Food coloring & hyperactivity?

[Dr Mordrid]

Link....

Food colorings linked to hyperactivity

LONDON, May 9 (UPI) -- British government researchers are warning parents to keep artificial colorings out of their children's diet.

The British Food Standards Agency said research has uncovered new links between the artificial colors -- commonly found in junk foods and soft drinks -- and hyperactivity in children, The (London) Telegraph reported Wednesday. The research commissioned by the government was carried out by Southampton University scientists, who tested the effects of seven synthetic colorings and preservatives on 3- and 9-year-olds.

The warning was welcomed by independent experts.

"The majority of additives are unnecessary from a nutritional point of view -- they are there to make food more colorful or change the flavor," said Ian Tokelove, a spokesman for the Food Commission, an independent watchdog.

"Studies have already shown they have an effect on children's behavior and we would all be better off without them."

Tam Fry, the chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said the group would be "happy to see all additives go."

"They are often in cheap food that is high in fat, sugar and salt," Fry said.

[Fat Tone]

No real surprises there. They already got rid of blue Smarties.

[Mehen]

"They are often in cheap food that is high in fat, sugar and salt," Fry said.

commonly found in junk foods and soft drinks

are THOSE things linked to hyperactivity?
I'm also willing to bet that parents who give their children a lot of these foods also have a parenting style that induces hyperactivity.

Until they have controlled experiments where they give kids all the same food but add food coloring to one group - I won't be convinced.

That study might have accounted for those issues - if not I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

[Umfriend]

I know of one adult who can't stand many (if not all) color-additives. She goes beserk. Had it as of when she was very small.

In some cases she can;t even take medicines (well, birth control pills actually) as some contain such stuff as well.

And where people _are_ sensitive to these substances, AFAIK, the amount they digest hardly matters so I do not accept that there should exist a corellation between children who suffer from this and the parenting style that would invalidate the hypothesis of these substances to induce hyperactivity (as well).

[Brian Ellis]

Until they have controlled experiments where they give kids all the same food but add food coloring to one group - I won't be convinced.

More pseudo-scientific claptrap!

[TransformX]

Until they have controlled experiments where they give kids all the same food but add food coloring to one group - I won't be convinced.

How about the other way around? Why not give two groups of kids 'regular' food with colorants and the other group will get almost identical food but without colorants?
Who's kids would you like to potentially poison with extra colorants?
One thing is controlled experiments, another is being evil.

Much like with the cancer vaccine. Why do people demand a control group to which they'll lie and tell they're being vaccinated as well, while practically letting them die?
Nazi 'medical' experiments proved quite effective in 'scientifically' discovering a great known and previously unknown things, but those were still sadistic murderous tortures one wouldn't wish on his worst enemies. There's a point where things in the name of science stop and humanity starts. Some faith (albeit with a grain of salt) never hurt anyone. Sheesh..

[Fat Tone]

This is why we have Ethics Boards and the like.

[Umfriend]

@Brian & Mehen: There have been quite a few decently set-up experiments. Although the results are mixed, there is no reason not to use a precautionary principle here AFAICS.

@TX: Without a control group you simply can not tell the difference between e.g.
- Two medicines, so how do you know which one is better and saves more lives. If you don;t, about 50% prob. you kill people I guess
- No medicine vs one in which case you may start to use the medicine which does _not_ work and put less effort in searching for others.

The amount of research that goes into development, the previous testing on animals and the constant consideration of ethcial issues during experiments (which BTW does sometimes cause the experiment to be stopped), to me, does not warrant qualifications like 'evil' or comparison with Nazi practices.

[TransformX]

Read this article Umf: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...608965,00.html

[TransformX]

This is why we have Ethics Boards and the like.

Giving placebo to a desperately ill person just because he's part of the "control group" is evil, no matter which way you're looking at it. That person signed papers etc in a last hope of staying alive. Giving placebo is mocking.
When someone is so desperately ill and beyond the knowledge and powers of medicine, asking to die with some dignity left, not like some beast, they won't let him do so, because of the same 'sanctity of life' they mock with placebo.
I don't trust those so called "Ethic boards".

[Wulfman]

Giving placebo to a desperately ill person just because he's part of the "control group" is evil, no matter which way you're looking at it. That person signed papers etc in a last hope of staying alive. Giving placebo is mocking.

I don't trust those so called "Ethic boards".

your good right. looking beyond the FUD:

some insight into real-world (European?) practices when testing new drugs: the standard you have to compete against is the best currently available medicine. a new drug will only be approved if it is significantly better than the old drug. a "placebo" as in sugar & flour will normally not be tested... if somebody does present a study design like that, the ethics committee will throw him out, and trample a bit around on him afterwards.

as soon as you see any significant effects (positive or negative), the trial will be stopped. why? because a) the ethics board says so and b) the scientist is already happy: significant data, faster than expected? yay!

apparently people instantly assume that scientists don't actually think about what they are doing, beyond the "I want to know"-part...

mfg
wulfman

[Umfriend]

Read this article Umf: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...608965,00.html
[And]
Giving placebo to a desperately ill person just because he's part of the "control group" is evil, no matter which way you're looking at it. That person signed papers etc in a last hope of staying alive. Giving placebo is mocking.
When someone is so desperately ill and beyond the knowledge and powers of medicine, asking to die with some dignity left, not like some beast, they won't let him do so, because of the same 'sanctity of life' they mock with placebo.
I don't trust those so called "Ethic boards".

I read the article. To bad you don't say how it supports your position. I don;t see how it does.
Another thing you simply ignore (no surprise) is that during experiments, it is simply not _known_ whether the drug works; whether it is better than the placebo.

And, frankly, you're full of it. No one, NO ONE (at least where I am) is obliged to partake in any experiment. If they want to die without it, they may. Furthermore, I don't see how entering an experiment all of a sudden causes one to die without dignity, like some beast. Where do you come up with that stuff?

I am not surprised you do not trust ethic boards and, I would agree, healthy sceptisicm is always called for when ethics are concerned. But I have not yet seen you providing where or why, on the whole, the relevant boards are not to be trusted. I'm sure you'll be able to find an incident here and there, hell, people ****-up sometimes.

Not using decent tests invites quackery. You can know that. Given that you can and still argue against using placebo in tests where it is the best testing method available and thereby invite quackery with all the consequential suffering and early deaths, I guess you are, well, simply evil?

[TransformX]

I read the article. To bad you don't say how it supports your position. I don;t see how it does.

Re-read the article please. The researcher explains all too well why a control group with placebo isn't needed for his research.

Another thing you simply ignore (no surprise) is that during experiments, it is simply not _known_ whether the drug works; whether it is better than the placebo.

Excuse me while I call it BS. The drug is tested on animals or cells in the lab much before it's tested on humans. You must show proof of concept before you introduce it to living beings. Learn the material first.

And, frankly, you're full of it. No one, NO ONE (at least where I am) is obliged to partake in any experiment. If they want to die without it, they may. Furthermore, I don't see how entering an experiment all of a sudden causes one to die without dignity, like some beast. Where do you come up with that stuff?

Again, you don't read and then you blame me for your miscomprehension.
A person is dieing of cancer. He's offered a new, yet untested treatment. He signs the paper because it's his last hope. Without his knowledge, he's put in the control group, getting PLACEBO! All his hopes, whether the drug works or not are thrown in the bin without his knowledge, for the sake of the experiment.

I am not surprised you do not trust ethic boards and, I would agree, healthy sceptisicm is always called for when ethics are concerned. But I have not yet seen you providing where or why, on the whole, the relevant boards are not to be trusted. I'm sure you'll be able to find an incident here and there, hell, people ****-up sometimes.

Doctors and Ethic boards f*uck up so much more than they admit.

Not using decent tests invites quackery. You can know that. Given that you can and still argue against using placebo in tests where it is the best testing method available and thereby invite quackery with all the consequential suffering and early deaths, I guess you are, well, simply evil?

Many doctors stop seeing patients, stop seeing people. All they see is "white male, 40 years of age, yada yada yada", another specimen, not person.

[TransformX]

your good right. looking beyond the FUD:

some insight into real-world (European?) practices when testing new drugs: the standard you have to compete against is the best currently available medicine. a new drug will only be approved if it is significantly better than the old drug. a "placebo" as in sugar & flour will normally not be tested... if somebody does present a study design like that, the ethics committee will throw him out, and trample a bit around on him afterwards.

as soon as you see any significant effects (positive or negative), the trial will be stopped. why? because a) the ethics board says so and b) the scientist is already happy: significant data, faster than expected? yay!

apparently people instantly assume that scientists don't actually think about what they are doing, beyond the "I want to know"-part...

mfg
wulfman

That's actually VERY good news!

[Wulfman]

Re-read the article please. The researcher explains all too well why a control group with placebo isn't needed for his research.

problem: the scientific community as it is, doesn't really agree with him on that - as mentioned in the article. what he did was to find a somewhat unreliable way around a problem he is facing with his specific disease/vaccine, but others are not convinced that that is sufficient. you definitely can't just use his very specific approach on other diseases.

Excuse me while I call it BS. The drug is tested on animals or cells in the lab much before it's tested on humans. You must show proof of concept before you introduce it to living beings.

yes. and even then it can go horribly bad - do you remember the tegenero/TNG1412-disaster in England?

A person is dieing of cancer. He's offered a new, yet untested treatment. He signs the paper because it's his last hope. Without his knowledge, he's put in the control group, getting PLACEBO!

what he signs is not a "get new hope form", but a "informed consent" form. like the name implies: it more or less states that he was told and understood the type of study he is going to take part of, and that he is not necessarily given treatment.

what you should also keep in mind: getting a placebo doesn't necessarily mean that you get the shorter end of the straw - if a drug has side effects, which can never be ruled out, you could also be the lucky one if you didn't get the new treatment. two sides of the coin...

Doctors and Ethic boards f*uck up so much more than they admit.

that's probably true, but we would still be off worse without them. Nothing more to say then...

mfg
wulfman