Here’s a “new” food coloring warning we’ve been hearing for years

Breaking the code

If you look closely, you can see their lips moving.

Sometimes it’s the drug company PR experts, sometimes it’s the food industry shills.

But any time a U.S. health official speaks, if you look closely, you can see Big Pharma or Big Agri pulling the strings.

But then, if you also listen carefully, sometimes you can pick up coded messages hidden in all the blah blah blah…

It was right there all along

For decades, health officials have insisted that artificial food colorings pose no danger. The basic message: “Don’t worry about a thing! Eat up!”

But underneath that message is an admission that food coloring has a clear downside.

In the 1970s, the FDA acknowledged data that “suggested some children may be adversely affected by synthetic colors.”

The data “suggested.” That’s code for: “Parents, you should keep this junk away from your kids.” After all, they might qualify as “some children.”

In the 80s we got a similar coded message from a Consensus Development Panel of the National Institutes of Health. The panel concluded that “a controlled diet may have benefits in the treatment of childhood hyperactivity…”

It’s like they’re kicking the dirt, pretending to say nothing, but (wink, wink…nudge, nudge): “If you control your kids’ diets, there may be benefits.”

Nearly 30 years later, when FDA officials talk about food coloring they still mostly sound like sock puppets. But parents really should be picking up on this warning by now, because it’s coming through loud and clear.

Message received

A few days ago, an FDA food advisory committee decided that no written warnings are needed on products that contain artificial food colorings. But the panel did admit that ADHD problems in “certain susceptible children” might be worsened by food additives, including synthetic food colorings.

In other words, they’re telling us again what they’ve been telling us for years: Yes, food colorings can create big problems for some kids

The committee report adds that effects on behavior “appear to be due to a unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent neurotoxic properties.”

Ha! Here’s how to decode that one: It’s basically a litigation-blocking gift to Kellogg’s, Kraft, General Mills, etc. You see, it’s not the additives fault. No no no–it’s the kids’ fault–the kids and their “unique intolerance.”

Well…maybe not all THAT unique.

Fifty years ago, pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Feingold began research that eventually revealed a strong link between food additives (colorings, flavors, etc.) and behavioral problems in certain children and adults.

And although Dr. Feingold has been belittled by the mainstream for decades, here’s the FDA, once again, confirming results he first told us about in the 60s!

These results are no surprise to Dr. Spreen who has followed Dr. Feingold’s research for years and has seen similar dramatic improvements with his own young patients.

Dr. Spreen: “The results from artificial food colorings were never in doubt. If labels were required to use the proper term for ‘artificial food colors’, i.e., ‘diluted industrial dyes’, a lot fewer people would be using them.”

Moms…Dads…I hope you’re getting all this. Don’t be distracted by the primary decision of the FDA food advisory committee. Read between the lines. That’s where you’ll find the useful information and the true warning.

Sources:
“Background Document for the Food Advisory Committee: Certified Color Additives in Food and Possible Association with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children” FDA, March 30-31, 2011, fda.org
“F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings” Gardiner Harris, New York Times. 3/29/11, nytimes.com
“Artificial Dye Safe to Eat, Panel Says” Gardiner Harris, New York Times, 3/31/11, nytimes.com