As a parent, if I notice a correlation between an action and subsequent behavior, are you saying that my lived experience is irrelevant because... nobody bothered to include me in a specific double blind study? How many things do you do every day that have not been studied through exhaustive scientific research?
From my own lived experience, when one of my my kids eats a red velvet cake or a bag of Skittles or M&Ms that he's violent and crazy for a week, but if he has a few Oreos he's fine. If one of my other kids does the same thing, she doesn't have the same reaction. If I knew the exact chemical pathway that made this happen, I'd be thrilled. I am just living my life trying to parent kids in this world, and you know what, stupid bright dyes that do nothing other than make food appear unnaturally incandescent are practically impossible to avoid. So it's just one more thing that's piled on as a parent that you have to deal with.
If you ask me, this aggressive "well, you're stupid and you shouldn't trust your own eyes because science" attitude that has triggered the strong anti-authority sentiments globally. It's why objectively crazy people like RFK Jr get huge followings- I vehemently disagree with 99% of his rhetoric, especially his anti-vax viewpoints, but I totally agree with his stance on food additives such as these synthetic dyes.
I see the effects with my own eyes. Telling me I'm stupid doesn't help science, it just serves to further diminish the trust in the very institutions we need more now than ever.
> As a parent, if I notice a correlation between an action and subsequent behavior, are you saying that my lived experience is irrelevant because... nobody bothered to include me in a specific double blind study? How many things do you do every day that have not been studied through exhaustive scientific research?
"Noticing a correlation" could very well just be confirmation bias. For decades, parents thought that giving kids sugar made them more energetic, but the scientific consensus is that there is no link between the two.
I guess I don't know what proof you require me to provide. I have several children. Only one has a visible correlation between artificial food dyes and abnormal behavior. The others do not. If I had confirmation bias because of food dyes alone, then wouldn't I have the same observation across all my children?
At some point, as the adage says, "Doctor, when I do this, it hurts! What do I do?" ... "Treatment is simple. Don't do that"
I assume that you would agree that allergies are real and afflict some people but not others -- if your son or daughter entered anaphylaxis shock after eating a PB&J sandwich, would you sit there and scold the child- "but double blind studies show, Chunky Skippy is a safe food! This is just confirmation bias!" Why is it so hard to believe that, in this case, artificial food dyes could cause adverse reactions in some people and not others?
It took £750k back in 2007 to administer a double blind study to explore the link between hyperactive behavior in children and artificial food dyes [0] - a study that included Red 40. I don't have an extra $1MM+ burning a hole in my pocket just to prove what I already know with my own kids. Believe what you want, but if consuming neon red food is that important to you, God speed. I will not be feeding it to my one child who has a reaction to it. I avoid it for the others, because.... even though I know they won't have an adverse reaction, what's the point? The dye doesn't make the food taste any different/better.
Never been asked to participate in one. I am a huge proponent of the scientific method. This argument always interests me, though. (by the way, just a quick search on pubmed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3441937/; https://www.cspinet.org/page/synthetic-food-dyes-health-risk... the EU bans some of these synthetic dyes: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/food-colours). Also reference the famous "Southampton six" study in 2007 which triggered evaluation of food dyes across Europe: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
As a parent, if I notice a correlation between an action and subsequent behavior, are you saying that my lived experience is irrelevant because... nobody bothered to include me in a specific double blind study? How many things do you do every day that have not been studied through exhaustive scientific research?
From my own lived experience, when one of my my kids eats a red velvet cake or a bag of Skittles or M&Ms that he's violent and crazy for a week, but if he has a few Oreos he's fine. If one of my other kids does the same thing, she doesn't have the same reaction. If I knew the exact chemical pathway that made this happen, I'd be thrilled. I am just living my life trying to parent kids in this world, and you know what, stupid bright dyes that do nothing other than make food appear unnaturally incandescent are practically impossible to avoid. So it's just one more thing that's piled on as a parent that you have to deal with.
If you ask me, this aggressive "well, you're stupid and you shouldn't trust your own eyes because science" attitude that has triggered the strong anti-authority sentiments globally. It's why objectively crazy people like RFK Jr get huge followings- I vehemently disagree with 99% of his rhetoric, especially his anti-vax viewpoints, but I totally agree with his stance on food additives such as these synthetic dyes.
I see the effects with my own eyes. Telling me I'm stupid doesn't help science, it just serves to further diminish the trust in the very institutions we need more now than ever.
The EU allows 11 [1] synthetic food dyes while the US only allows 9 [2]
[1] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/food-colours
[2] https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consume...
> As a parent, if I notice a correlation between an action and subsequent behavior, are you saying that my lived experience is irrelevant because... nobody bothered to include me in a specific double blind study? How many things do you do every day that have not been studied through exhaustive scientific research?
"Noticing a correlation" could very well just be confirmation bias. For decades, parents thought that giving kids sugar made them more energetic, but the scientific consensus is that there is no link between the two.
I guess I don't know what proof you require me to provide. I have several children. Only one has a visible correlation between artificial food dyes and abnormal behavior. The others do not. If I had confirmation bias because of food dyes alone, then wouldn't I have the same observation across all my children?
At some point, as the adage says, "Doctor, when I do this, it hurts! What do I do?" ... "Treatment is simple. Don't do that"
I assume that you would agree that allergies are real and afflict some people but not others -- if your son or daughter entered anaphylaxis shock after eating a PB&J sandwich, would you sit there and scold the child- "but double blind studies show, Chunky Skippy is a safe food! This is just confirmation bias!" Why is it so hard to believe that, in this case, artificial food dyes could cause adverse reactions in some people and not others?
It took £750k back in 2007 to administer a double blind study to explore the link between hyperactive behavior in children and artificial food dyes [0] - a study that included Red 40. I don't have an extra $1MM+ burning a hole in my pocket just to prove what I already know with my own kids. Believe what you want, but if consuming neon red food is that important to you, God speed. I will not be feeding it to my one child who has a reaction to it. I avoid it for the others, because.... even though I know they won't have an adverse reaction, what's the point? The dye doesn't make the food taste any different/better.
[0] https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2007/09/hyperactivity-in-...
1 reply →