Synthetic food dyes and their association with neurobehavioral problems in children have received some attention.
Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom California School Food Safety Act A law has been enacted that will ban the provision or sale of foods containing six types of synthetic food colors in public schools in the state starting in 2028. Earlier this month, protests erupted in Michigan in front of WK Kellogg’s Battle Creek headquarters after renewed criticism of the company. for their broken things Efforts to remove synthetic food colors from U.S. productsincluding cereals.
Meanwhile, the same dye that is banned in California is still approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The agency does not appear to be changing its policy, arguing that there is not enough evidence to prove that synthetic dyes cause problems such as ADHD, hyperactivity, and difficulty concentrating.
The list of foods that contain synthetic food colors is extensive. And the uproar is fueled by children’s inability to recognize the risks of consuming food. When federal and state guidelines don’t match, it can be difficult to determine which foods contain dyes and whether they should be avoided completely.
Despite limited evidence of a neurobehavioral link, experts believe that some children are probably more susceptible than others. Many experts contend that California’s law will ensure the safety of students in the state’s public schools, and that it will encourage other states to follow suit and force food manufacturers to reformulate their recipes. I hope that it will be done.
“I think school is a great place to start because it’s an environment where kids need to focus. Children need to feel like they’re in control of their bodies,” says California School Food Safety. said Melanie Benesch, vice president of government affairs at the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Task Force, a nonprofit organization that co-sponsored the law. “It creates a better learning environment for everyone.”
In this national debate, science news We looked at how we got to this point and what the science has to say about consuming synthetic food colors.
What are synthetic food colors? Why are they in food?
Synthetic dyes add color to food. Humans can perceive a rainbow of colors in a bland snack because each has a unique molecular structure that absorbs specific frequencies of light. Synthetic dyes are essentially useless other than adding color. It does not help preserve food or add nutritional value. Their job is to seduce.
“Many of these foods are marketed to children, such as candy and cereal,” Benesh said. When manufacturers use synthetic dyes, “it makes the food colors brighter and more appealing to children, which I think helps sell the product.”
What products use synthetic dyes?
Foods with synthetic dyes do not carry warning labels in the United States, so scrutinizing individual product labels is usually the only way to decipher exactly which foods contain which dyes. This is the method. When synthetic dyes are present, they are usually listed in the fine print of the item’s ingredient list as the color name followed by a number (such as “Yellow 5”). If you want to avoid dyes, keep an eye out for these grocery store staples.
- Baked goods such as cake mixes, sugar cookies, and gingerbread
- Snack foods such as Pop-Tarts, Cheetos, and dried fruit
- Candies such as M&M’s, Skittles, and Nerds
- Cereals such as Froot Loops, Trix, Lucky Charms, etc.
- Beverages and specialty beverages such as Electrolit, Pedialyte, Powerade, etc.
It’s not just food that contains synthetic food dyes. Some eye shadows, hair products, and medications contain some of the dyes currently banned in California.
When did scientists realize that synthetic dyes could be harmful?
Synthetic dyes have a long and troubled history. Additives made from lead chromate, arsenic, and coal tar were some of the first iterations and packed a toxic punch for 19th and 20th century consumers. In 1950, dozens of children became ill after eating Halloween candy containing the dangerous dye Orange 1.SN: 2011/8/12).
Many of today’s synthetic dyes were invented around the same time. Five of the six dyes banned in California had been approved by the FDA by 1931. However, its potential for harm was not widely discussed until the mid-1970s, when a possible link between food dyes and childhood hyperactivity became public knowledge. says Mari Golub, a developmental neurotoxicologist at the University of California, Davis. Study after study followed, but the FDA maintained its guidelines.
Still, some scientists say the link is clear. Over the past 50 years or so, a growing body of scientific research and anecdotal evidence has linked some synthetic food dyes to neurobehavioral problems in children that can manifest as mood swings, hyperactivity, and difficulty concentrating. have been pointed out to be related.
So why did California ban six synthetic dyes?
2021 California Department of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment A report has been published It would help push states to ban Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 in public schools.
The report’s authors thoroughly reviewed available studies that investigated how synthetic food dyes affect children. They analyzed 25 clinical trial studies that compared periods in which groups of children consumed foods colored with synthetic dyes versus periods in which they ate a placebo. In many cases, parents and teachers pointed out behavioral problems when they occurred. Ultimately, the report’s authors wrote that 16 studies showed reliable associations between behavioral outcomes and children’s intake of synthetic dyes.
However, the discovery of a link does not mean that scientists can confirm that synthetic dyes are directly responsible for neurobehavioral problems. This is where animal research comes into play.
Studies in rats, mice, and in some cases rabbits have shown a clearer relationship between individual synthetic food dyes and neurobehavioral effects. Some animals exposed to banned synthetic dyes, etc. hyperactivity or show signs of memory loss.
Animal studies can be an important tool for comparison, but it’s difficult to compare the amount of food coloring given to lab rats to, say, the number of Red 40 sprinkles on a cupcake. It’s difficult to tally up the dyes in individual sprinkles, chips, and cookies across a child’s diet.
However, animal studies have shown that dyes have neurological effects in animals, which could help scientists determine which individual dyes and doses start to have negative effects, Oakland says. Mark Miller, a pediatric environmental health physician with the California Department of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said: About evaluation.
Why was California’s decision so controversial?
Not everyone supports California’s ban.
“Consistency in food regulations across state and federal agencies is critical to ensuring public confidence,” says Sean Taylor, an organic biochemist at the International Color Manufacturers Association in Washington, DC. He notes that the FDA has reviewed scientific literature, including Golub’s paper. The team performed and concluded There was no causal link between children ingesting synthetic dyes and undesirable behavior..
To begin with, it is difficult to talk specifically about the dangers of food dyes because there has not been much research done. And technically, the FDA and California’s 2021 Health Assessments are not inconsistent with each other. No causal relationship found. The latter finds related links.
There have been no studies comparing one group of children on a diet without food dyes to another group of children on foods enriched with individual doses of synthetic dyes, so it is important to note that causality cannot be determined. Relationships are difficult to determine.
“We don’t have the kind of data that would be the gold standard for causation,” says Amy Gilson, deputy director for external affairs and legislative affairs at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in Sacramento. It is unlikely that a clear-cut study will be published. But, says Gilson, “not everyone needs to have all the causal data to want to say, ‘Look, you know there’s good evidence here.'” There’s good science that shows we need to take some action. ”
