Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

True Colors

Area Resident Garners Support To Ban Artificial Food Dyes

November 7, 2013

More than 114,000 supporters have joined a Jamestown family on its campaign against petroleum-based artificial food dyes....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(22)

JJDavis

Jan-08-14 12:10 AM

Here's a concept. If your kid reacts negatively when they eat something, don't let them eat it. If you feel your kid is being deprived (God forbid they don't get to eat an M&M....the horror of it all!)Then make it at home and you will then have control of the ingredients without bugging everyone else that does not have a problem with mass produced food. Geez, can't you just live YOUR life and quit forcing your choices on everyone else?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KimBurdic

Nov-10-13 6:53 PM

To all of you who have commented on "where is the proof..." To that I say, look at my 4 year old daughter. At the beginning of the school year she was getting a bad report from school every day. She had painted a boy's face, kicked another student another day, and was being defiant. Within 1 week of starting Feingold with her the bad reports have stopped. Her teacher has told us what an improvement she has made, as well as her daycare provider. We can tell when she has had something with artificial flavors or colors, especially Red 40. She has an almost immediate melt down. So until you know of a child that has been pegged as a bad kid and has since tried Feingold and had SOME kind of improvement, don't presume that you know more than people who can say for sure.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Nov-08-13 11:29 PM

Nice rhetoric, troglodyte, except that it doesn't answer my question: If there isn't enough science behind the question of the safety of artificial food dyes and other additives, then where is it supposed to come from? It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to realize that there are on;y two sources of income large enough to perform the science needed to prove the issue either way: the companies that make the stuff or the government and we know the corporations sure aren't going to endanger their cash cows with research into their safety!

So the only other player with a big enough ante is the government which is being starved of funding by anti-regulatory zealots, sequesters and other anti-government forces. Therefore, politics does indeed come into play in a very large way.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WestSider

Nov-08-13 9:20 AM

randomthinker: I'm reasonably sure I didn't say or insinuate that you wrote the article, and I'm perfectly sure I didn't say that Google was science. But I'll go slow, since a search engine seems to be a new concept for you ... by typing in things called "keywords," you can ask the "search engine" to "find" scientific articles for you. This is called "online research." It helps people "learn things."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

troglodyte

Nov-08-13 7:31 AM

The motives, ethics, and behavior of corporations have no bearing on the question of whether this boy's problems are or are not caused by an unusual sensitivity to a particular substance or whether or not he can be cured by not consuming it. But to left zealots there are no corporations, boys, illnesses, or questions, only opportunities to trumpet the Party Line.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jhsparent3

Nov-08-13 7:19 AM

poeple donot cook any more that is the problem.they want mcdonalds to do their job.well mcdonalds is fast food not an everynight dinner option.as for snap you can not use snap at mcdonalds.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilary42

Nov-07-13 9:25 PM

If the food tastes the same without the dyes, then you don't need the dyes. Why would you put anything artificial into your body if it isn't necessary? If I understand correctly here, some people think corporations should be permitted to add crap that may be harmful to your body (how can anyone debate artificial food dye is unhealthy? Go drink a gallon a day and see how you feel ...not exactly water), and entirely unnecessary at the same time, just to help profits??? Whose side are you people on? Your own personal health or the profits of Nabisco? How is your we'll being and health a political issue, while we are at it. Tea party or Dem, you should have the common sense to realize your health and the health of your kids is more important than the CEO of Kraft affording another lakeside mansion in Chautauqua. Now, get back to eating your cocoa puffs.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

firsttimemama

Nov-07-13 8:28 PM

Dyes have been in foods for years. I dont think dyes had anything to do with the fact that this boy decided he no longer wanted to have a tricycle. Do we think it had something to do with all the sugar in the junk food he was eating? Its a possibility. Another reason to place blame on something else and get an easy way for making wrong decisions as a parent, because you cannot say no. Children should not have candy and junk food and soda pop at an early age. They should be eating fruits and water and healthy food. Weres the conclusive evidance that dye is causing HDHD. The FDA is clearly not concerned about "dyes" or they wouldnt approve them.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

randomthinker

Nov-07-13 5:48 PM

Westsider- I didn't write the article. Also, Google ain't science either, imbecile.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Nov-07-13 5:32 PM

Ya. lol...an extra few bucks will make the poor ignorant leeches smart enough to choose another diet. The way a progs mind works!

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Nov-07-13 2:04 PM

A related issue is the fact that cheap, artificial and potentially harmful food additives are more commonly eaten by the families who are on federal aid, such as SNAP funds yet we see the Republicans in Congress trying to severely cut these benefits. Cheap food has a great deal more sugar, fat and food additives than healthful whole food alternatives. A significant cut then causes people to buy cheaper, less healthful food which increases our health care costs.

We have unanswered questions about the safety of artificial food additives yet we encourage their use by giving the companies who use them federal help in giving working class and poor people just barely enough to afford the cheap options. Where's the sense of that?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Nov-07-13 1:58 PM

The food corporations certainly aren't going to fund any research into harmful food additives and the Tea Party and its fellow travelers keep saying that the government is wasting money on needless research and wasted tax revenues so the FDA is more and more constrained in its operations. This constraint, of course, is what the corporations are really after while they fund astroturfed political movements like the TEA Party. On top of all that, it's common knowledge that a revolving door exists between the federal government and the corporations. The FDA people won;t want to jeopardize their future by making their prospective employers angry.

If there isn't enough scientific knowledge about this issue then who is supposed to develop it? Should we wait and risk our kids' health until it happens?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Nov-07-13 9:43 AM

Eating right is not new science. Want a eye opener? Go down the cereal isle and see what the manufacturers are competing with to satisfy a kid's eyes and his Momma's weakness.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Oelwyn

Nov-07-13 9:37 AM

"SUGAR!"

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WestSider

Nov-07-13 9:28 AM

Local14701: What an ignorant comment to make. It says a great deal more about you than it does about the woman featured in the article.

RandomThinker: You ask where the scientific research is ... and I'll ask if you've ever heard of Google.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Local14701

Nov-07-13 9:01 AM

I see that it is ok to put those dyes in her hair though...

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SCALLYWAG

Nov-07-13 8:33 AM

Can't call all

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SCALLYWAG

Nov-07-13 8:32 AM

I'd say don't allow the boy to eat the stuff. Tough love. Hair spray and hair dye also contain some pretty harsh chemicals but we as a society continue to use them by the 55 gallon drum. I guess you can't call product manufactures on the carpet

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

troglodyte

Nov-07-13 7:34 AM

Double blind studies have not supported the Feingold claims. The fact that substances of several completely different chemical natures are lumped and stigmatized is suspicious. The vague attributions and blatantly public press and conspicuously unscientific tone are also a red flag. Neither the reporter nor the mother seem to know anything about science. The Opraization of American. I'm not ruling out the possibility the boy could have reactions to some of the food colors, but I am saying such a conclusion is premature and the publicity unwarranted.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Renaldo

Nov-07-13 6:58 AM

You make a good point but that you think FDA's conclusions & studies are not to be questioned is pretty darn naive. The FDA provides good guidelines but no amount of studies can cover all cases.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

randomthinker

Nov-07-13 6:38 AM

Hooey. Where is the scientific research? The list of food cited in this article are pop tarts, strawberry milk, M&Ms, starburst, McDonalds etc. The "dye" in these foods aren't the problem. If these foods are deemed safe by the FDA, then I am satisifed that a scientific study was done. How a boy reacts to getting a tricycle is a faaaaaaaaaaar cry from a clinical study. The conclusion in this article is like saying "I notice lots of firemen at the biggest fires, must be the firemen cause these blazes".

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

randomthinker

Nov-07-13 6:38 AM

Hooey. Where is the scientific research? The list of food cited in this article are pop tarts, strawberry milk, M&Ms, starburst, McDonalds etc. The "dye" in these foods aren't the problem. If these foods are deemed safe by the FDA, then I am satisifed that a scientific study was done. How a boy reacts to getting a tricycle is a faaaaaaaaaaar cry from a clinical study. The conclusion in this article is like saying "I notice lots of firemen at the biggest fires, must be the firemen cause these blazes".

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web