Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, short ADHD: Who has not yet heard this term, especially when it comes to children? Over the last decade the number of children diagnosed with this disease has risen significantly (in the United States from 7.8% in 2003 to 11.0% in 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). But although this diagnosis becomes more and more common, there is still a lot that we do not know about its causes and right treatment. Not only does the right medication help to guarantee children a normal development, but research also found out that the right diet can have a positive effect on the symptoms of hyperactivity. Artificial food colors in particular have been named again and again in this context. This essay focuses on the most important research concerning the field of artificial food colors and their impact on children with hyperactivity: There are several studies which suggest a link between an increase of hyperactive behavior and certain artificial food colors, and while some countries have already taken steps to remove the tested colors from child nutrition, others still deny their potential danger. This shows how important a more thorough investigation of this topic is and that the restrictions concerning artificial colors in food for children should be revised everywhere.
Table of Contents
1. Artificial Food Colors as Enhancers of Hyperactivity in Children
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores the scientific discourse surrounding the potential link between the consumption of artificial food colors and the manifestation of hyperactive behavior in children, evaluating conflicting institutional perspectives and historical research findings.
- Evolution of ADHD research and its relation to dietary factors
- Evaluation of the Feingold "elimination diet"
- Analysis of the 2007 Southampton study findings
- Regulatory inconsistencies between the FDA and European health authorities
- The necessity for further research into biological mechanisms
Excerpt from the Book
The Southampton Study and Its Impact
This task was undertaken by many researchers until, in 2007, the Southampton study provided results that were significant enough to cause the British government to ban artificial food colors from the British market (Kanarek, 2011, p. 389). Unlike the Feingold study, this one concentrated on artificial food additives. Two drinks were given to children who were not diagnosed with ADHD. The first mix contained the artificial dyes sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine and ponceau 4R, while the second one contained sunset yellow, quinolone yellow, carmoisine and allura red. Prof. Jim Stevenson from Southampton University summarizes the results as follows: “This has been a major study investigating an important area of research. The results suggest that consumption of certain mixtures of artificial food colors (. . .) are associated with increases in hyperactive behaviour in children” (Food Standards Agency, 2007).
But – as well as the critics of the Feingold study – this research also clarifies that hyperactivity cannot be cured or necessarily be lessened by eliminating the tested substances from children’s diets. Still, the results are alarming enough to indicate that artificial colors can be quite dangerous.
Chapter Summary
1. Artificial Food Colors as Enhancers of Hyperactivity in Children: This chapter provides an introduction to the rising prevalence of ADHD and outlines the debate concerning whether artificial food dyes act as environmental triggers for hyperactive symptoms in children.
Keywords
ADHD, artificial food colors, hyperactivity, children, Feingold study, elimination diet, food additives, Southampton study, FDA, EFSA, diet, behavioral effects, food safety, nutrition, research
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the controversial relationship between the intake of artificial food dyes and the increase of hyperactive behavior in children, contrasting historical theories with contemporary scientific studies and regulatory stances.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the history of dietary interventions in ADHD, the findings of clinical studies like the Southampton study, and the discrepancies in how government bodies like the FDA and European agencies interpret food safety data.
What is the ultimate goal of this work?
The primary goal is to highlight the importance of re-evaluating food safety standards for children and to advocate for more rigorous scientific research into how specific food additives affect the human brain.
Which scientific methods are primarily analyzed?
The author reviews clinical observation studies and dietary elimination trials, specifically evaluating the methodology used by Dr. Benjamin Feingold and the subsequent controlled testing performed by researchers at Southampton University.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the development of the Feingold "elimination diet," the impact of the 2007 Southampton study on British market regulations, and a critique of the FDA's current stance on food additives.
Which key terms best describe this paper?
The paper is defined by terms such as ADHD, artificial food colors, hyperactivity, food additives, dietary intervention, and international food regulation.
How does the Feingold method compare to later studies?
While Feingold pioneered the idea that diet influences behavior, his rigid elimination diet was later heavily criticized and partially refuted, leading to more focused and specialized studies on specific artificial dyes.
What inconsistency does the author identify in the FDA's position?
The author points out that the FDA homepage relies on outdated or incomplete data and incorrectly claims that the European Food Safety Authority shares their dismissive view on the dangers of certain food dyes.
- Quote paper
- Sebastian Kerski (Author), 2014, Artificial Food Colors as Enhancers of Hyperactivity in Children, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/286415
