Ban additives to reduce Asbos?

Last week research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) confirmed what was already a virtual certainty - that the cocktails of artificial additives used in many non-organic processed foods are a threat to children. Indeed scientists have been saying that additives are a threat to children and a cause of hyper-activity for more than 30 years.

Most of these additives are derived from industrial textile dyes and are used entirely for cosmetic purposes; to make junk food appealing - and are completely unnecessary and banned under organic standards.

This is a blow to the Food Standards Agency, as it approved the use of such additives - and their response has been totally inadequate. This is the time for them to take a lead role in addressing this issue through new policies to prevent the use of these unnecessary food additives.

As with the issues of pesticide residues and genetically modified food, the FSA is still giving the benefit of the doubt to the food industry over artificial food ingredients, even when there are rising public health concerns. As one letter writer in the Guardian put it if the UN provided food to refugees in Africa knowing that it would be harmful to 5% of the children eating it there would be a justified outcry. That the government can allow shops to sell products to children knowing that 5% of the children will suffer harmful effects is beyond belief.

There seems no justification for inaction - is it really true as reported that the British Soft Drink Association said "All additives ... are included ... to enhance the choices that are available to them [the public]"? As another commentator said presumably they were including the choice to have hyperactive children or not buy their members' products? Why should anyone have to make this choice?

Mind when they do get to ban additives - sense must surely prevail sometime - I think I might miss Butylated hydroxyanisole and Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone - then again a dash of Diacetyltartaric esters of glycerol is also pretty yumsy? If you can't pronounce it, don't stick it in your mouth. In fact that reminds me of one of the first Green party letters I ever wrote to local press back in 2001:

A McDonalds' strawberry milkshake on average contains; amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethlyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin, hydroxyphenyl-2-butonone (10% solution in alcohol), a-isonone, isobutyl, anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate lemon essential oil, maltl....and that's just A to Mc.

Those who want the complete list of ingredients could read Eric Schlosser's, 'Fast Food Nation'. It now makes more sense why some people want a Stroud McDonalds. After all, with such a complex recipe it must be hard to make one of those milkshakes up at home.

Greens locally have over the years campaigned on this issue - see some of the items like a news release re toxic chemicals and cancer last year, lobby of MEPs here and here, campaign against aspartame, additives in school meals, as part of preventing ill-health and more.

I wonder how many Asbos would be saved per year if these additives were banned?

Meanwhile today it is reported that there is a U-turn re providing more healthier drinks in schools. Children will now still be able to drink additive-laden "combination" drinks - which combine water, fruit juice and/or milk - in school canteens, rather than restricting them to the nutritionally superior "pure" drinks initially proposed.

Read Peter Melchett on what he calls "The double-standards agency?"