Telegraph Editorial: Parents need to put their foot down

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/09/2007

It has long been an observable truth - easily witnessed by any adult at a child's birthday party - that the rapid ingestion of food containing E-numbers appears to be the junior equivalent of taking crack cocaine.

There the little ones go, stuffing in handfuls of Skittles and glugging down lurid fizzy drinks, miniature Vikings rampaging joyfully through a sugar-soaked Valhalla. Excitement is running high, adrenalin is pumping, they're thwacking each other on the legs with random objects and bellowing at the top of their lungs. They're having the time of their lives, with a tangy whiff of chemically-enhanced craziness.

Then, later, comes the inevitable crash: the bleary-eyed wailing, the tearful accusations of who did what to whom, and the slack-jawed slump in the car on the way home. Many children, however, are not encouraged to confine their E-frenzy to parties: like plants sprouting energetically from a rubbish-tip, they somehow grow to adulthood on a daily diet of bite-size chicken nuggets, frozen frankfurters, Hubba-Bubba gum and candy strips, washed down with pints of Fanta.

But for some years now, public anxiety has been growing about the possible link between food additives and hyperactivity. The number of children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, has risen sharply in Britain. Although many experts believe that ADHD is being over-diagnosed, roughly 359,000 prescriptions for drugs such as Ritalin are issued each year.

Last week, the link between additive-heavy food and uncontrollable behaviour was officially confirmed: research at Southampton University, sponsored by the Government-backed Food Standards Agency, found "clear evidence that mixtures of certain food colours and benzoate preservative can adversely influence the behaviour of children". The names of the additives, which are mainly used to turn food and drink to neon-bright colours, sound like invented planets on Star Trek: "Tartrazine", "Allura Red", "Carmoisine" and "Ponceau 4R". Almost all of them are banned in Norway, and many are prohibited in other countries, including the US.

What then has been the dynamic response of our FSA to its own worrying finding? Nothing, really. Dr Andrew Wadge, the FSA's chief scientist, merely said: "If a child shows signs of hyperactivity or ADHD then eliminating the colours used in the Southampton study from their diet might have some beneficial effects."

There appears to be a crucial piece of thinking missing from Dr Wadge's logic. For if, as he suggests, the behaviour of a hyperactive child can be improved by cutting out such additives, it surely follows that the additives were partly responsible for the hyperactivity in the first place. And if an unnecessary ingredient is known to cause serious problems in a significant number of children, what reason can there be for not simply banning it? The only one that I can think of is a craven reluctance to upset the food industry.

The one area in which a nanny state is wholly appropriate, surely, is in decisions that apply to the welfare of children. In an ideal world, no doubt, the vast majority of British mothers would spend their time sourcing the healthiest organic ingredients before slow-cooking three nourishing meals a day for their children. While one can only applaud those who do, the fact is that many mothers have neither the time nor the budget to shop organically or always to cook from scratch. Worse, a weak-willed and growing minority will feed their children on whatever fizzy, salty or sugar-laden processed concoction is most vigorously demanded.

Parents should no doubt be firmer in opposing a multi-billion pound food and drink industry that knowingly exploits "pester power" in children; but why should they be forced into constant, dreary battle with it in the first place? The very least the Government can do is to insist that the manufacturers get rid of their most harmful and pointless ingredients. There is something obscene in the very notion that the ordinary colours of children's food and drink need to be artificially bumped up to hues only before glimpsed during a hippie's Marrakesh acid trip.

Marketing, like some giant Cyclops, has now turned its malignant eye upon the small child. Its keenest wish is to turn children into little nagging, wanting machines, always pushing their harassed parents to buy them the latest piece of junk.

When one considers it, the very notion of "children's food" is rather odd, past the age that necessitates apple puree and baby's bottles. Not so long ago, children simply ate adult food on smaller plates, with extended negotiations over things they didn't like. Now "children's food" is specifically marketed as a form of edible entertainment, lavished with cartoon characters, free gifts, tokens, stickers. The more diverting it looks, in my experience, the less nutritious it is.

Looked at coldly, it is a rather nauseating society that first permits hyperactivity-inducing additives to be vigorously marketed to children, and then puts them on strong pharmaceutical drugs to manage the resulting bad behaviour. Politicians and parents are the only people with the power to place a brake upon an industry that has often displayed little conscience of its own. It's about time we put our foot down.

I've definitely noticed a trend as far as I remember that the more hyperactivity-inducing e-numbers (detectable as bright colors and insane sweetness or listed in the ingredients on the box) are in foods most commonly directly marketed at children. I also notice when it comes to large corporations there's no such thing as coincidence!

[Admiral Valdemar]

I was listening to this on Radio 2 the other day and have to agree with the parents who want this stuff banned. It really is there only for show, and while I've done work on the more necessary E-numbers such as sodium benzoate for preservation, the colourings and other aesthetic markers are just redundant and lead to erratic physiological changes it seems when mixed.

These things, along with corn oil and saturated fats, need to be taken off the menu. The Govt. talks about healthy eating to deal with the ticking time bomb of heart disease from obesity or malnourished kids, yet allows this stuff to be kept without any practical use and doesn't subsidise local, healthy produce instead.

But then the hypocrisy of the British Parliament is self-evident when one sees them proposing carbon taxes and fighting climate change one day, and an expansion of Heathrow and other major airports the next.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I was listening to this on Radio 2 the other day and have to agree with the parents who want this stuff banned. It really is there only for show, and while I've done work on the more necessary E-numbers such as sodium benzoate for preservation, the colourings and other aesthetic markers are just redundant and lead to erratic physiological changes it seems when mixed.

These things, along with corn oil and saturated fats, need to be taken off the menu. The Govt. talks about healthy eating to deal with the ticking time bomb of heart disease from obesity or malnourished kids, yet allows this stuff to be kept without any practical use and doesn't subsidise local, healthy produce instead.

But then the hypocrisy of the British Parliament is self-evident when one sees them proposing carbon taxes and fighting climate change one day, and an expansion of Heathrow and other major airports the next.

For a country as small as the UK, I would say that if your railroad network was upgraded to French standards you could ban all internal flights, and flights to France and Belgium, for that matter, as the chunnel can easily handle that traffic. Large hovercraft could provide ferry service to Ireland. All commercial airports in the country could be closed except for one in Scotland, one in Belfast, and Heathrow, for long-distance international flights.

And yes, this is another thing to ban along with corn syrup of all varieties, and all trans/saturated fats. I would also add MSG to the list, however. Use real salt, you bastards.

[Gil Hamilton]

Heh, at least something might happen in the UK. The United States government would never ban corn oil and high fructose corn syrup. The Farm Bill practically is a huge government subsidy to keep junk food incredibly cheap and "weight loss" is a huge billion dollar industry. The US government all but puts out flyers for people to be fat and unhealthy.

However, it's impossible to ban all trans/saturated fats and corn oil (unless we all want to be vegetarians who never again touch a baked good*). However, the stuff can stop being kept artificially cheap by the government.

EDIT: *Heh, actually, I can see a march of bakers and pastry chefs taking to the streets upon a ban on butter shouting "CAKE OR DEATH! CAKE OR DEATH!"

[Broomstick]

Heh, at least something might happen in the UK. The United States government would never ban corn oil and high fructose corn syrup. The Farm Bill practically is a huge government subsidy to keep junk food incredibly cheap and "weight loss" is a huge billion dollar industry.

Actually, since the bio-fuel craze, I've noted more products using real sugar again, and more oils than just corn. Personally, as my system does not tolerate corn as food, I'd be just as happy if we ran the energy needs off corn and ate something else.

[Broomstick]

For a country as small as the UK, I would say that if your railroad network was upgraded to French standards you could ban all internal flights, and flights to France and Belgium, for that matter, as the chunnel can easily handle that traffic. Large hovercraft could provide ferry service to Ireland. All commercial airports in the country could be closed except for one in Scotland, one in Belfast, and Heathrow, for long-distance international flights.

Your zeal to eliminate wasteful aviation would result in nowhere to train the next generation of pilots - not to mention the uses of internal flight even in a country as small as the UK.

If you made rail travel sufficiently attractive and competitive (which might be accomplished simply by subsidizing it to the same extent as aviation) people would gravite towards its use without need for draconian measures.

[Molyneux]

I was listening to this on Radio 2 the other day and have to agree with the parents who want this stuff banned. It really is there only for show, and while I've done work on the more necessary E-numbers such as sodium benzoate for preservation, the colourings and other aesthetic markers are just redundant and lead to erratic physiological changes it seems when mixed.

These things, along with corn oil and saturated fats, need to be taken off the menu. The Govt. talks about healthy eating to deal with the ticking time bomb of heart disease from obesity or malnourished kids, yet allows this stuff to be kept without any practical use and doesn't subsidise local, healthy produce instead.

But then the hypocrisy of the British Parliament is self-evident when one sees them proposing carbon taxes and fighting climate change one day, and an expansion of Heathrow and other major airports the next.

For a country as small as the UK, I would say that if your railroad network was upgraded to French standards you could ban all internal flights, and flights to France and Belgium, for that matter, as the chunnel can easily handle that traffic. Large hovercraft could provide ferry service to Ireland. All commercial airports in the country could be closed except for one in Scotland, one in Belfast, and Heathrow, for long-distance international flights.

And yes, this is another thing to ban along with corn syrup of all varieties, and all trans/saturated fats. I would also add MSG to the list, however. Use real salt, you bastards.

Hey, I like the flavor of MSG! It doesn't replace salt, it gives food an "umami" taste.