| Archive for NEEPS North East Eco-friendly People's Site |
| baldowrie |
would you Adam and Eve it?Additives 'cause bad behaviour'Many additives are found in food Cocktails of food additives in children's diets may be responsible for hyperactive behaviour, say researchers. A Food Standards Agency study on 300 randomly selected children found hyperactivity rose after a drink containing additive combinations. The FSA said very hyperactive children might benefit from fewer additives, the Lancet reported. But experts said that drugs rather than diet changes could improve behaviour more in the most severe cases. WHICH ADDITIVES? Sunset yellow (E110) - Colouring found in squashes Carmoisine (E122) - Red colouring in jellies Tartrazine (E102) - New colouring in lollies, fizzy drinks Ponceau 4R (E124) - Red colouring Sodium benzoate (E211) - Preservative Quinoline yellow (E110) - Food colouring Allura red AC (E129) - Orange / red food dye Mother blames son's diet Between 5% and 10% of school-age children suffer some degree of ADHD - attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - researchers suggest, with symptoms such as impulsiveness, inability to concentrate and excessive activity. More boys than girls are diagnosed with the condition, and children with ADHD can struggle academically, often behaving poorly in school. Food colourings and other chemicals added to processed foods have long been blamed by many for making the disorder worse. Behaviour check The Food Standards Agency paid for Southampton University researchers to examine whether giving additives to a group of ordinary three-year-olds and eight or nine-year-olds had any effect on their behaviour. The children were randomly given one of three drinks, either a potent mix of colourings and additives, a drink that roughly matched the average daily additive intake of a child of their age, or a "placebo" drink which had no additives. Their hyperactivity levels were measured before and after the drink was taken. Mix "A", with the high levels of additives, had a "significantly adverse" effect compared with the inactive placebo drink. Parents should not think that simply taking these additives out of food will prevent hyperactive disorders Dr Jim Stevenson, Southampton University The older children showed some adverse effects after the second, less potent mix, although the response varied significantly from child to child. Lead researcher Jim Stevenson said the study showed that certain mixtures of artificial food colours, alongside sodium benzoate, a preservative used in ice cream and confectionary, were linked to increases in hyperactivity. He added: "However, parents should not think that simply taking these additives out of food will prevent hyperactive disorders. "We know that many other influences are at work but this at least is one a child can avoid." Industry talks The results of the research meant a change in official advice from the FSA, which has already met representatives of the UK food industry to talk about its implications. It is important to reassure consumers that the Southampton study does not suggest there is a safety issue with the use of these additives Spokesman, Food and Drink Federation The researchers pointed out that while artificial colours might be removed from foods easily, the removal of sodium benzoate would cause far more problems for the industry. Julian Hunt, from Food and Drink Federation, said that the tests did not represent how the additives were used normally. He said: "Manufacturers are very aware of consumer sensitivities about the use of additives in food and drink products. It is important to reassure consumers that the Southampton study does not suggest there is a safety issue with the use of these additives." However, Andrea Bilbow, from ADHD support group ADDISS, said that most parents of children with ADHD had tried diet changes, and while more than half had reported some improvement, this tended to be modest when compared with the effect of medication. She said: "In some respects the question of food additives is a little bit of a red herring. "While in some cases, a poor diet could make ADHD even worse, a better diet is not going to make it much better." And Dr Paul Illing, of the Royal Society of Chemistry, raised questions about the validity of the study. "Extrapolating from the small study population to the general public is very difficult." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6979976.stm  like we didn't already know this!
|
||
| wildgarlic |
LOL I've just posted about this too - I'll add mine to this post. | ||
| wildgarlic |
Read More |
||
| baldowrie |
ah well we are only 'dumb' parents! |
||
| wildgarlic |
|
||
| baldowrie |
purpledragon, think those of us here already know it's not new...I have known about it for 25 years. The Lancet and the medical profession have only just caught up with us! | ||
| labrat |
Just to add a little perspective sodium benzoate is found naturally in cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. Apparently this study makes recommendations about children who are hyperactive but most media coverage this morning has widened it to all children. So to follow their lead and to be consistent these foods must also be removed from children's diets. The same goes for monosodium glutamate which is found naturally in mushrooms, seaweed, tomatoes, nuts, legumes, meats, and most dairy products. You see it's not so simple as the banner headlines often portray.
Apart from the exception mentioned above the list of additives are synthetic chemicals. Perversely most of which were used to cut down on the use of colourants extracted from, now rare, insects and other animals. Unsurprisingly I'm not going to go wild about this study. It is interesting but that doesn't detract from its failings either. Personally what I'd prefer is that everyone eat meat, fruit and vegetables, raw in some cases but processed and cooked at home in others. Children are given far too many processed foods produced by the food industry and it is hypocritical to say the least that some parents complain about additives in processed foods when what they should be doing as recommended by the FSA and medical profession is feed their kids meat, fruit and vegetables with the minimal of processing. I just want to make the point that because something has an E number it doesn't mean it is unnatural. It is simply a convenient naming convention. There was an interesting little experiment that the BBC did (don't remember which programme). On one day they took a group of kids and fed them fruit and vegetables but entertained them in a physically active way. After the party their parents were asked whether they considered their children to be hyperactive and to make an assumption as to what they were fed. The majority of parents said their children were hyperactive and had been fed sugary and high additive content food. Another day they then took the same kids and fed them sugar and additive laden food but entertained them in a mellow fashion by reading them a book. After the parents were asked the same question to which the majority answered that their children were not hyperactive and had been fed good food such as fruit and vegetables. The experiment has little to do with the biochemistry of food and kids but more to do with the social conditioning that most parents are subjected to. [off topic] One of the arguments on FiveLive this morning was that because other EU countries have banned some additives that we should as well regardless of the science. But it is an odd argument when most people complain about the harmonisation of EU laws reducing national sovereignty and yet then clammer to do exactly as some other EU states have done. cheers |
||
| wildgarlic |
That's very interesting Labrat - particularly the sodium benzoate and msg - which I try to avoid. Can you tell me at what sort of levels these things occur naturally in the items that you listed.
I do agree with you that unprocessed foods are much better for us (adult or child) and also that E number doesn't automatically mean BAD. I've often wondered why some things are banned in some countries and not others. Obviously we shouldn't just accept that they should be banned here without taking the science into consideration - one assumes that if something IS banned in another country that the UK does at least look into the reasons why. |
||
| baldowrie |
And to add a little more perspective; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_benzoate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate The natural forms of these are not what people tend to get reactions to unless they are very sensitive. It the manufactured forms and the quantity used that does. I am sensitive to manufactured monosodium glutamate, which incidentally tastes foul when you have avoided it for a while, but NOT foods which naturally contain it. Food that naturally contains these 'additives' is perfectly ok in my opinion but why it is necessary to add these? [/quote] |
||
| labrat |
MSG levels in foods have changed now because of public pressure but I read one study that said eating an average old TV dinner had the same MSG as a bowl of tomatoes (approximately 4-6).
cheers |
||
| labrat |
My apologies but that is the most scientifically fatuous statement. There is absolutely no difference between natural and synthetic MSG or sodium benzoate. What you may want to argue is that there are many interactions between the huge diversity of chemicals in food (chemical which actually means anything made of atomic elements). But this argument introduces an astounding amount of complexity into deducing whether there is a difference between natural and synthetic MSG or sodium benzoate. Which makes it highly unlikely that your anecdotal evidence has any relation to scientific reality. cheers |
||
| wildgarlic |
Just reading on the Wiki link that Baldowrie posted - there appears to be a difference between free and bound msg and that the tomatoes contain both free and bound msg whereas the crystallised msg is all free. Confused - I'm not a scientist! Looks like Marmite contains loads of the free msg! How accurate is Wiki? I can see that there are sources for the articles and I guess one should really check those out before taking the content on the wiki site as read. |
||
| labrat |
If we are talking about the flavour properties of MSG then naturally containing MSG do not have the same flavour as adding MSG to processed foods. But if we are talking about the effects of MSG on the biochemistry of humans then you have to remember that all food, raw or processed, goes through the stomach where glutamic acid is liberated from unprocessed foods and then passed to the gut where it is absorbed into the blood stream. cheers |
||
| baldowrie |
Tell my intestines that! However I think the very main difference is that, speaking from my own experiences, we tend not to eat the foods that have these properties because we don't like the taste (human body putting safe guards in place) where as if they are added to a food substance, and I say food loosely, they are disguised I don't get severe headaches with dairy products, unprocessed meats, tomatoes (not that eat them very much), seaweed or any of the others you have mentioned. But food containing MSG and I am in agony and closely, immediately after eating, followed by the exacerbated use of toilet roll :oops: |
||
| Cassiepod |
Can i pop in an example to illustrate the MSG issue? Arsenic is widely condiered toxic and it is as a single element, however arsenic bound into aresnosugars is harmless (anyone who eats seaweed has eaten arsenic).
MSG is a chemical in itself however it can be found footloose and fancy free or interacting with other materials which to an extent may reeduce its impact on some people's internal systems. (simplistisc in the extreme :oops: ) |
||
| labrat |
Because you don't like the taste of something is not the human body putting safe guards in place otherwise it would be a general evolutionary trait such as the majority of children disliking vegetables because our evolution has programmed children's tastes to dislike bitter foods because many poisonous substances are also bitter.
I have no problem with your intolerances but the science doesn't back up your hypothesis. And neither do your experiences or any one persons experience extrapolate to a widespread trend. I'm just looking to preserve scientific rigour. And I have no problem changing my views if a large, long term, well performed piece of research came out in opposition to the current scientific consensus. I may be wrong but I don't detect the same property in your comments. cheers |
||
| baldowrie |
at one stage scientists said the earth was flat and smoking was good for asthma suffers
As for not liking the taste of things. Whilst there people who dislike everything if you follow instinct closely dislikes in foods have reasons behind it and some are because the human body is rejecting the food for it's own safety weather that be learnt as a small child through experience or not The human body knows what's good for it, it's the brain behind that doesn't because it's told the latest fad is better than natural |
||
| Smooth Hound |
i have a son who has adhd, and i can honestly say that i could have told you whether his mum had been giving him certain fizy and squash drinks, | ||
| baldowrie |
it's so easy to see isn't it.
My son reacted to smarties (he doesn't have adhd)..he was head banging every time he has some!!!!! Coke...he is way off the wall and jabbering followed by the shakes as he comes down. Iron bru....he is floating!!! the list is endless right down to eating some garlic sausage that set him off and manufactured tomato sauce on pizzas Allergy induced Austin! http://www.autismmedical.com/gate...ntervention/16/the-main-offenders |
||
| labrat |
Your first claim is clearly inaccurate. The belief that educated humans in the past believed the Earth was flat is an urban myth. Even Christopher Columbus wrote that the Earth was spherical and that he was looking to find a new trade route to China. Ancient astronomers thousand of years ago suggested that the Earth was spherical such as the Egyptians and the Greeks. Despite another urban myth many of the great Christian scholars stated that the Earth was spherical against some edicts of the Vatican. Really it was only the Chinese who still thought the Earth was flat until the 17th century even though the classical Chinese were some of the best astronomers. The problem is when do you define the starting point of science and scientists who employ the scientific method out with prescriptive influences such as religion. Perhaps the 17th century though I'd say the 19th century at least. This was the dawn of modern physics and chemistry but not medicine which has always trailed behind the discoveries of physicists and chemists. It wasn't until the late 19th, early 20th century that chemists started the biochemical field that underpins the molecular causes of disease. We have evidence that show humans started smoking around 5000BC well before the invention of science. I can not find any evidence that any scientists have said smoking is good for you until after the health warnings of the 50's and 60's when tobacco companies invented 'rent a scienitst' by which point they can no longer be called scientists. cheers |