California recently enacted legislation to ban certain food dyes in public schools. What’s the scientific case to support this?
California recently enacted legislation to ban certain food dyes in public schools. What’s the scientific case to support this?
Nutrition Diva is hosted by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN. Transcripts are available at Simplecast.
Hello and welcome to the Nutrition Diva podcast, a show where we take a closer look at news research, headlines, and trends so that you can make more informed choices about what you’re putting on the dinner table–or in your kids’ lunchboxes.
And one of the headlines that may have caught your attention recently pertains to new legislation in the state of California, which bans the use of certain food colorings in public schools. I wanted to take this opportunity to clear up some confusion on this topic–and perhaps it’s best to start by setting the record straight on a few things,
#1. California has not banned the use of these ingredients across the board. Rather, they have decided that foods containing these particular colors may no longer be served as part of its public school breakfast and lunch programs.
#2. Contrary to other things you may have read online, these ingredients are not banned in other countries. These colors have, in fact, been approved as safe for use in human foods by both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as by Health Canada. What is true is that EFSA allows the use of these colors in some types of foods (such as candy) but not others (such as ready-to-eat breakfast cereals).
#3. This new ruling might cause you to think that there might be some new research, showing that these colorings are harmful. But, in reality, the evidence on food colorings and hyperactivity or other behavioral issues in kids remains mixed and inconclusive.
Before we talk about the rationale behind this new restriction, let’s talk about what these food dyes are and why they are added to foods.
If you start reading ingredient lists, you might be surprised at how many foods have added colorings—foods you’d never expect, like yogurt, cheese, chicken nuggets, and even crackers. Sometimes, these dyes are added just to enhance a color that already exists. For example, a little blue dye might be used to make white frosting look even brighter.
The synthetic dyes approved by the FDA for use in foods are identified by number, as in "Yellow No. 5" or "Blue No. 1." The word "lake" indicates that the dye has been mixed with a mineral salt to make it insoluble in water. The straight dyes are generally used in drinks and other liquids. The lake colors are used in baking and other solid foods.
By the way, the fact that you might not see these ingredient names on packages in other countries does not necessarily mean that they aren’t being used in other countries. Sometimes, the same ingredient simply has a different name.
Although we may think we don’t want anything unnatural in our food, studies of consumer preference repeatedly show that foods enhanced with synthetic colors are actually more appealing than those made with natural colorants—or with no color at all.
The color actually affects how we perceive the taste. The macaroni-and-cheese made with yellow dye tastiest creamier and cheesier than the all-natural brand with no coloring added. Ironically, synthetic colors tend to be more stable and—perhaps surprisingly—better at making food look the way we expect it to look.
All of the colorings approved by the FDA have been thoroughly evaluated for safety. Nonetheless, artificial food colors have a bad reputation. In particular, there are persistent concerns that they may cause (or exacerbate) hyperactivity or ADHD in kids.
The idea that food colorings might be linked to hyperactivity in kids dates back to the 1970s, when a pediatrician named Ben Feingold proposed a diet that eliminated all artificial colorings and preservatives as a treatment for hyperactivity. He claimed that this protocol was highly effective in reducing symptoms. Other experts have questioned his results, claiming that when kids didn’t do well on the diet, he simply excluded those cases from his data.
Nonetheless, Dr. Feingold’s hypothesis spurred others to research the question. It turns out that this is a tricky subject to study. Measuring the level of hyperactivity in a child is essentially a subjective judgment, and it turns out that the results depend a lot on who is doing the rating. For example, it seems that parents are more likely to rate their children’s behavior as hyperactive than teachers or clinicians are. Not surprisingly, their expectations also color their judgments. When parents think their kids have been given food additives, they tend to perceive an increase in hyperactive behavior—whether or not the kids actually did ingest them.
I once heard an interview with a mom who claimed that she could tell which artificial colors her child had eaten based on his behavior. Red dye made him aggressive and hostile, she said. Blue, on the other hand, made him weepy and sad. Notice that the associations she observed line up exactly with common idioms. When people are angry, we often say they are “seeing red.” And when we’re depressed, we say we are “feeling blue.” It’s a pretty striking coincidence.
Even if you only look at double-blind, placebo-controlled studies—the so called gold standard of research design—the results are inconsistent, to say the least. Some have found that food colorings seemed to increase hyperactive behavior. Many found no relationship. And a few even found that food coloring seemed to decrease hyperactive behavior.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is a very large and diverse category of ingredients. So we want to be careful about over-generalizing this research. Unfortunately, most of the studies use a cocktail containing several different food dyes. So even when a link has been detected, there’s no way to know which of the several chemicals might be responsible.
Now, it’s certainly possible that some kids are more sensitive to some of these additives—the way some kids are allergic to peanuts. And, in fact, some school districts have decided to eliminate peanuts and other types of nuts from school food service–and even asked parents not to use it in homemade lunches. The idea is to decrease the chances that a kid with allergies would be exposed to a substance that might have dangerous consequences. (Imagine trying to police an elementary school cafeteria to make sure that nobody is trading their peanut butter sandwich for something they like better!)
And there seems to be a similar ethic behind the food color restrictions. California's stance is that while not all children may be affected by synthetic dyes, it may be wise to limit exposure, especially in school settings where children with sensitivities could be impacted. (Although in this particular case, the mandate does not extend to what parents put in their kids’ lunchboxes, only what is served in the cafeteria.)
It’s an example of the Precautionary Principle, which says that if a question is not completely settled and erring on the side of caution is unlikely to cause harm, then why not be on the safe side?
Not everyone agrees with this logic, however. Some industry groups argue that California’s actions are an overreaction and could cause confusion or unwarranted concern about ingredients that have been determined by the FDA to be safe. And many health experts and food scientists argue that while some children might experience subtle behavior changes, the overall impact on the population may not be large enough to justify this level of regulation.
In terms of practical impact, the restriction is likely to impact
However, because of the relatively limited scope of this current legislation, I think it is unlikely to result in widespread product reformulations. More likely, the affected school systems will simply substitute similar products that meet the criteria, or eliminate them altogether.
How this might impact things like food waste (or actual classroom behavior) remains to be seen. But if all of this has you wondering about the role that food dyes may play in in your family’s diet, here are four takeaways.
So having reviewed all the arguments for and against, what do you think? Did California go too far or not far enough? Feel free to send your questions or comments or suggestions for future episodes. You can email me at nutrition@quickanddirtytips.com You can also leave me a message at 443-961-6206
I’d also like to invite you to check out my other podcast. It’s called the Change Academy, where we explore the art and science of creating positive behavior change, both in our own lives, and in our workplaces and communities. You can find it on all the major podcast platforms. Just search for Change Academy.
Nutrition Diva is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast. Our team includes Brannan Goetschius, Nathan Semes, Davina Tomlin, Holly Hutchings, and Morgan Christianson.and Nathaniel Hoopes.
That's all for this episode. Thanks for listening! I'll see you next week.