Department of Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Ave., Rochester, NY 14642 USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Jan;120(1):1-5. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1103827. Epub 2011 Sep 16.
The proposition that synthetic food colors can induce adverse behavioral effects in children was first enunciated in 1975 by Feingold [Why Your Child Is Hyperactive. New York:Random House (1975)], who asserted that elevated sensitivity to food additives underlies the signs of hyperactivity observed in some children. Although the evidence suggested that some unknown proportion of children did respond to synthetic food colors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) interpreted the evidence as inconclusive. A study published in 2007 [McCann et al. Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 370:1560-1567 (2007)] drew renewed attention to the hypothesis because of the study's size and scope. It led the FDA to review the evidence, hold a public hearing, and seek the advice of its Food Advisory Committee. In preparation for the hearing, the FDA reviewed the available evidence and concluded that it did not warrant further agency action.
In this commentary I examine the basis of the FDA's position, the elements of the review that led to its decision and that of the Food Advisory Committee, and the reasons that this is an environmental health issue.
The FDA review confined itself, in essence, to the clinical diagnosis of hyperactivity, as did the charge to the committee, rather than asking the broader environmental question of behavioral effects in the general population; it failed to recognize the significance of vulnerable subpopulations; and it misinterpreted the meaning of effect size as a criterion of risk. The FDA's response would have benefited from adopting the viewpoints and perspectives common to environmental health research. At the same time, the food color debate offers a lesson to environmental health researchers; namely, too narrow a focus on a single outcome or criterion can be misleading.
1975 年,Feingold[Why Your Child Is Hyperactive. New York:Random House (1975)]首次提出人工合成食品色素会对儿童产生不良行为影响的观点,他断言一些儿童表现出的多动迹象是由于对食物添加剂高度敏感所致。尽管有证据表明某些未知比例的儿童确实对人工合成食品色素有反应,但美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)认为证据尚无定论。2007 年发表的一项研究[McCann 等人。社区 3 岁和 8/9 岁儿童的食物添加剂与多动行为:一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。柳叶刀 370:1560-1567(2007)]再次引起了人们对该假说的关注,因为该研究规模和范围较大。这使得 FDA 重新审查证据,举行公开听证会,并征求其食品咨询委员会的意见。在听证会准备过程中,FDA 审查了现有证据,并得出结论认为,这不需要进一步采取机构行动。
在本评论中,我将检查 FDA 立场的依据、导致其决定和食品咨询委员会决定的审查要素,以及这为何是一个环境健康问题。
FDA 的审查实质上仅限于多动的临床诊断,委员会的指控也是如此,而没有提出更广泛的环境问题,即一般人群的行为影响;它没有认识到脆弱亚群体的重要性;并且它错误地解释了效应大小作为风险标准的含义。FDA 的反应本可以从采用环境健康研究中常见的观点和视角中受益。与此同时,食品色素辩论为环境健康研究人员提供了一个教训;即,过于狭隘地关注单一结果或标准可能会产生误导。