When you think of it, most meds do have food coloring. Those bupropion tablets I have, are colored with black dye to mark the labels. Ritalin and Adderall could be worse - entire tablets are colored. And it looks pretty damn artificial, probably derived from coal tar. Supposedly some people claim that certain food colorings can even exacerbate ADD, such as the coar-tar derived dyes like Blue No. 1, however, I am skeptical of such claims (nonetheless, it is possible that they may have some basis in them). Does anyone know if it is possible to get those meds without food coloring? And really, we don't know much of the long-term effects of them.

Actually, we do know the effects of food coloring. Most food coloring is descried by the initials "FD&C" followed by a code, usually a color and a number. The code "FD&C" stands for "Food, Drug, and Cosmetic," which means that the substance has been approved for use in all of those. Some medications use colors that are simply D&C, meaning approved for drugs and cosmetics. Still, in this situation, they are still approved for human ingestion.

Contrary to popular belief, most food coloring is natural in origin. Some chemicals are naturally derived, others are originally found in nature but commonly synthesized in a lab. With most medications, vegetable dyes are commonly used.

Also, remember that these meds have been studied extensively as to their safety. Presumably these dyes were used in the meds used in safety trials, as well as in the placebos used in safety trials.

Usually, when the FDA studies chemicals, it only studies them for the short-term, not the long-term. So we still are concerned. Furthermore, some dyes are coal tar derived. For example, tartarzine and Brilliant Blue 1. And these coal tar derived dyes are actually pretty common. Even the natural dyes don't always come without side effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_coloring

Well, you also have to look at the amount involved. Coal-fired power plants, which are ubiquitous in most American cities, would pretty much make the amount you'd get in a few pills meaningless, even over a lifetime. Similarly, think about the charcoal that's going to be used at all of the 4th of July barbecues coming up.

Actually, while burned coal is dangerous, it's not overly dangerous before it's een burned. Activated charcoal is used in cases of overdoses to absorb any chemicals that are still present in the GI tract (Chaser capsules are also made of activated charcoal). When ignited, the hydrocarbons in coal and charcoal will produce dangerous compounds, and obviously coal dust is dangerous if inhaled, but swallowing a small amount isn't going to hurt you.

You really don't seem to be grasping the tiny amount of these substances involved. Long-term use doesn't really come into play, either, since it's going to be excreted far faster than it would build up.

A single drop of food coloring adds significant color to a gallon of water. The amount required to lightly tint a single pill is microscopic.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that there is more cyanide in an apple (or more accurately, chemicals that are converted to cyanide when digested) than food coloring in a pill. Or a peach, or some almonds or cherries, for that matter. And no, not from pesticides--it occurs naturally.

It's a good thing that fruit isn't manmade, or we'd never hear the end of that one.

Nonetheless, the amount, however small, is enough to cause significant allergic reactions to particular individuals.

I'll have to look up more on this...

Ok. This sounds credible...

http://www.chiro.org/pediatrics/FULL/Scientists_letters_

CSPI’s report reviews more than 20 controlled studies of diet and behavior. Most of the studies found that food dyes and, in some cases, other additives and foods provoked symptoms of ADHD or other behavior problems in some children. In light of that evidence, HHS should inform parents, school officials, and health-care providers that some children are affected by diet and that dietary therapy should be considered as a first course of treatment. We further recommend a broad research agenda to better understand foods’ effects on behavior, several regulatory measures (including more routine testing for behavioral effects of food additives and consideration of a ban on food dyes in foods and other products widely consumed by children), and educational efforts (revising literature and web sites, including a pamphlet that FDA cosponsors with a food-industry association, that deny that diet affects behavior).

I'll have to investigate them more thoroughly later.

Ok, couple of things:

A: Most physicians consider chiropractors to be quacks. If you want help with your back, they might be able to help you, but once they start talking about curing other diseases, it's just crap and more crap. So I wouldn't take something written on a chiro's website to be all that credible.

B: I've never heard of these studies they're citing. As far as I know, every study done on the subject has found no link between food additives and ADHD. Also, note the weasely wording: "provoke symptoms of ADHD and other behavior problems." In other words, it doesn't cause ADHD or make ADHD worse, they're just comparing an allergic reaction to "some" of the symptoms of ADHD. My guess is that if you press them on it, it'll be something along the lines of "people having an allergic reaction have difficulty paying attention." No ****, really?

This is actually in my area of expertise (healthcare policy, although I don't work in any fields related to this). I've written policy papers before, and this is a crappy policy paper.

The link you gave didn't work, but looking over the journal articles they cite on their ADD page, it's just even more crap. The "Archives of Disease in Childhood" geez, that's not even a real journal. The one article that they did have in the Journal of Pediatrics doesn't say what they claim it says.

http://www.chiro.org/pediatrics/ABSTRACTS/Food_Coloring.shtml

This article actually refers to two different studies. In one study, which was not placebo controlled or blinded, parents rated their children as being less hyperactive when on a diet free of food coloring. This is worthless for a number of reasons, but note especially that it was based purely on the response of the parents, that the parents knew that the children were on the diet at the time, and that it doesn't say anything about ADHD, just general hyperactivity (which doesn't necessarily mean ADHD).

The second study was slightly better, in that they claim it was double blinded and placebo controlled, but also keep in mind that the only symptoms that they found were "They were irritable and restless and had sleep disturbance." This is not ADHD, and the checklist that they used for these symptoms is one that the experimenters themselves developed, meaning that we don't know if their behavioral checklist was even valid. It's crap.

They also include an article from the Australian Journal of Paediatrics on the Feingold diet, ignoring the fact that the Feingold diet has been repeatedly disproved in American journals.

The articles they cite elsewhere on ADD are similarly crappy. The Alternative Medicine Review is not a well respected or commonly cited journal. Clinical Chiropractic is similarly not held in much esteem. Completely missing from their articles are anything published by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Psychiatry, the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry, these are all respected journals which this website apparently chooses to ignore.

There is one article in the Canadian Journal of Child Neurology. However, it is not an academic article, but a case report of an un-named 8 year old child who suffered a stroke. However, while they claim that the child was taking methylphenidate, they don't tell you what his dose was, how long he'd been taking it, whether it had even been prescribed to him or whether he had taken it accidentally, there is no information there.

So yeah, that page is basically crap. Crap that no self-respecting scientist or researcher would consider valid under any circumstances. If they had any actual real data, they would post it, but they don't. I'm sorry if I'm a little crabby, but if you think I'm bad, you should hear what doctors sound like when they chew out medical administrators for ignoring scientific evidence (which is related to why I'm in a crabby mood today).


I'm sorry, but my professional opinion is that my dogs create better evidence in my backyard.

hi hiytoin i read with intrest what you put an some is true but its been known for 20 yeRS that e numbers cos porblems i should know cos they effeted me evevy day since i was born iam 33 half now an eveyday i have to watch what i eat an drink soap shampo an so on an these are passed by the standers as you said an still unble to sell them knowing that they cos this now weather it makes my very likely addhd an my def dylixa worc is something that it dose to say that there safe just is not the case big money pertocts them peps like me are left on the side lines you go an look at...> at food drink llmost eveything has e mumbers and .....i wounders how meny kids are made hyper an poor readers an wrteers cos thes clours that were never digend for the human body as you point out some are but maybe over use has made them as well a porblem ....>>dorm

http://www.chiro.org/pediatrics/FULL/Scientists_letters_to_HHS.html

Ok, that was the letter... Supposedly signed with people with MDs (on the other hand, that isn't enough to make it credible per se)... But the first letter hides the names of those who write sincerely, which arouses suspicions. the second one doesn't, but is only calling for propositions for research, not solutions based on research.

Hmm:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7965420&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3395307&dopt=Citation

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/6/714

http://www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/artificial.htm (has some links...)

But when I check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feingold_diet, I see that the Feingold diet seems to be of little success (of course, that one is more general, less specific to food coloring..).

A lot of the criticism seems specifically bent towards tartarzine, the one from coal tar.

I went on scholar.google.com and searched for "food coloring" + attention deficit, and I didn't find a lot of studies that showed that consumption of food coloring had no effect...

==
http://www.diet-studies.com/adhd.html (wow, this is interesting...)

tartarzine makes me ill ....an other yellow ones an some in coakla as well dorm xx

The first article you list is one that I already mentioned earlier, the one with the two studies, neither of which showed much.

The second article also did not use ADHD kids, but merely kids who were "hyperactive." Also, as with the first study, they are using a behavior rating scale whose validity has not been determined, and it involved parental ratings. Finally, they mention at the bottom that "The findings raise the issue of whether the strict criteria for inclusion in studies concerned with 'hyperactivity' based on 'attention deficit disorder' may miss children who indicate behavioural changes associated with the ingestion of food colourings." Translation: "All those studies of ADD only include kids who meet the clinical definition of ADD, so no wonder they all show a biological cause...if they would only use kids who weren't clinically ADD, they'd get the results we get." In other words, they're claiming that the problem with the other studies is that they rely too much on actual science.

The third study is crap because it says, in the beginning: "We sought to maximize the likelihood of demonstrating behavioral effects of artificial food colorings by (1) studying only children who were already on the Feingold diet and who were reported by their parents to respond markedly to artificial food colorings, (2) attempting to exclude placebo responders, and (3) administering high dosages of coloring."

Translation: We decided to tilt the experiment to guarantee the result we wanted.

The fourth link is to a graduate paper that cites only one study, one which discusses the impact of megadoses of food coloring (the equivaled of me taking 150mg of food coloring) on maze completion time. It found that while it took longer for the rats to complete the maze with the dose of food coloring, there was no difference etween the effect on regular rats and rats who had een designed to be "ADD" by damaging their dopamine system during development. It also concluded: "Regarding the observations of hyperactivity after exposure to food dyes, there was enough evidence for the researchers to conclude,"

From the Wiki article:

"
In the ideal experiment, children whose behavior seems to have improved on the Feingold diet are kept on the diet but are periodically challenged with one or more suspected substances. Under ideal circumstances, the procedure should be double-blind, so that neither the participants nor the experimenters know when the substances are being administered. In 1980, an expert review team assembled by the Nutrition Foundation concluded:

Based on seven studies involving approximately 190 children, there have been no instances of consistent, dramatic deterioration in behavior in hyperactive children challenged, under double-blind conditions, with artificial food colorings. . . . There are three . . . exceptions to these generally negative conclusions, but, in all three cases, the deterioration is reported by the mother with no other objective, confirming evidence available. . . . Without the confirming evidence of objective tests and/or outside observers, even these exceptions cannot be considered as definite evidence that there may be an occasional, genetically determined, sensitivity to food colorings. Though one cannot prove that no such children will be found, sufficient numbers of highly selected children have been studied to feel confident that such specific sensitivity, if found, will be rare."I agree.


With regards to the letter to HHS, I'm not even going to go into the misinterpretations and misrepresentations involved. From what I understand, Donna threw it into the trash.

The problems with most of these artificial color studies is:

A: They're not testing ADHD kids, but kids who are generally perceived as "hyperactive." There's a huge difference involved there, it's like doing a study of kids with general vision prolems and then claiming that it applies to kids with dyslexia.

B: They tend to rely on parental reporting, rather than clinical observation. The problem with parental reporting is that parents have a tendency sometimes to report what they want to see, not what they actually see. There's also the danger that they might over or underreport symptoms, remembering only the bad times and not the good, or vice versa.

C: They use their own behavioral scales that they have written up specifically for the experiment. You just don't do this. There is no way to know if the scales are valid, that is, whether different observers will record similar results on the same patient, and whether the results actually corellate with real symptoms and relief. If they had chosen to use actual ADD kids, they could have used actual ADD rating scales whose validity has previously been established. They don't do that, and it's not hard to come to the conclusion that the reason why is because they want a specific result.

D: It doesn't explain real-world phenomena very well. It doesn't explain the fMRI, PET, and SPECT scans. It doesn't offer an explanation for most ADHD behavior, beyond general hyperactivity, which is only part of the disorder. It doesn't explain why 80% of ADDers find medication effective...how would stimulant medication help with allergic reactions? It also doesn't explain why ADHD was first described at the turn of the last century, and stimulant medication was first used for what would now be called ADHD kids in 1937, given that this was long before artificial coloring was widely used.

It also doesn't explain why we see ADHD in every continent on the globe, despite the fact that diet is one thing that changes dramatically from culture to culture.

The problem with the dietary hypotheses is that they really don't adequately explain the phenomena that we see, and they don't provide very convincing evidence to support the case, certainly nothing even remotely close to the mounds of evdence backing the catecholamine (ie "genetically influenced brain chemical imalances") hypothesis.

Finally, I'd like to make a point in general about all the crap you hear these days regarding all the "artificial chemicals" that we eat. People would have you believe that we eat worse than human beings used to in the past. This is so far past absurd that I can't help but wonder what recreational chemicals the people who make such arguments might have been exposed to.

Humans in modern, developed countries are healthier than they have ever been in the history of our species. Our food is relatively free of disease-causing parasites and fecal matter, it is well preserved and not spoiled before it reaches us, it is cooked thoroughly. While many foods may be fried in vegetable oil, vegetable oil is far healthier than the cooking lard used in the past. Our modern refrigeration, freezing, and preservative technology, including many of the chemicals that these alties like to rant about, allow us to keep food fresh, whereas in the past the only way to preserve most meats was to salt it. They would take meat and completely cover it in salt. Talk about unhealthy, do you have any idea what that would do to your blood pressure?

Hell, we even have laws requiring food companies to give us an in-depth chemical and nutritional breakdown of every food we eat on the package. While some people may still choose not to eat healthily anyways, this allows people to know what they are getting in their food.

You know what, though? Don't take my word for it, why don't you go read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, so that you can see what food was like back in the good old days that these nuts claim were healthier. Then why don't you take a look at the average human life span over the past century, plot it on a graph, and watch as it doubles.

These guys aren't leading some cutting edge movement to make us healthier; they're dinosaurs, turning to folk remedies and quackery because technology, innovation, and research has long passed them by.