E-Numbers Cause Hyperactivity and Brain Damage in Children

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Daily Mail: 'Additives DO harm children - and a ban could cut child hyperactivity by a third, say scientists'

The number of hyperactive children could be cut by a third by banning suspect food additives, it is claimed today.

The finding by British scientists will put pressure on the Food Standards Agency to force manufacturers to stop using the "E-number" chemicals.

The researchers believe that removing artificial colours from children's foods, including cakes, drinks and sweets, would bring significant health and social benefits.

Thousands of children would avoid the blight on their education caused by hyperactive behaviour, which can mean they are labelled slow and disruptive.

Removing the chemicals could also help reduce anti-social behaviour in teenagers, according to the researchers from the University of Southampton, led by Professor Jim Stevenson.

The scientists believe the harm caused to the IQ of youngsters is equivalent to the damaging impact of lead on developing brains.

They say just as efforts were made to protect children against lead poisoning years ago, there is "justification for action now" on food colours.

They are frustrated at the lack of action to tackle the harm to children posed by food additives and are calling on the board of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is meeting today, to take bold measures to ban them.

The Southampton team calculates that some 6.6 per cent of children aged three to 12, a total of 462,000, suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The academics believe this figure could be reduced by 30 per cent - around 140,000 - if the additives were banned.

Professor Stevenson and his team discovered that food chemicals caused "psychological harm" to normal healthy children.

Scroll down for more...


Two groups of children showed changes in behaviour when given the additives during controlled trials. They found it hard to sit still and concentrate, they had problems reading and became loud and impulsive.

Professor Stevenson said: "We now have clear evidence that mixtures of certain food colours can adversely influence the behaviour of children.

"We know that hyperactivity in young child is a risk factor for, for example, later difficulties in school. Certainly it is associated with difficulties in learning to read.

"It is also associated with wider behavioural difficulties in middle childhood, such as conduct disorder.

"I feel that the effects we are seeing here are sufficiently great to represent a threat to health."

The Southampton team has sent a report to the FSA board, which argues that a significant number of children could be prevented from developing ADHD if the additives are removed.

Children who are diagnosed with ADHD can find their entire school careers and lives suffer as a result. The report warns: "Elevated levels of hyperactivity in young children represent a risk for continuing behaviour problems into later childhood.

"It should also be recognised that children with elevated levels of hyperactivity can be disruptive to a family and are sometimes socially isolated because peers find their behaviour unsettling."

Last month the Government announced a task force to concentrate on improving the behaviour of 1,000 particularly disruptive young people.

The Southampton team say: "It is a Government policy priority to reduce the level of disruptive behaviour by young people. We suggest... the removal of food colours might be a small, indirect contribution to such a goal."

The suspect colours are tartrazine (E102); quinoline yellow (E104); sunset yellow (E110); carmoisine (E122); ponceau 4R (E124); and allura red (E129).

The FSA, an independent department of the Government, suggests there should be a voluntary ban by UK manufacturers by the end of 2009. The board is also expected to advise parents concerned by the Southampton study that they "might choose" not to give their children products containing the chemicals.

The Food Commission has set up a website - actiononadditives.com - which lists more than 900 products containing the chemicals.

The Daily Mail launched the "Ban the Additives" campaign to encourage manufacturers and supermarkets to remove the chemicals from their recipes.

This has achieved support from all the major supermarkets and pledges from firms such as Cadburys and Mars UK to remove them.

A ban on the suspect additives will change the look of familiar foods.

The green colour of mushy peas is created by tartrazine, and quinoline yellow produces the green colour in lime cordial and green Tic-Tacs.

The vivid colour of Turkish Delight is largely the result of the suspect dye allura red.

Natural alternatives to these food colours are being produced and some companies, including Sainsbury's and Asda, already have new lines on their shelves.

Sainsbury's has created a natural lime cordial, while Asda has taken tartrazine out of its tinned peas.

While I don't think the 'foodlike-substances' industry set out to purposely damage children with these substances, I surely have no reason to believe they'll care unless they're forced to care. I wonder if there's a large organization answerable to the People that can make this and other irresponsible players in the marketplace accountable for their misbehavior. I think its name starts with 'G'...

[LadyTevar]

The researchers believe that removing artificial colours from children's foods, including cakes, drinks and sweets, would bring significant health and social benefits.

Thousands of children would avoid the blight on their education caused by hyperactive behaviour, which can mean they are labelled slow and disruptive.

Ya know, considering the list of what foods have those E-numbers (Sweets, Biscuits/cookies, Ice Cream, Soft Drinks), maybe if your kids didn't eat so much of those foods, they'd not be Hyperactive!!

Gees, the sugar in those alone probably send the kids hyper.

[Ted C]

Ya know, considering the list of what foods have those E-numbers (Sweets, Biscuits/cookies, Ice Cream, Soft Drinks), maybe if your kids didn't eat so much of those foods, they'd not be Hyperactive!!

Gees, the sugar in those alone probably send the kids hyper.

That's exactly what I was thinking: maybe it's not the food coloring, but the sugar.

[Spin Echo]

Red food colouring used to make me and my brothers throw up when we were little. My mother would tell the teachers or friend's parents that we couldn't tolerate things like red kool-aid or red popsicles. They'd think she was being an overprotective parent and they'd give those things to us anyway. Infallibly, we'd puke it back up.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Red food colouring used to make me and my brothers throw up when we were little. My mother would tell the teachers or friend's parents that we couldn't tolerate things like red kool-aid or red popsicles. They'd think she was being an overprotective parent and they'd give those things to us anyway. Infallibly, we'd puke it back up.

How long did it take them to learn and stop giving you that crap?

The researchers believe that removing artificial colours from children's foods, including cakes, drinks and sweets, would bring significant health and social benefits.

Thousands of children would avoid the blight on their education caused by hyperactive behaviour, which can mean they are labelled slow and disruptive.

Ya know, considering the list of what foods have those E-numbers (Sweets, Biscuits/cookies, Ice Cream, Soft Drinks), maybe if your kids didn't eat so much of those foods, they'd not be Hyperactive!!

Gees, the sugar in those alone probably send the kids hyper.

I'd love nothing more than to see the paper discussing the scientific methodology of the research. It's quite possible they controlled for sugar content?

[Spin Echo]

Red food colouring used to make me and my brothers throw up when we were little. My mother would tell the teachers or friend's parents that we couldn't tolerate things like red kool-aid or red popsicles. They'd think she was being an overprotective parent and they'd give those things to us anyway. Infallibly, we'd puke it back up.

How long did it take them to learn and stop giving you that crap?

Well, generally only once per person. They'd usually realise my mother wasn't making things up once we got sick.

I'm not sure how long it took for my mother to work out with my eldest brother that it was the red food dye.

[CmdrWilkens]

It could be related to this study. Given that one of the professors named int he article is one of the authors of the study I would guess that it was something very near on the order of this paticular study that is being cited. I actually don't doubt that it could take 3-4 years for them to work through the results analysis and the results do seem very simlair (30% reduction).

[Andrew J.]

The researchers believe that removing artificial colours from children's foods, including cakes, drinks and sweets, would bring significant health and social benefits.

Thousands of children would avoid the blight on their education caused by hyperactive behaviour, which can mean they are labelled slow and disruptive.

Ya know, considering the list of what foods have those E-numbers (Sweets, Biscuits/cookies, Ice Cream, Soft Drinks), maybe if your kids didn't eat so much of those foods, they'd not be Hyperactive!!

Gees, the sugar in those alone probably send the kids hyper.

Sugar doesn't make kids hyper.

Ask a Scientist Article

[Napoleon the Clown]

Sugar doesn't make kids hyper.

Ask a Scientist Article

The study didn't have a group of kids that did get sugar, so it completely fails to disprove the notion. All it did was demonstrate that a person's beliefs color their perception, which has been known for some time. Sloppy study you linked us.

[LadyTevar]

Sugar doesn't make kids hyper.

Ask a Scientist Article

The study didn't have a group of kids that did get sugar, so it completely fails to disprove the notion. All it did was demonstrate that a person's beliefs color their perception, which has been known for some time. Sloppy study you linked us.

As Napolean has pointed out, the study you linked to gave all the children NutraSweet. There was no 'control' group without sugar to match against, and the only thing it proved was that Mothers think their kids are hyperactive.

Also, please explain why NutraSweet wouldn't have the same effect on children as pure sugar.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ya know, considering the list of what foods have those E-numbers (Sweets, Biscuits/cookies, Ice Cream, Soft Drinks), maybe if your kids didn't eat so much of those foods, they'd not be Hyperactive!!

Gees, the sugar in those alone probably send the kids hyper.

Do you really think the statisticians are so stupid they failed to control such a basic variable as sugar in a hyperactivity and food study?

[Spin Echo]

Ya know, considering the list of what foods have those E-numbers (Sweets, Biscuits/cookies, Ice Cream, Soft Drinks), maybe if your kids didn't eat so much of those foods, they'd not be Hyperactive!!

Gees, the sugar in those alone probably send the kids hyper.

Do you really think the statisticians are so stupid they failed to control such a basic variable as sugar in a hyperactivity and food study?

You'd be amazed the statistical mistakes that people who really should know better make. Most likely they controlled for sugar, but you should always read the paper to be sure.

[Sir Sirius]

"Sugar makes kids hyperactive" is a positive claim that should be supported by evidence before being accepted, rather then the default position that is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. So Tevar and Clown, care to present a study supporting the hyperactivity causing effects of sugar? I'm asking because you appear to belief that it does so.

Every source I found says the opposite. A meta-analysis published in the November 22, 1995, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (link) says: "CONCLUSION--The meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children. The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association."

[Wyrm]

Sugar doesn't make kids hyper.

Ask a Scientist Article

The study didn't have a group of kids that did get sugar, so it completely fails to disprove the notion. All it did was demonstrate that a person's beliefs color their perception, which has been known for some time. Sloppy study you linked us.

As Napolean has pointed out, the study you linked to gave all the children NutraSweet. There was no 'control' group without sugar to match against, and the only thing it proved was that Mothers think their kids are hyperactive.

I'd actually like to see a proper study using actual sugar, too.

Also, please explain why NutraSweet wouldn't have the same effect on children as pure sugar.

Pure Speculation Time!

The "sugar high" may be linked to actual caloric intake, rather than the sensation of sweetness. Sugar has both a sweet sensation, and a caloric content. Nutrasweet, on the other hand, has just a sweet sensation.

Sugar, after all, would cause the pancreas to cause uptake of sugars into cells, including muscle cells, and it would make sense that the brain responds to a sugar+insulin spike by "going hyper," burning off that sugar.

Though the "sugar high" may respond directly to the sensation of sweetness.

[Wyrm]

Every source I found says the opposite. A meta-analysis published in the November 22, 1995, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (link) says: "CONCLUSION--The meta-analytic synthesis of the studies to date found that sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children. The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association."

Oh dear. "Meta-analysis." You gotta be careful about meta-analyses.

First, you got to make sure the mathematical and physical models of the studies are consistently handled. You can't just glom together a number of studies and expect them to give an answer that bears any sort of resemblance to a real statement on reality.

Secondly, individual studies are usually carried out frequentistically, and the p-value is extremely popular as a statistic — and frequently interpreted in exactly the wrong way. A p-value is absolutely not an error probability, and furthermore a p-value test is more likely to reject a null hypothesis that's actually true. We have no idea what the null hypotheses would be in the abovecited studies in the meta-anaylsis.

Caution is recommended.

[Napoleon the Clown]

"Sugar makes kids hyperactive" is a positive claim that should be supported by evidence before being accepted, rather then the default position that is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. So Tevar and Clown, care to present a study supporting the hyperactivity causing effects of sugar? I'm asking because you appear to belief that it does so.

Did I ever say it most certainly did? No. I simply pointed out that the study provided was flawed. Way to read things into my words I didn't put there, asshole.

[Andrew J.]

Sugar doesn't make kids hyper.

Ask a Scientist Article

The study didn't have a group of kids that did get sugar, so it completely fails to disprove the notion. All it did was demonstrate that a person's beliefs color their perception, which has been known for some time.

That's what it was supposed to do. It was a study of parental psychology, taking the non-effect of sugar as a priori proven. Other studies exists which actually demonstrate that sugar doesn't effect kids.

[Broomstick]

Sugar doesn't make kids hyper.

Ask a Scientist Article

The study didn't have a group of kids that did get sugar, so it completely fails to disprove the notion. All it did was demonstrate that a person's beliefs color their perception, which has been known for some time. Sloppy study you linked us.

As Napolean has pointed out, the study you linked to gave all the children NutraSweet. There was no 'control' group without sugar to match against, and the only thing it proved was that Mothers think their kids are hyperactive.

Also, please explain why NutraSweet wouldn't have the same effect on children as pure sugar.

Um... because it's not sugar, it's composed of two amino acids? It's not sugar, even if it is sweet.

Anyhow - kids would be better off eating fruits/vegees as snacks that the crap that these dyes are in, and that's leaving aside hyperactivity.

[Andrew J.]

Here's an abstract of several studies:

"Twelve double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sugar challenges failed to provide any evidence that sugar ingestion leads to untoward behavior in children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or in normal children."

[Wyrm]

Ingredients in nonchocolate candy (sugar, artificial food colors), components in chocolate candy (sugar, artificial food colors in coatings, caffeine), and chocolate itself have been investigated for any adverse effects on behavior. .... Likewise, none of the studies testing candy or chocolate found any negative effect of these foods on behavior.

Pardon me for being obtuse, but... Isn't caffeine a known stimulant? And it doesn't affect behavior?

[Dooey Jo]

Ingredients in nonchocolate candy (sugar, artificial food colors), components in chocolate candy (sugar, artificial food colors in coatings, caffeine), and chocolate itself have been investigated for any adverse effects on behavior. .... Likewise, none of the studies testing candy or chocolate found any negative effect of these foods on behavior.

Pardon me for being obtuse, but... Isn't caffeine a known stimulant? And it doesn't affect behavior?

Or it only has positive effects on behaviour

[Admiral Valdemar]

Pardon me for being obtuse, but... Isn't caffeine a known stimulant? And it doesn't affect behavior?

That depends on the caffeine content per unit mass. Most chocolate bars, especially that waxy crap that passes for chocolate in the States, has far lower content than most soft drinks and hot beverages. It can range from several milligrams to a couple of dozen, while coffee and tea will have anywhere over 100 mg a cup.

I, too, would warn against meta-analyses. There's a reason when a sponsor at my workplace wants to look at a specific effect for a compound, even an old one, they don't just tie a load of spin-off study results together and perform a chi squared or student t on the things.

[Broomstick]

My former employer used to perform meta-analysis, and it drove the bean-counters and marketing people crazy. It drove them crazy because instead of the scientists coming up with the desired results they would natter on about quality of studies, comparing apples to apples and not to oranges, and sometimes would even have the audacity to say a valid meta-analysis couldn't be done because either there wasn't enough studies, not enough common points in the studies, or some other factor.

Hmm... now that I think about it, about 1/3 of the science staff was let go around the same time I was. Hmm. You see, management wasn't happy with the results, the unit was "not producing".

God, some days I just fucking hate this planet.

Anyhow, the bottom line here is that while meta-analysis can be useful, if done properly, it is not always useful and frequently is NOT done as it should be done. It's like any other scientific study, it's not enough to simply know the results, you have to dig dieeper and look at the methods and quality.