Joel Nigg, a professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, performed a similar review in 2012. He had expected to find evidence that would reassure those who were worried about food dyes, he said. However, he also found a small but significant increase in hyperactivity when children consumed the dyes. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions.
Dr. Nigg and other experts have acknowledged the various limitations with the research. In addition to most of the available studies being small, many are also decades old and some rely on parents’ reports of their children’s behaviors, which can be biased. Some also tested dyes that weren’t used in the United States, making it difficult to say if the results apply to children in this country.
No large, representative studies have been done on children in the United States, Dr. Nigg said. And researchers aren’t sure how, exactly, the dyes might increase hyperactivity; one study in children suggested that regulation of histamine, a neurotransmitter that can affect behavior, may be involved. In some studies on rodents, researchers have also reported that high levels of the dyes could cause cellular damage and affect signaling and structures in the brain.
The F.D.A., along with an international committee of food safety experts, has emphasized the limitations of the research while maintaining that the food dyes currently approved in the United States are safe.
Industry groups, including the Consumer Brands Association, which represents packaged food and drink companies, as well as the International Association of Color Manufacturers and the American Beverage Association, have opposed the bill.
Jim Coughlin, a nutritional toxicologist who has reviewed the research and testified against the bill on behalf of Consumer Brands Association, said that the studies had been too inconsistent to convince him that the dyes were harmful.
But Dr. Nigg said that given the scientific uncertainty — and the fact that dyes add no nutritional value to meals — it makes sense to avoid having them in schools.
“There’s a reasonable suspicion that food dyes may be harmful, at least for some kids,” Dr. Nigg said. “So why expose them to it?”
In this specific situation, there’s nearly no harm done unless you work at a food coloring factory. One could argue that this was a preventative measure.
Passing the bill also gathers that empirical data by comparing against other states.
While there is no harm; I could easily understand why parents might not want this measure passed. Frequently the costs get passed onto them in a painful way; either at the lunchline every day or indirectly via the taxes they pay and how much the school spends.
I think it could be easier if instead of passing the law for everyone statewide; they just let schools and districts “opt into” this sort of thing by polling parents; and “voluntarily join the study of this subject” rather than being forced into it by state legislature statewide. Then the State can control and gather data in their own ways…and maintains their own control group; which makes a better study. They can’t control the quality of the control group when using data borrowed from other states…what they get is what they get.