Tilly
02-07-08, 09:12 PM
Many of you know my family does the Feingold program with great sucess in treating my 6 year olds son's ADHD.
So for me this is big news that the Lancet study is being recognized by the AAP which is out of Boston Children's Hospital.
While the study does not involve all of the artificial ingredients we have removed from our home and food it does show that at least some of these chemicals have a negative effect on our children. Hopefully this will spur more research on the subject.
I personally don't need research. For me seeing is believing and I have seen what our processed foods have done to my child.
Here are links to the studies and a friend of mine bought the article from AAP which is less than one page long. I am inserting two of those paragraphs.
American Academy of Pediatrics/ Developemental center at Children’s Hospital in Boston
http://aapgrandrounds.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/19/2/17
Lancet study
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/study-shows-food-additives-may-make-kids-hyper/ (http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/study-shows-food-additives-may-make-kids-hyper/)
Despite increasing data supporting the efficacy of stimulants in preschoolers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 2 parents and providers understandably seek safe and effective interventions that require no prescription. A recent meta-analysis of 15 trials concludes that there is "accumulating evidence that neurobehavioral toxicity may characterize a variety of widely distributed chemicals." 3 Some children may be more sensitive to the effects of these chemicals, and the authors suggest there is a need to better identify responders. In real life, practitioners faced with hyperactive preschoolers have a reasonable option to offer parents. For the child without a medical, emotional, or environmental etiology of ADHD behaviors, a trial of a preservative-free, food coloring-free diet is a reasonable intervention. 4
Editor's Note
Although quite complicated, this was a carefully conducted study in which the investigators went to great lengths to eliminate bias and to rigorously measure outcomes. The results are hard to follow and somewhat inconsistent. For many of the assessments there were small but statistically significant differences of measured behaviors in children who consumed the food additives compared with those who did not. In each case increased hyperactive behaviors were associated with consuming the additives. For those comparisons in which no statistically significant differences were found, there was a trend for more hyperactive behaviors associated with the food additive drink in virtually every assessment. Thus the overall findings of the study are clear and require that even we skeptics, who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong."
1. Bateman B, et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89-506-511
2. Abikoff HB, et al. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2007;17:581-592
3. Schab DW, et al. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2004;25:423-434
4. Eigenmann PA, et al. Lancet. 2007;370:1524-1525
So for me this is big news that the Lancet study is being recognized by the AAP which is out of Boston Children's Hospital.
While the study does not involve all of the artificial ingredients we have removed from our home and food it does show that at least some of these chemicals have a negative effect on our children. Hopefully this will spur more research on the subject.
I personally don't need research. For me seeing is believing and I have seen what our processed foods have done to my child.
Here are links to the studies and a friend of mine bought the article from AAP which is less than one page long. I am inserting two of those paragraphs.
American Academy of Pediatrics/ Developemental center at Children’s Hospital in Boston
http://aapgrandrounds.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/19/2/17
Lancet study
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/study-shows-food-additives-may-make-kids-hyper/ (http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/study-shows-food-additives-may-make-kids-hyper/)
Despite increasing data supporting the efficacy of stimulants in preschoolers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 2 parents and providers understandably seek safe and effective interventions that require no prescription. A recent meta-analysis of 15 trials concludes that there is "accumulating evidence that neurobehavioral toxicity may characterize a variety of widely distributed chemicals." 3 Some children may be more sensitive to the effects of these chemicals, and the authors suggest there is a need to better identify responders. In real life, practitioners faced with hyperactive preschoolers have a reasonable option to offer parents. For the child without a medical, emotional, or environmental etiology of ADHD behaviors, a trial of a preservative-free, food coloring-free diet is a reasonable intervention. 4
Editor's Note
Although quite complicated, this was a carefully conducted study in which the investigators went to great lengths to eliminate bias and to rigorously measure outcomes. The results are hard to follow and somewhat inconsistent. For many of the assessments there were small but statistically significant differences of measured behaviors in children who consumed the food additives compared with those who did not. In each case increased hyperactive behaviors were associated with consuming the additives. For those comparisons in which no statistically significant differences were found, there was a trend for more hyperactive behaviors associated with the food additive drink in virtually every assessment. Thus the overall findings of the study are clear and require that even we skeptics, who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong."
1. Bateman B, et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89-506-511
2. Abikoff HB, et al. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2007;17:581-592
3. Schab DW, et al. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2004;25:423-434
4. Eigenmann PA, et al. Lancet. 2007;370:1524-1525