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.

Linkages between ecocentric values and action in expert discourse: the case of genetically modified food in the UK

Attitudes towards the environment can be manifest in two broad categories, namely anthropocentric and ecocentric. The former regards nature as of value only insofar as it is useful to humanity, whereas the latter assigns intrinsic value to natural entities. Industrial society can be characterised as being dominated by anthropocentrism, which leads to the assumption that a majority of people hold anthropocentric values. However, research shows the most widely held values are ecocentric, which implies that many people's actions are at variance with their values. Furthermore, policy relating to environmental issues is predominantly anthropocentric, which implies it is failing to take account of the values of the majority. Research among experts involved in policy formulation has shown that their values, often ecocentric, are excluded from the policy process. The genetic modification of food can be categorised as anthropocentric, which implies that the technique is in conflict with widely held ecocentric values. This thesis examines data collected from interviews with individuals who have an influence on the debate surrounding the introduction of genetically modified foods, and can be considered 'experts'. Each interviewee is categorised according to whether their values and actions are ecocentric or anthropocentric, and the linkages between the two and the arguments used to justify their positions are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on interviewees who have ecocentric values but act professionally in an anthropocentric way. Finally, common themes are drawn out, and the features the arguments used by the interviewees have in common are outlined.

When does food refusal require professional intervention?

Food refusal can have the potential to lead to nutritional deficiencies, which increases the risk of a variety of communicable and non-communicable diseases. Deciding when food refusal requires professional intervention is complicated by the fact that there is a natural and appropriate stage in a child's development that is characterised by increased levels of rejection of both previously accepted and novel food items. Therefore, choosing to intervene is difficult, which if handled badly can lead to further food refusal and an even more limited diet. Food refusal is often based on individual preferences; however, it can also be defined through pathological behaviours that require psychological intervention. This paper presents and discusses several different types of food refusal behaviours; these are learningdependent, those that are related to a medical complication, selective food refusal, fear-based food refusal and appetiteawareness-autonomy-based food refusal. This paper describes the behaviours and characteristics that are often associated with each; however, emphasis is placed on the possibility that these different types of food refusal can often be co-morbid. The decision to offer professional intervention to the child and their family should be a holistic process based on the level of medical or psychological distress resulting from the food refusal. © 2009 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.