F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings (for worsening behavior problems)

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER

HARRIS

WASHINGTON — After staunchly defending the safety of artificial

food colorings, the federal government is for the first time

publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms

cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the

bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems

like hyperactivity

in some children.

The Food

and Drug Administration concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health

problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time

soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel

of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy

changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting

a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in

children has at least gotten regulators’ attention — and, for

consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory.

In a concluding report,

staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical

children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions “exacerbated by exposure

to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited

to, synthetic color additives.”

Shutters, a mother of two from town, N.Y., said in a

telephone interview on Tuesday that two years ago, her son

Trenton, then 5, was having serious behavioral problems at

school until she eliminated artificial food colorings from his

diet. “I know for sure I found the root cause of this one

because you can turn it on and off like a switch,” Ms. Shutters

said.

But Dr. Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut

Creek, Calif., said evidence that diet plays a significant role

in most childhood behavioral disorders was minimal to

nonexistent. “These are urban legends that won’t die,” Dr.

Diller said.

There is no debate about the safety of natural food colorings,

and manufacturers have long defended the safety of artificial

ones as well. In a statement, the Grocery

Manufacturers Association said, “All of the major safety

bodies globally have reviewed the available science and have

determined that there is no demonstrable link between artificial

food colors and hyperactivity among children.”

In a 2008 petition

filed with federal food regulators, the Center

for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy

group, argued that some parents of susceptible children do not

know that their children are at risk and so “the appropriate

public health approach is to remove those dangerous and

unnecessary substances from the food supply.”

The federal government has been cracking down on artificial

food dyes for more than a century in part because some early

ones were not only toxic but were also sometimes used to mask

filth or rot. In 1950, many children became ill after eating

Halloween candy containing Orange No. 1 dye, and the F.D.A.

banned it after more rigorous testing suggested that it was

toxic. In 1976, the agency banned Red No. 2 because it was

suspected to be carcinogenic. It was then replaced by Red No.

40.

Many of the artificial colorings used today were approved by

the F.D.A. in 1931, including Blue No. 1, Yellow No. 5 and Red

No. 3. Artificial dyes were developed — just as aspirin was —

from coal tar, but are now made from petroleum products.

In the 1970s, Dr. Feingold, a pediatric allergist from

California, had success treating the symptoms of hyperactivity

in some children by prescribing a diet that, among other things,

eliminated artificial colorings. And some studies, including

one published in The Lancet medical journal in 2007, have

found that artificial colorings might lead to behavioral changes

even in typical children.

The consumer science group asked the government to ban the

dyes, or at least require manufacturers to include prominent

warnings that “artificial colorings in this food cause

hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

Citizen petitions are routinely dismissed by the F.D.A. without

much comment. Not this time. Still, the agency is not asking the

experts to consider a ban during their two-day meeting, and

agency scientists in lengthy analyses expressed skepticism about

the scientific merits of the Lancet study and others suggesting

any definitive link between dyes and behavioral issues.

Importantly, the research offers almost no clue about the

relative risks of individual dyes, making specific regulatory

actions against, say, Green No. 3 or Yellow No. 6 almost

impossible.

The F.D.A. scientists suggested that problems associated with

artificial coloring might be akin to a peanut allergy, or “a

unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent

neurotoxic properties” of the dyes themselves. As it does for

peanuts and other foods that can cause reactions, the F.D.A.

already requires manufacturers to disclose on food labels the

presence of artificial colorings.

A spokeswoman for General Mills refused to comment.

Moens, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods Inc., wrote in an e-mail

that all of the food colors the company used were approved and

clearly labeled, but that the company was expanding its

“portfolio to include products without added colors,” like

Kool-Aid Invisible, Capri Sun juices and Kraft Macaroni and

Cheese Organic White Cheddar.

The panel will almost certainly ask that more research on the

subject be conducted, but such calls are routinely ignored.

Research on pediatric behaviors can be difficult and expensive

to conduct since it often involves regular and subjective

assessments of children by parents and teachers who should be

kept in the dark about the specifics of the test. And since the

patents on the dyes expired long ago, manufacturers have little

incentive to finance such research themselves.

Popular foods that have artificial dyes include Cheetos snacks,

Froot Loops cereal, Pop-Tarts and Hostess Twinkies, according to

an extensive listing in the consumer advocacy group’s petition.

Some grocery chains, including Whole Foods Market and Trader

Joe’s, refuse to sell foods with artificial coloring.

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER

HARRIS

WASHINGTON — After staunchly defending the safety of artificial

food colorings, the federal government is for the first time

publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms

cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the

bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems

like hyperactivity

in some children.

The Food

and Drug Administration concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health

problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time

soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel

of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy

changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting

a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in

children has at least gotten regulators’ attention — and, for

consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory.

In a concluding report,

staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical

children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions “exacerbated by exposure

to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited

to, synthetic color additives.”

Shutters, a mother of two from town, N.Y., said in a

telephone interview on Tuesday that two years ago, her son

Trenton, then 5, was having serious behavioral problems at

school until she eliminated artificial food colorings from his

diet. “I know for sure I found the root cause of this one

because you can turn it on and off like a switch,” Ms. Shutters

said.

But Dr. Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut

Creek, Calif., said evidence that diet plays a significant role

in most childhood behavioral disorders was minimal to

nonexistent. “These are urban legends that won’t die,” Dr.

Diller said.

There is no debate about the safety of natural food colorings,

and manufacturers have long defended the safety of artificial

ones as well. In a statement, the Grocery

Manufacturers Association said, “All of the major safety

bodies globally have reviewed the available science and have

determined that there is no demonstrable link between artificial

food colors and hyperactivity among children.”

In a 2008 petition

filed with federal food regulators, the Center

for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy

group, argued that some parents of susceptible children do not

know that their children are at risk and so “the appropriate

public health approach is to remove those dangerous and

unnecessary substances from the food supply.”

The federal government has been cracking down on artificial

food dyes for more than a century in part because some early

ones were not only toxic but were also sometimes used to mask

filth or rot. In 1950, many children became ill after eating

Halloween candy containing Orange No. 1 dye, and the F.D.A.

banned it after more rigorous testing suggested that it was

toxic. In 1976, the agency banned Red No. 2 because it was

suspected to be carcinogenic. It was then replaced by Red No.

40.

Many of the artificial colorings used today were approved by

the F.D.A. in 1931, including Blue No. 1, Yellow No. 5 and Red

No. 3. Artificial dyes were developed — just as aspirin was —

from coal tar, but are now made from petroleum products.

In the 1970s, Dr. Feingold, a pediatric allergist from

California, had success treating the symptoms of hyperactivity

in some children by prescribing a diet that, among other things,

eliminated artificial colorings. And some studies, including

one published in The Lancet medical journal in 2007, have

found that artificial colorings might lead to behavioral changes

even in typical children.

The consumer science group asked the government to ban the

dyes, or at least require manufacturers to include prominent

warnings that “artificial colorings in this food cause

hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

Citizen petitions are routinely dismissed by the F.D.A. without

much comment. Not this time. Still, the agency is not asking the

experts to consider a ban during their two-day meeting, and

agency scientists in lengthy analyses expressed skepticism about

the scientific merits of the Lancet study and others suggesting

any definitive link between dyes and behavioral issues.

Importantly, the research offers almost no clue about the

relative risks of individual dyes, making specific regulatory

actions against, say, Green No. 3 or Yellow No. 6 almost

impossible.

The F.D.A. scientists suggested that problems associated with

artificial coloring might be akin to a peanut allergy, or “a

unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent

neurotoxic properties” of the dyes themselves. As it does for

peanuts and other foods that can cause reactions, the F.D.A.

already requires manufacturers to disclose on food labels the

presence of artificial colorings.

A spokeswoman for General Mills refused to comment.

Moens, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods Inc., wrote in an e-mail

that all of the food colors the company used were approved and

clearly labeled, but that the company was expanding its

“portfolio to include products without added colors,” like

Kool-Aid Invisible, Capri Sun juices and Kraft Macaroni and

Cheese Organic White Cheddar.

The panel will almost certainly ask that more research on the

subject be conducted, but such calls are routinely ignored.

Research on pediatric behaviors can be difficult and expensive

to conduct since it often involves regular and subjective

assessments of children by parents and teachers who should be

kept in the dark about the specifics of the test. And since the

patents on the dyes expired long ago, manufacturers have little

incentive to finance such research themselves.

Popular foods that have artificial dyes include Cheetos snacks,

Froot Loops cereal, Pop-Tarts and Hostess Twinkies, according to

an extensive listing in the consumer advocacy group’s petition.

Some grocery chains, including Whole Foods Market and Trader

Joe’s, refuse to sell foods with artificial coloring.

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER

HARRIS

WASHINGTON — After staunchly defending the safety of artificial

food colorings, the federal government is for the first time

publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms

cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the

bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems

like hyperactivity

in some children.

The Food

and Drug Administration concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health

problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time

soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel

of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy

changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting

a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in

children has at least gotten regulators’ attention — and, for

consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory.

In a concluding report,

staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical

children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions “exacerbated by exposure

to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited

to, synthetic color additives.”

Shutters, a mother of two from town, N.Y., said in a

telephone interview on Tuesday that two years ago, her son

Trenton, then 5, was having serious behavioral problems at

school until she eliminated artificial food colorings from his

diet. “I know for sure I found the root cause of this one

because you can turn it on and off like a switch,” Ms. Shutters

said.

But Dr. Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut

Creek, Calif., said evidence that diet plays a significant role

in most childhood behavioral disorders was minimal to

nonexistent. “These are urban legends that won’t die,” Dr.

Diller said.

There is no debate about the safety of natural food colorings,

and manufacturers have long defended the safety of artificial

ones as well. In a statement, the Grocery

Manufacturers Association said, “All of the major safety

bodies globally have reviewed the available science and have

determined that there is no demonstrable link between artificial

food colors and hyperactivity among children.”

In a 2008 petition

filed with federal food regulators, the Center

for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy

group, argued that some parents of susceptible children do not

know that their children are at risk and so “the appropriate

public health approach is to remove those dangerous and

unnecessary substances from the food supply.”

The federal government has been cracking down on artificial

food dyes for more than a century in part because some early

ones were not only toxic but were also sometimes used to mask

filth or rot. In 1950, many children became ill after eating

Halloween candy containing Orange No. 1 dye, and the F.D.A.

banned it after more rigorous testing suggested that it was

toxic. In 1976, the agency banned Red No. 2 because it was

suspected to be carcinogenic. It was then replaced by Red No.

40.

Many of the artificial colorings used today were approved by

the F.D.A. in 1931, including Blue No. 1, Yellow No. 5 and Red

No. 3. Artificial dyes were developed — just as aspirin was —

from coal tar, but are now made from petroleum products.

In the 1970s, Dr. Feingold, a pediatric allergist from

California, had success treating the symptoms of hyperactivity

in some children by prescribing a diet that, among other things,

eliminated artificial colorings. And some studies, including

one published in The Lancet medical journal in 2007, have

found that artificial colorings might lead to behavioral changes

even in typical children.

The consumer science group asked the government to ban the

dyes, or at least require manufacturers to include prominent

warnings that “artificial colorings in this food cause

hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

Citizen petitions are routinely dismissed by the F.D.A. without

much comment. Not this time. Still, the agency is not asking the

experts to consider a ban during their two-day meeting, and

agency scientists in lengthy analyses expressed skepticism about

the scientific merits of the Lancet study and others suggesting

any definitive link between dyes and behavioral issues.

Importantly, the research offers almost no clue about the

relative risks of individual dyes, making specific regulatory

actions against, say, Green No. 3 or Yellow No. 6 almost

impossible.

The F.D.A. scientists suggested that problems associated with

artificial coloring might be akin to a peanut allergy, or “a

unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent

neurotoxic properties” of the dyes themselves. As it does for

peanuts and other foods that can cause reactions, the F.D.A.

already requires manufacturers to disclose on food labels the

presence of artificial colorings.

A spokeswoman for General Mills refused to comment.

Moens, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods Inc., wrote in an e-mail

that all of the food colors the company used were approved and

clearly labeled, but that the company was expanding its

“portfolio to include products without added colors,” like

Kool-Aid Invisible, Capri Sun juices and Kraft Macaroni and

Cheese Organic White Cheddar.

The panel will almost certainly ask that more research on the

subject be conducted, but such calls are routinely ignored.

Research on pediatric behaviors can be difficult and expensive

to conduct since it often involves regular and subjective

assessments of children by parents and teachers who should be

kept in the dark about the specifics of the test. And since the

patents on the dyes expired long ago, manufacturers have little

incentive to finance such research themselves.

Popular foods that have artificial dyes include Cheetos snacks,

Froot Loops cereal, Pop-Tarts and Hostess Twinkies, according to

an extensive listing in the consumer advocacy group’s petition.

Some grocery chains, including Whole Foods Market and Trader

Joe’s, refuse to sell foods with artificial coloring.

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER

HARRIS

WASHINGTON — After staunchly defending the safety of artificial

food colorings, the federal government is for the first time

publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms

cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the

bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems

like hyperactivity

in some children.

The Food

and Drug Administration concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health

problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time

soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel

of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy

changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting

a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in

children has at least gotten regulators’ attention — and, for

consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory.

In a concluding report,

staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical

children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions “exacerbated by exposure

to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited

to, synthetic color additives.”

Shutters, a mother of two from town, N.Y., said in a

telephone interview on Tuesday that two years ago, her son

Trenton, then 5, was having serious behavioral problems at

school until she eliminated artificial food colorings from his

diet. “I know for sure I found the root cause of this one

because you can turn it on and off like a switch,” Ms. Shutters

said.

But Dr. Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut

Creek, Calif., said evidence that diet plays a significant role

in most childhood behavioral disorders was minimal to

nonexistent. “These are urban legends that won’t die,” Dr.

Diller said.

There is no debate about the safety of natural food colorings,

and manufacturers have long defended the safety of artificial

ones as well. In a statement, the Grocery

Manufacturers Association said, “All of the major safety

bodies globally have reviewed the available science and have

determined that there is no demonstrable link between artificial

food colors and hyperactivity among children.”

In a 2008 petition

filed with federal food regulators, the Center

for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy

group, argued that some parents of susceptible children do not

know that their children are at risk and so “the appropriate

public health approach is to remove those dangerous and

unnecessary substances from the food supply.”

The federal government has been cracking down on artificial

food dyes for more than a century in part because some early

ones were not only toxic but were also sometimes used to mask

filth or rot. In 1950, many children became ill after eating

Halloween candy containing Orange No. 1 dye, and the F.D.A.

banned it after more rigorous testing suggested that it was

toxic. In 1976, the agency banned Red No. 2 because it was

suspected to be carcinogenic. It was then replaced by Red No.

40.

Many of the artificial colorings used today were approved by

the F.D.A. in 1931, including Blue No. 1, Yellow No. 5 and Red

No. 3. Artificial dyes were developed — just as aspirin was —

from coal tar, but are now made from petroleum products.

In the 1970s, Dr. Feingold, a pediatric allergist from

California, had success treating the symptoms of hyperactivity

in some children by prescribing a diet that, among other things,

eliminated artificial colorings. And some studies, including

one published in The Lancet medical journal in 2007, have

found that artificial colorings might lead to behavioral changes

even in typical children.

The consumer science group asked the government to ban the

dyes, or at least require manufacturers to include prominent

warnings that “artificial colorings in this food cause

hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

Citizen petitions are routinely dismissed by the F.D.A. without

much comment. Not this time. Still, the agency is not asking the

experts to consider a ban during their two-day meeting, and

agency scientists in lengthy analyses expressed skepticism about

the scientific merits of the Lancet study and others suggesting

any definitive link between dyes and behavioral issues.

Importantly, the research offers almost no clue about the

relative risks of individual dyes, making specific regulatory

actions against, say, Green No. 3 or Yellow No. 6 almost

impossible.

The F.D.A. scientists suggested that problems associated with

artificial coloring might be akin to a peanut allergy, or “a

unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent

neurotoxic properties” of the dyes themselves. As it does for

peanuts and other foods that can cause reactions, the F.D.A.

already requires manufacturers to disclose on food labels the

presence of artificial colorings.

A spokeswoman for General Mills refused to comment.

Moens, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods Inc., wrote in an e-mail

that all of the food colors the company used were approved and

clearly labeled, but that the company was expanding its

“portfolio to include products without added colors,” like

Kool-Aid Invisible, Capri Sun juices and Kraft Macaroni and

Cheese Organic White Cheddar.

The panel will almost certainly ask that more research on the

subject be conducted, but such calls are routinely ignored.

Research on pediatric behaviors can be difficult and expensive

to conduct since it often involves regular and subjective

assessments of children by parents and teachers who should be

kept in the dark about the specifics of the test. And since the

patents on the dyes expired long ago, manufacturers have little

incentive to finance such research themselves.

Popular foods that have artificial dyes include Cheetos snacks,

Froot Loops cereal, Pop-Tarts and Hostess Twinkies, according to

an extensive listing in the consumer advocacy group’s petition.

Some grocery chains, including Whole Foods Market and Trader

Joe’s, refuse to sell foods with artificial coloring.

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER HARRIS

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/in\

dex.html?inline=nyt-per>

WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food

colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing

whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should

carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior

problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?in\

line=nyt-classifier> in some children.

The Food and Drug Administration

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_dr\

ug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and

the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and

Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and

advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between

artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten

regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a

victory.

In a concluding report

<http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Food\

AdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that

while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions " exacerbated by exposure to a number of

substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives. "

Hi Jim,

** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always

at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well.

Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of

the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the

1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that

far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a

sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too.

The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing

that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively

invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has

such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly

disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence

supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food

coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and

groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the

skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical

machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major

role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in

Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly

accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know

that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and

fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will

give you all contact info.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER HARRIS

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/in\

dex.html?inline=nyt-per>

WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food

colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing

whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should

carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior

problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?in\

line=nyt-classifier> in some children.

The Food and Drug Administration

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_dr\

ug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and

the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and

Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and

advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between

artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten

regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a

victory.

In a concluding report

<http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Food\

AdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that

while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions " exacerbated by exposure to a number of

substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives. "

Hi Jim,

** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always

at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well.

Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of

the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the

1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that

far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a

sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too.

The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing

that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively

invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has

such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly

disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence

supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food

coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and

groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the

skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical

machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major

role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in

Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly

accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know

that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and

fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will

give you all contact info.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER HARRIS

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/in\

dex.html?inline=nyt-per>

WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food

colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing

whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should

carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior

problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?in\

line=nyt-classifier> in some children.

The Food and Drug Administration

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_dr\

ug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and

the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and

Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and

advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between

artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten

regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a

victory.

In a concluding report

<http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Food\

AdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that

while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions " exacerbated by exposure to a number of

substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives. "

Hi Jim,

** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always

at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well.

Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of

the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the

1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that

far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a

sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too.

The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing

that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively

invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has

such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly

disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence

supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food

coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and

groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the

skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical

machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major

role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in

Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly

accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know

that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and

fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will

give you all contact info.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health

March 29, 2011

F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings

By GARDINER HARRIS

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/in\

dex.html?inline=nyt-per>

WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food

colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing

whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should

carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior

problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?in\

line=nyt-classifier> in some children.

The Food and Drug Administration

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_dr\

ug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was

no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and

the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and

Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and

advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between

artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten

regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a

victory.

In a concluding report

<http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Food\

AdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that

while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral

disorders might have their conditions " exacerbated by exposure to a number of

substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives. "

Hi Jim,

** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always

at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well.

Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of

the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the

1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that

far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a

sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too.

The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing

that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively

invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has

such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly

disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence

supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food

coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and

groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the

skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical

machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major

role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in

Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly

accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know

that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and

fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will

give you all contact info.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I agree! Considering UK made recommendations around 2005 I had

almost given up hope for the USA. I believe that public awareness

came first to cause this which interestingly enough is what we

want for public awareness!!

Exciting times and I hope everyone takes the time to communicate

with their representatives and senators on this issue, it's a very

big deal.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Best,

Jim

On 4/1/2011 11:10 AM, ccreel_04064 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health March 29, 2011 F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings By GARDINER HARRIS <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/index.html?inline=nyt-per> WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier> in some children. The Food and Drug Administration <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_drug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food. The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory. In a concluding report <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral disorders might have their conditions "exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives." Hi Jim, ** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well. Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the 1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too. The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will give you all contact info. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I agree! Considering UK made recommendations around 2005 I had

almost given up hope for the USA. I believe that public awareness

came first to cause this which interestingly enough is what we

want for public awareness!!

Exciting times and I hope everyone takes the time to communicate

with their representatives and senators on this issue, it's a very

big deal.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Best,

Jim

On 4/1/2011 11:10 AM, ccreel_04064 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health March 29, 2011 F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings By GARDINER HARRIS <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/index.html?inline=nyt-per> WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier> in some children. The Food and Drug Administration <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_drug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food. The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory. In a concluding report <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral disorders might have their conditions "exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives." Hi Jim, ** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well. Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the 1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too. The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will give you all contact info. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I agree! Considering UK made recommendations around 2005 I had

almost given up hope for the USA. I believe that public awareness

came first to cause this which interestingly enough is what we

want for public awareness!!

Exciting times and I hope everyone takes the time to communicate

with their representatives and senators on this issue, it's a very

big deal.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Best,

Jim

On 4/1/2011 11:10 AM, ccreel_04064 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health March 29, 2011 F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings By GARDINER HARRIS <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/index.html?inline=nyt-per> WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier> in some children. The Food and Drug Administration <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_drug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food. The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory. In a concluding report <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral disorders might have their conditions "exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives." Hi Jim, ** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well. Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the 1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too. The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will give you all contact info. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I agree! Considering UK made recommendations around 2005 I had

almost given up hope for the USA. I believe that public awareness

came first to cause this which interestingly enough is what we

want for public awareness!!

Exciting times and I hope everyone takes the time to communicate

with their representatives and senators on this issue, it's a very

big deal.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Best,

Jim

On 4/1/2011 11:10 AM, ccreel_04064 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/policy/30fda.html?_r=1 & ref=health March 29, 2011 F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warnings for Artificial Food Colorings By GARDINER HARRIS <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_harris/index.html?inline=nyt-per> WASHINGTON --- After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity.

<http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/hyperactivity/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier> in some children. The Food and Drug Administration <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/food_and_drug_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> concluded long ago that there was no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food. The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten regulators' attention --- and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory. In a concluding report <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf>, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral disorders might have their conditions "exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives." Hi Jim, ** Thanks for sending this.

I am not fundamentally a negative person; in my world, the glass is always at least half full, and not ever half empty. I am a realist as well. Ultimately, if the FDA finds this to be true, we'll be seeing the beginning of the true collapse of the wall of deceit to which we've been subjected since the 1940's (drug company lies in the service of profit are documented at least that far back).

I'll be so shocked I'll probably need CPR. If this happens, it will be a sign that the the psych drug issue is going to be tackled soon, too. The feeling of hope is almost too intense for me to bear. Wow...I'm realizing that in the short time it's taken me to type this, I'm already massively invested in the outcome. Such a finding (or to be more exact, an admission) has such far-reaching implications that I'm finding myself thinking how profoundly disappointed I will be if the panel refuses to act on the mountain of evidence supporting this theory.

For those who are younger and may not know the history surrounding food coloring and additives, it has been at least 40 years that certain people and groups have been pointing toward food dyes as a contributing factor to the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and ADD over the years (naturally, the pharmaceutical machine along with its cadre of minions promoting these diagnoses) play a major role as well).

If anyone wants to help, dropping a line to your representatives in Washington, DC and giving them a heads up about this hearing will possibly accomplish two things -- making them aware it's happening and letting them know that many people are watching this. Here's a link to phone numbers, email and fax numbers of all those in Congress. Merely plug in your zip code and it will give you all contact info. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Regards,

------------------------------------