Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Artificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavior

2011; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Volume: 120; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1289/ehp.1104409

1552-9924

M Cheeseman,

Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques

Vol. 120, No. 1 CorrespondenceOpen AccessArtificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavioris accompanied byArtificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavior: Weiss Responds Mitchell A. Cheeseman Mitchell A. Cheeseman Search for more papers by this author Published:1 January 2012https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104409Cited by:7AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit In his commentary, Weiss (2012) discusses results of the recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluation of the possible association between artificial food color additives (AFCs) and adverse behaviors in children, including those related to hyperactivity. The stated aim of the commentary is “to examine the basis of the FDA’s position, the elements of the review that led to its decision and that of the committee, and the reasons why this is an environmental issue.” In the commentary, however, a) the FDA’s petition review and safety assessment processes are misconstrued; b) the range of normal behaviors and the levels at which these behaviors can be considered adverse are not distinguished, and comparisons that cloud the distinction are unsupported; c) examples from individual studies are used out of context or irrespective of the conclusions expressed by the authors; d) specific results are cited from studies the FDA concluded were fundamentally flawed; and e) comprehensive reviews by other scientific panels are not mentioned. As a result, the viewpoint presented does not properly characterize the public health issue, the FDA’s evaluation and conclusions, or the processes involved, including the FDA’s proposed actions. This letter addresses as many general errors, omissions, and apparent flaws in the commentary as space permits.In 2008, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the FDA to ban eight AFCs based primarily on results from clinical challenge studies on behavioral effects of these chemicals in children with a history of hyperactivity disorders or related behavioral problems (CSPI 2008). The petition also cited studies that tested potential effects of AFCs in children without behavioral problems (e.g., McCann et al. 2007) or assessed the effects of the Feingold diet, which eliminates more than just AFCs (e.g., Conners et al. 1976; Harley et al. 1978). In direct response to the petition and based on the breadth of the literature cited, the FDA assessed not only the hypothesis that AFCs trigger or exacerbate “hyperactivity” and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as noted in the commentary, but rather considered all treatment-related behavioral effects from relevant clinical studies on AFCs. This was stated in direct and unequivocal language in the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee (FAC) meeting notice in the Federal Register (FDA 2010): The FAC’s agenda was “to discuss whether available relevant data demonstrate a link between children’s consumption of synthetic color additives in food and adverse effects on behavior,” and that is how the committee considered the matter at the meeting.As understood and incorporated in the FDA petition review process, confidence in the reliability of a study’s findings must be determined through scientific review using appropriate criteria before proper interpretation and applicability can be determined. Only then can results be considered in the context of all studies reviewed and a final comprehensive interpretation rendered. Using data out of context of study design and without regard to reliability and sound interpretation result in improper characterization of the issue and misdirection for future research. For example, Weiss (2012) stated that the McCann et al. (2007) study “demonstrated statistically significant adverse responses in both groups of children to the food color challenge.” Several uncertainties in that study stemming from issues and confounders related to study design and outcome measures were not mentioned, such as a) inclusion of a preservative (sodium benzoate) and different challenge color mixes in the two age groups of children; b) inconsistencies between parental observations and clinical or teacher observations; and c) characterization of a treatment effect as adverse when it may, in fact, fall within the normal range of childhood behavior. The evaluations of the McCann study by both the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2008) considered it equivocal and of uncertain biological relevance. In the commentary, effect size is cited in support of the overinterpretation of the inconclusive results. This point ignores differences in nature and magnitude of an end point when comparing effect sizes. The examples of respiratory infection and diminished intelligence quotient (IQ) included in the commentary have narrow normal ranges; by contrast, altered behavioral activity has a much wider range, including levels of elevated activity not considered adverse, but in the range of normal activity for children.In the commentary (Weiss 2012), there was no mention of the FDA’s conclusion that “Exposure to food and food components, including [AFC] and preservatives, may be associated with adverse behaviors, not necessarily related to hyperactivity, in certain susceptible children with ADHD and other problem behaviors, and possibly in susceptible children from the general population” (FDA FAC 2011a) is in agreement with two published meta-analysis studies, Schab and Trinh (2004) and Kavale and Forness (1983), as well as earlier conclusions of a 1982 National Institutes of Health (NIH) expert review panel (NIH 1982).The FDA’s comprehensive literature review and weight-of-evidence analysis of the data to date support the conclusion thatFood-related triggering of problem behaviors is not due to an inherent neurotoxic property of the food or food components, including any of the artificial food colors and preservatives, but appears to result from a unique intolerance exhibited by certain predisposed children to a variety of food items and color additives. (FDA FAC 2011a)According to Weiss (2012), this conclusion suggests that “the central nervous system is not the essential substrate for behavior or that behavior is a phenomenon independent of the brain.” The commentary is incorrect; the FDA’s conclusion is that the evidence suggests that certain food components, including AFCs, do not appear to have inherent neurotoxic properties but that some neurobiologic and/or immunologic properties of a subpopulation predispose the group to have an intolerance to specific food items, resulting in a behavioral response. These responses can vary between individuals in nature, magnitude, and triggering item. In contrast to the inference in the commentary, the FDA’s evaluation (FDA FAC 2011a) also proposed the need for research to characterize the underlying properties of this sensitivity so that any potentially vulnerable subpopulation can be clearly identified and any appropriate additional steps can be taken to ensure that the group is protected.In his commentary, Weiss (2012) also erroneously stated that the “FDA reviewed the available evidence and concluded that it did not warrant further agency action.” The FDA has not reached any such conclusion. The FDA is reviewing recommendations made by the FAC, as well as public comments submitted in response to the meeting, including issues presented in the commentary, as we continue our review of the information and decide how to move forward on this matter.I hope that this letter helps to clarify the FDA’s evaluation and position with regard to the possible association between AFCs and problem behaviors in children, including those related to hyperactivity. Any party interested in further clarification of the FDA’s evaluation, the CSPI petition review, and the FAC can access relevant, detailed information online from the FAC (FDA FAC 2011b).The author declares he has no actual or potential competing financial interests.ReferencesConners CK, Goyette CH, Southwick DA, Lees JM, Andrulonis PA. 1976. Food additives and hyperkinesis: a controlled double-blind experiment.Pediatrics 58(2):154-166781610. Medline, Google ScholarCSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). 2008. Petition to Ban the Use of Yellow 5 and Other Food Dyes, in the Interim to Require a Warning on Foods Containing These Dyes, to Correct the Information the Food and Drug Administration Gives to Consumers on the Impact of These Dyes on the Behavior of Some Children, and to Require Neurotoxicity Testing of New Food Additives and Food Colors.Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248005.pdf [accessed 14 September 2011]. Google ScholarEFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2008. EFSA evaluates Southampton study on food additives and child behaviour.Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/ans080314.htm [accessed 26 August 2011]. Google ScholarFDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2010. Food Advisory Committee; notice of meeting. Fed Reg 75:74735–74736.Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-01/html/2010-30187.htm [accessed 9 September 2011]. Google ScholarFDA FAC (Food and Drug Administration Food Advisory Committee). 2011a. Overview and Evaluation of Proposed Association between Artificial Food Colors and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) and Problem Behaviors in Children.Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248113.pdf [accessed 9 September 2011]. Google ScholarFDA FAC (Food and Drug Administration Food Advisory Committee). 2011b. 2011 Food Advisory Committee Meeting Materials.Available: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/ucm149740.htm [accessed 14 September 2011]. Google ScholarHarley JP, Ray RS, Tomasi L, Eichman PL, Matthews CG, Chun Ret al.. 1978. Hyperkinesis and food additives: testing the Feingold hypothesis.Pediatrics 61(6):818-828353681. Medline, Google ScholarKavale KA, Forness SR. 1983. Hyperactivity and diet treatment: a meta-analysis of the Feingold hypothesis.J Learn Disabil 16(6):324-3306886553. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarMcCann D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grimshaw Ket al.. 2007. Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet 370(9598):1560-156717825405. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarNIH (National Institutes of Health). 1982. NIH Consensus Development Conference: defined diets and childhood hyperactivity.Clinical Pediatr 21:627-630. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarSchab DW, Trinh NT. 2004. Do artificial food colors promote hyperactivity in children with hyperactive syndromes? A meta-analysis of double-blind placebo-controlled trials.J Dev Behav Pediatr 25(6):423-43415613992. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarWeiss B.. 2012. Synthetic food colors and neurobehavioral hazards. The view from environmental health research.Environ Health Perspect 120:1-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103827[Online 9 September 2011]21926033. Link, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited by Ikechukwu G, Egba S, Ibeh R, Helal E, Ejiofor E and Okafor P (2017) Assessment of Sub-chronic Effect of Two Artificial Food Additives on Selected Biochemical Parameters in Wistar Rats, Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 10.3923/jpt.2017.180.190, 12:4, (180-190), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017. CARVALHO F, MOURA A, RODRIGUES G, NUNES N, LIMA D, PESSOA C, COSTA M, FERREIRA P and PERON A (2016) Are salty liquid food flavorings in vitro antitumor substances?, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 10.1590/0001-3765201620150553, 88:3, (1419-1430), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016. Batada A and Jacobson M (2016) Prevalence of Artificial Food Colors in Grocery Store Products Marketed to Children, Clinical Pediatrics, 10.1177/0009922816651621, 55:12, (1113-1119), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2016. Amchova P, Kotolova H and Ruda-Kucerova J (2015) Health safety issues of synthetic food colorants, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.09.026, 73:3, (914-922), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015. Gomes K, Oliveira M, Carvalho F, Menezes C and Peron A (2013) Citotoxicity of food dyes sunset yellow (E-110), bordeaux red (E-123), and tatrazine yellow (E-102) on Allium cepa L. root meristematic cells, Food Science and Technology, 10.1590/S0101-20612013005000012, 33:1, (218-223) Moura A, Santana G, Ferreira P, Sousa J and Peron A (2016) Cytotoxicity of Cheese and Cheddar Cheese food flavorings on Allim cepa L root meristems, Brazilian Journal of Biology, 10.1590/1519-6984.20514, 76:2, (439-443) Doguc D, Deniz F, İlhan İ, Ergonul E and Gultekin F (2019) Prenatal exposure to artificial food colorings alters NMDA receptor subunit concentrations in rat hippocampus, Nutritional Neuroscience, 10.1080/1028415X.2019.1681065, (1-11) Related articlesArtificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavior: Weiss Responds1 January 2012Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 120, No. 1 January 2012Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 January 2012Published in print1 January 2012 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.