Risk communication and the FSA: the food colourings case

Abstract

Food colourings and flavourings have a long history. Spices and preservatives have been added to foods for millennia in order to make them last longer and taste better. Herbs, spices, pepper and salt, and other natural flavours and preservatives remain popular to this day. But over the last century or so the food and drinks industry has in many cases replaced or added to naturally occurring preservatives and colourings with synthetic compounds. All natural and artificial colours, flavours and preservatives that are added to food and drink have been tested and approved as safe by the regulatory authorities in the western world. However, campaigners in several nations, particularly the UK, have attempted to have some artificial colours and preservatives banned on public safety grounds, ranging from alleged skin allergies and asthma to hyperactive children. None of these allegations has been substantiated for any individual substance by the regulatory authorities. This paper evaluates how the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) communicated the scientific findings of the so‐called Southampton study, which claimed to demonstrate a link between the consumption of a mixture of six artificial colours and one preservative and hyperactivity in children, and was published in September 2007 in the medical journal, The Lancet. The study is based on a content analysis of UK‐based newspapers from March 2007 to July 2008, as well as interviews with staff at the UK FSA, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), industry representatives, academics (including Professor Jim Stevenson who was the supervisor of the food colourings study at Southampton University) and campaign groups.

Keywords:

• risk communication
• food colourings
• azo dyes
• UK FSA

Acknowledgements

I am in particularly indebted to Carolyn Birch who was a highly able research assistant and who conducted the majority of the interviews for this study. In addition I am grateful to the following people who have either provided me with information or commented on earlier versions of this paper: Dr. Susan Barlow, Professor Asa Boholm, Dr. Frederic Bouder, Terrence Collis, Anne Laure Gassin, Dame Deirdre Hutton, Professor Baruch Fischhoff, Dr. Michael Knowles, Lord John Krebs, Andrea Oates, Professor Ortwin Renn and Dr. Andrew Wadge. The following individuals agreed to be interviewed for the project: Clair Baynton (FSA), Susan Barlow (ex EFSA), Diane Benford (COT), Terrence Collis (FSA), Justin Everard (FSA), Martin Hickman (Independent), Julian Hunt (FDF), Deirdre Hutton (FSA), Stephen Johnson (FSA), Tim Lang (City University), Helen Monday (FDF), Jim Stevenson (University of Southampton), Adam Treslove (FSA), Andrew Wadge (FSA) and Richard Watts (Sustain). The paper was externally peer reviewed by Ortwin Renn (University of Stuttgart). The paper was funded by external research grants provided by the UK FSA and by The Coca Cola Company.

Notes

1. EFSA's panel on additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food.

2. Following publication of the Southampton study the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) did an independent analysis of the findings and concluded that the study hints at a possible correlation between intakes and hyperactivity in children but the observed effects are quite small. As a result the BfR concludes that a biological mechanism for such a causal relationship cannot be derived from the results (German BfR 2007).

3. The COT report was embargoed until 6 September, the same day that the Southampton study was published in the Lancet. The FSA asked the Lancet to bring forward the date of the publication of the Southampton findings so that it could discuss these at the 20th September board meeting. The publication date for the Lancet article was agreed on the 16 August.