Tomorrow when the Food Standards Agency board meets, it will ask itself if it should have done more about an inconvenient piece of research published this month. The research showed that certain artificial colourings and a preservative, widely used in food and under suspicion for decades, did in fact make children behave poorly. In rigorously conducted tests, the cocktail of additives induced precisely the sort of problem behaviour schools complain is on the rise and disrupts education. The effect was seen in ordinary children, not just those already suffering from hyperactivity.
Ever since Sir John Krebs, with his impeccable scientific credentials, stepped down as chair of the FSA and his role at the top was filled by non-scientists, the agency has been at pains to stress that its decisions are still based on sound science. Its new advice is simply that parents who think children are suffering from hyperactivity might consider avoiding these additives by reading food labels: no advice to the general population; no mention of what to do about all the foods that have these ingredients but do not carry labels; no advice to schools on whether to remove them - only advice so impractical that Gordon Brown was moved to say that parents should not have to root round supermarket shelves reading all the small print to check if food is going to harm their children.
How on earth did the FSA get itself into such an untenable position? No doubt the Sudan 1 crisis two years ago remains sharp in officials' minds. Tony Blair castigated the FSA for causing "disproportionate" losses to businesses by insisting that foods containing the Sudan 1 dye - which just happened to be illegal and a carcinogen, albeit a weak one - be taken off the shelves. This resulted in the largest product recall in British history, and the food industry made its displeasure clear to the FSA's political masters.
So what would count as reacting proportionately to the news that these additives damage children? First the FSA turned to its independent scientific panel for a judgment. The committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food (CoT) is chaired by Professor Ieuan Hughes, a distinguished paediatrician who declares among his interests research funds from drug companies and Novo Nordisk, the leading maker of industrial enzymes for the food industry. Other members include Dr Philip Carthew, whose salary is paid by Unilever; Professor Ian Rowland, consultant to Unilever and recipient of research funds from other food manufacturers; Dr Lesley Stanley, who declares contracts with Procter & Gamble and Nestlé, and research collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline and Novo Nordisk ...
And so it goes on. Half the scientists on the committee have links to agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry. None of this is to impugn their individual integrity, for that's the way science is these days: in the absence of public funding, researchers must bring in the money where they can. So it is industry that often frames the questions science asks, and there is a danger that industry influences the mindset with which results are approached. This does little to reassure the public that consumer interests will come before commercial ones.
The CoT decided it could not draw conclusions on the implications of the additives study for the population as a whole, which appears to contradict the published science. The committee also firmly said it was not possible to extrapolate from the additives used in this particular research to others; in fact, several other additives in common use have similar chemical structures to those used in the study. Regulators have applied the opposite assumption when approving them for use - if tests showed that one additive was safe, they happily extrapolated to additives with a similar structure.
From a consumer view, taking a precautionary approach and getting rid of them all now is a no-brainer. That is a policy decision for the FSA board rather than its scientists, but the FSA seems to be hiding behind the conservative view of its scientific panel.
The agency turned next to its lawyers. It fears that it could be clobbered by the food industry if it oversteps a strict legal case. The lawyers' advice was that the FSA did not have enough evidence to impose a unilateral ban on the additives. They may make ordinary children behave badly, but they do not meet the requirement of EU law that an additive "endangers health" before a government can take action. If only those pesky children would drop dead holding the wrapping, it would be so much easier to know what to do.
The additives in question are used to make junk palatable. They should be banned. Let any food manufacturer who wishes to defend its right to use such pernicious ingredients go to court and advertise the fact. If the FSA board wants to salvage its reputation as protector of the public, it needs to show some political nerve tomorrow.
felicity.lawrence@theguardian.com
