Eating and Children

“You are what you eat”, is a common old adage heard in western culture, which

promotes healthy living and eating. It is certainly not uncommon to hear the latter with

the latest health and fitness fervor held my many westerners. There is evidence to suggest that

primitive humans believed that physical strength and abilitiy could be attained by consuming

certain animals. For example, the early Cherokee Indian tribes believed that by eating

venison one could inherit the swiftness of the animal.

With the passage of time and modern reasoning and research, the question can be

begged “Does diet have an effect on behavior?" Many studies suggest that diet does have an

adverse effect on children’s behavior and learning. In that, it is extremely important to fuel

adolescents with healthy diets to promote critical thinking skills for future learning. However,

there are studies that negate the latter, and in doing this research, I will compare several case

studies.

Case studies are important in that they present or negate scientific findings triggered by

theory and hypothesis. Dr. Benjamin Fiengold, an allery specialist, was not only

important because of the latter but also due to the fact that he was one of the leading

proponents of the idea that food additives can cause hyperactivity. Fiengold reported that dyes, preservatives, and salicyclates could cause hyperactivity in children. Realizing that food additives include food coloring, flavor enhancerrs and preservatives, Dr. Fiengold's research was warranted. He proposed the KP diet which eliminated all artificial colorings,flavorings, and sweeteners. This diet was initially developed for people who suffered from asthma and allergies. However, there were

reports that indicated that changes occurred in the patients’ personalities and behavior.

Subsequently, Fiengold later tried this experiment on children who were hyperactive.

From his findings, half were reported to have improved greatly in their behavior and 25%

reported some improvements in the clinical trials (Fiengold p.71). More recent studies that have

similar findings comparable to Fiengold's research can be found in research written for the

Center for Science in the Public Interest by Jacobson and Schardt. The report is entilted Diet,

ADHD and Behavior and it finds that 17 studies suggest evidence that the behavior of children are

negatively affected by the consumption of artificial colors. Further research suggest that this can

be founded by the topographic map of brain activity in children who have a sensitivity to

foods that trigger ADHD. However, there has been much debate on how effective and safe

would it be to follow Fiengold’s diet is. As the following suggest:

One of the long-standing alternative therapies for ADHD is the Feingold diet. Although used for almost 30 years by parents, most physicians do not offer it as a treatment. Some state medical boards consider use of the Feingold diet an "extreme departure from the Standard of Practice," for which a physician could lose his or her license. (Medical Board, 1998).

But today overall research suggest that Fiengold’s diet is has both proponents and

opponents. “And the research? The research seems to fall into opposing

camps, pro and con, both types published in peer reviewed journals.”

In 1994, studies with similar findings to Fiengold research were found by Rowe and Rowe’s landmark study. The study was based on 150-200 children who appeared to have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD) and