The debate surrounding the potential effects that some synthetic dyes can have on some childrens’ behavior has been reignited following US research. 

According to the latest report from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), some synthetic food dyes can cause or exacerbate behavioral problems in some children.

“The link between some synthetic colors and neurobehavioral impacts on children is nothing new,” Lorraine Jansen, communications manager at GNT Group, tells NutritionInsight, commenting on the news.

This is a long-established debate within the nutrition and F&B industries, but remains a key issue. 

The study authors linked some synthetic food dyes to adverse neurobehavioral effects, such as inattentiveness, hyperactivity and restlessness in sensitive children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders.

“Time to turn to action”
Synthetic food dyes often substitute for nutritious ingredients such as fruit, flags the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The research institute warns these dyes are often used to make junk foods more attractive, especially to children.

Notably, the report also concluded the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s “safe levels,” or Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs), are “not adequate to protect children.” 

“According to the report, these levels are based on decades-old studies incapable of detecting the types of behavioral effects measured in later studies,” says Lisa Lefferts, CSPI senior scientist. “Now is the time to turn from science to action.”

Varying levels of sensitivity
The percentage of US children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD has increased from an estimated 6.1 percent to 10.2 percent in the past two decades, according to a 2018 study.

The current assessment integrated evidence from 27 clinical trials involving synthetic food dyes in humans, studies on laboratory animals studies on cells and neurotransmitters. 

The body of evidence from human studies indicates that children vary in their sensitivity to synthetic food dyes. Some children are likely to be more adversely affected by synthetic food dyes than others. 

Positive associations – either statistically significant associations or large effect sizes – were also more frequently reported in studies published after 1990.

Which dyes found wher?
Synthetic food dyes tested include numbered colorings Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. 

Among the food dyes, the highest exposures from consuming foods were to Red No. 40, followed by Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. 

The geometric mean (an estimate of the median) total dye exposure for children 5 to 18 years of age was 0.22 mg per kg of body weight per day. 

The most common food items associated with food dye exposure, which varies by dye, included juice drinks, fruit-flavored drinks (powders which get reconstituted), soft drinks, ice cream cones, breakfast cereals and icings.  

OEHHA also evaluated potential exposures to synthetic food dyes from several brands of over-the-counter (OTC) medications. The highest estimated exposures for children 4 to 16 years old were for Red No. 40 from a brand of grape-flavored cough, cold and allergy syrup. 

The estimated Red No. 40 exposures from this brand ranged from 0.028 to 0.037 mg/kg/day for 1 dose per day to 0.17 to 0.22 mg/kg/day for the maximum recommended dose of 6 doses per day. 

FDA assessments insufficient?
The California assessment findings mirror those from an earlier CSPI report, which outlines the effects of food dyes on children’s behavior as well as the FDA’s “inaction” on regulating food dyes.

That report revealed that in 1955, 1.6 million pounds of dyes, or 12 mg per person per day, were certified for food use. By 2015 that figure jumped to over 17 million pounds, or 67 mg per person per day.

The CSPI’s criticism remains that the FDA indicates research should focus on better understanding what makes some people sensitive, not on protecting consumers from dyes.

“We will be taking this issue to the FDA and pressing to eliminate dyes in school foods,” adds CSPI director of program and strategy Laura MacCleery. 

Finding alternative solutions
As a result of research findings like these, consumer appetite for artificial food dyes is waning, motivating more formulators to switch out artificial dyes for farm-grown “coloring foods.” 

“Coloring Foods are already seeing dramatic growth across multiple product categories,” says Jansen from GNT. 

“Consumers today want to understand exactly what they’re eating, so we see our Coloring Foods as a future-proof solution,” she predicts.

In line with its color forecast for 2021, GNT unveiled its beetroot-based Fiesta Pink micronized powder in October. The company flagged that the pink hue utilized betanin’s natural coloring capabilities and is pegged to transform superfoods and boost beverages.

In 2010, the EU introduced warning labels for Sunset Yellow, Carmoisine, Tartrazine, Ponceau 4R, Sodium Benzoate, Quinoline Yellow and Allura Red AC.

“The new rules meant those colors could only be used in the EU if products featured a warning on the label saying the colors ‘may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children,’” Jansen explains.

Meanwhile, the OEHHA report was funded by the California legislature, through the support of Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont). 

Senator Wieckowski recently introduced SB 651, the Reducing Exposure to Synthetic Food Dyes Act, which would require a safety warning label on products containing synthetic food dyes that informs consumers that “synthetic dyes may cause or worsen behavioral problems in children.”