Food colours:a study of the effects of regulation

In the 1960s the benefits of government regulation of technology were believed to outweigh any costs. But recent studies have claimed that regulation has negative effects on innovation, health and consumer choice. This case study on food colours examines such claims. EFFECTS ON HEALTH were measured by allocating a hazard rating to each colour. The negative list of 1925 removed three harmful colours which were rapidly replaced, so the benefits were short-lived. Had a proposed ban been adopted in the 1860s it would have prevented many years exposure to hazardous mineral colours. The positive list of 1957 reduced the proportion of harmful coal tar dyes from 54% of the total to 20%. Regulations brought a greater reduction in hazard levels than voluntary trade action. Delays in the introduction of a positive list created a significant hazard burden. EFFECTS ON INNOVATION were assessed from patents and discovery dates. Until the 1950s food colours were adopted from textile colours. The major period of innovation for coal tar colours was between 1856 and 1910, finishing well before regulations were made in 1957, so regulations cannot be blamed for the decline. Regulations appear to have spurred the development of at least one new coal tar dye, and many new plant colours, creating a new sector of the dye industry. EFFECTS ON CONSUMER CHOICE were assessed by case studies. Coloured milk, for example, was banned despite its popularity. Regulations have restricted choice, but have removed from the market foods that were nutritionally impoverished and poor value for money. Compositional regulations provided health protection because they reduced total exposure to colours from certain staple foods. Restricting colours to a smaller range of foods would be an effective way of coping with problems of quality and imperfect toxicological knowledge today.

Parental confidence in managing food allergy:development of the Food Allergy Self-Efficacy Scale for parents (FASE-P)

Background: Food allergy is often a life-long condition that requires constant vigilance in order to prevent accidental exposure and avoid potentially life-threatening symptoms. Parents’ confidence in managing their child’s food allergy may relate to the poor quality of life anxiety and worry reported by parents of food allergic children. Objective: The aim of the current study was to develop and validate the first scale to measure parental confidence (self-efficacy) in managing food allergy in their child. Methods: The Food Allergy Self-Efficacy Scale for Parents (FASE-P) was developed through interviews with 53 parents, consultation of the literature and experts in the area. The FASE-P was then completed by 434 parents of food allergic children from a general population sample in addition to the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), the Food Allergy Quality of Life Parental Burden Scale (FAQL-PB), the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) and the Food Allergy Impact Measure (FAIM). A total of 250 parents completed the re-test of the FASE-P. Results: Factor and reliability analysis resulted in a 21 item scale with 5 sub-scales. The overall scale and sub-scales has good to excellent internal consistency (α’s of 0.63-0.89) and the scale is stable over time. There were low to moderate significant correlations with the GSES, FAIM and GHQ12 and strong correlations with the FAQL-PB, with better parental confidence relating to better general self-efficacy, better quality of life and better mental health in the parent. Poorer self-efficacy was related to egg and milk allergy; self-efficacy was not related to severity of allergy. Conclusions and clinical relevance: The FASE-P is a reliable and valid scale for use with parents from a general population. Its application within clinical settings could aid provision of advice and improve targeted interventions by identifying areas where parents have less confidence in managing their child’s food allergy.