violent computer games, etc) or bad parenting, or both. Meanwhile the parents have to put up with unruly, often aggressive and violent children, and children have to put up with being chemically controlled (stunned, more like) through the use of drugs such as Ritalin, use of which has ballooned alarmingly over the last 10-20 years.
Well now the FSA has conclusive evidence from a study they themselves commissioned. So is a ban any nearer? Was that a pig I just saw flying past? On Radio 4 this morning the news presenter tried to tie down an FSA representative to exactly when a ban would be forthcoming. The guy was completely evasive, hiding behind the fact that the required legislation was a European-wide requirement (funny how "Europe" can be used as a shield to hide behind, a bludgeon to beat people with, or an excuse for doing nothing, as the need takes them); that there was a need for due process, and maybe a further need for YET MORE evidence before any moves could be made towards a ban.
I don't understand this.
When new drugs are developed, pharmaceutical companies have to jump through endless hoops for YEARS of trials and tests to prove them safe before they are made available, and even then only a very small percentage of the population will ever be exposed to any remaining risk, because the drugs are only given to people who are suffering from the condition they're intended to address.
Contrast this with food additives, which manufacturers ladle into our food by the bucket load, willy-nilly, are consumed by almost every person in the country, adult or child, and yet the approach taken here is that independent agencies (not manufacturers, note) have to jump through endless hoops for YEARS of trials and tests to prove them HARMFUL before anyone will agree to take them out!
And for the most part, they don't have ANY beneficial effect on our food except to make it more colourful! Can someone explain the sense of that to me?
1 comment:
I'm really not surprised about this at all. There's more additives in the food, not just for colour but for taste and long-shelf-life dates too. There were always "hyper" kids, my sister was one, and she know says she has ADD and takes ritalin *now*. My mother is convinced that she had it too, at least as a kid. Perhaps it's always been around but the chemicals in the food and pollution in the air certainly aren't helping. There's a lot more cancer about too. Some people say all these things have always been as common but they know more about it these days. I dunno.
Post a Comment