Michael F. Jacobson, PH.D. is co-founder and executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a nonprofit health advocacy organization with more than 900,000 members. CSPI focuses on nutrition, food safety, scientific integrity and alcohol policy. It publishes Nutrition Action Healthletter as well as numerous studies, including “Salt: the Forgotten Killer” and “Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans’ Health.” CSPI is a key player in the ongoing battle against obesity in America, advocating nutritious and safe diets and pushing legislators and corporations to take steps to protect the public’s health.  He has had numerous technical papers and letters published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

His articles have appeared in Smithsonian, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, the Christian Science Monitor, Miami Herald, Michael Jacobson is the author of several books, including Six Arguments For a Greener Diet.

Michael Jacobson--

Yesterday we urged the Food and Drug Administration to protect children by banning eight artificial food dyes.

In the early 1970s, San Francisco allergist Ben Feingold discovered that some of his patients—children and adults—who suffered neurological impairments, such as hyperactivity, improved significantly when they avoided artificial colorings, artificial flavorings, and certain other food ingredients. His publications and media appearances generated tremendous publicity and earned the gratitude of thousands of parents who understood the trauma that behavioral disorders cause. Hyperactivity, attention-deficit disorder, and other problems make it hard for kids to succeed in school, hard to have friends, and hard to have a happy family life.

Industry-funded groups like the Nutrition Foundation and American Council on Science and Health denied Dr. Feingold’s contentions, but, fortunately, his findings spurred scientific research over the next several decades. Numerous well-designed studies in the United States and abroad steadily built support for the diet-behavior link, but they never reached the critical mass needed to trigger government action. Over the years, interest in the behavioral impact of diet faded, even as the use of stimulant drugs to treat behavioral problems soared. Industry’s reaction?—Companies churned out so many new artificially colored foods that Americans are now consuming twice as much dyes as when Feingold first warned of their effects.

In 1999 CSPI published a lengthy report on diet and behavior and urged the Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Mental Health to review the existing research and to sponsor any necessary new research. The government’s reaction?—Despite protestations of interest, neither agency sponsored research…though the FDA reissued its pamphlet dismissing the effects of food dyes on behavior.

One important development that has revived concerns about dyes is a pair of studies funded by the British government. In one study, the researchers exposed almost 300 children to several dyes and a preservative and then measured behavioral effects. Perhaps not surprisingly, effects were seen. But the remarkable thing about these studies is that they found any effects at all, considering that the children came from the general British population. Previous studies tested children who had behavioral problems or were thought to be sensitive to dyes and other food ingredients.

The British government quickly acknowledged the public health problem indicated by the new studies and has urged manufacturers to switch to safer natural colorings. As Dame Deirdre Hutton, the head of the British Food Standards Agency, said, “I f one puts consumers first, then the evidence suggests it would be sensible for these colours to be taken out of the food that children eat, and by definition, out of all foods as you cannot separate the food that adults and children eat.” In sharp contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s web site states, as it has for more than a decade, that there is “no evidence that food color additives cause hyperactivity or learning disabilities in children.”

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act requires food colors to be safe, and, to quote the law, “safe means that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive.” In fact, though, there is convincing evidence that harm will result from color additives.

The continued use of artificial food dyes is the secret shame of the food industry and the regulators who watch over it. It’s high time that the Food and Drug Administration protected the public from these neurotoxic chemicals. That’s why today we are petitioning the FDA to ban all the major food dyes. About 20 scientists and practicing physicians have sent a supportive letter to the FDA.

Even if the FDA wanted to ban those dyes, the process would take years to overcome the predictable industry opposition and procedural hurdles. That’s why we’re also asking the FDA to take the interim measure of quickly deeming foods with dyes to be misbranded unless they bear a warning notice. The warning we’re suggesting would say: “WARNING: The artificial colorings in this food cause hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

The food industry will probably argue that the dyes used in thousands of their products are safe, but that even if they were harmful not every child is sensitive. And since dyes are listed on labels, the responsibility for protecting kids should fall to their parents and to pediatricians. That argument is totally unrealistic. Most parents and doctors will not realize that dyes pose a risk. And even if parents did want to protect their kids, it is extremely difficult to read every label in grocery stores and to stop their kids from consuming unlabeled foods at restaurants, parties, friends’ homes, and other places. The appropriate public health approach is to eliminate the unnecessary hazard from the food supply. Whatever inconvenience that poses for industry hardly outweighs the harm being done to children.

I hope that instead of reflexively opposing our petition the food and restaurant industries will switch to safe colorings. After all, substitutes abound. Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods grocery chains market full lines of products, but claim not to sell any made with dyes. In the United Kingdom, McDonald’s, Kraft, Kellogg, and other companies are getting rid of dyes. Across the Atlantic, McDonald’s strawberry sauce for sundaes is colored with actual strawberries; in the U.S. it is colored with Red 40 dye. In the UK, Coca-Cola’s Orange Fanta is colored with carrot and pumpkin extracts, but in the United States it contains Yellow 6 and Red 40. In Britain, Kellogg’s Strawberry Pop-Tarts are made with several plant-based colorings, but in the U.S. Red 40, Yellow 6, and Blue 1 are used. Companies talk a lot about parental responsibility. They need to exercise greater corporate responsibility.

More From Michael Jacobson: A Better Diet Prevents Premature Death

Update on Jun 14, 2008 by Editor

Sphered!     Reuters!