Talk:Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Food coloring and additives

Re the sentence: The study found "a possible link between the consumption of these artificial colours and a sodium benzoate preservative and increased hyperactivity" in the children.

This statement in quotes is not contained in either of the sources given. I checked the actual study and it is not contained in there either. It therefore appears to violate the principle of minimal change MOS:PMC. If acceptable, I would like to include the study itself as a source and quote its actual finding. Shulae (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The quoted statement is found in the second source cited, the UK government guidelines here. The full sentence says: "The study supported a possible link between the consumption of these artificial colours and a sodium benzoate preservative and increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population." A similar statement was made in the first source cited, the FDA guidelines here: "The COT concluded that the study provides supporting evidence of a possible link between the test mixtures and hyperactivity in children." Interestingly, the next sentence says, "However, because of study limitations, results could not be extrapolated to the general population, and further testing was recommended." These two sources satisfy WP:MEDRS, whereas the original source sounds like primary research and therefore would not be an appropriate source for this statement. It might be a good idea to tweak the wording to better reflect the current sources though. —PermStrump(talk) 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both sources say something close to the quotation - but it is not exact, and my understanding is that if you quote something using quotation marks, it must be exact. Otherwise, you are paraphrasing, which is okay but you don't use quotation marks. Since I have a knowledge of the Feingold diet through personal use and volunteer work with the organization, I was told I am not qualified to actually edit anything but just to point out potential edits on here. Since you have seen both original quotes and are aware that the one on this page is not an exact quote, perhaps you can just take off the quotation marks to make it a paraphrase (that sounds like the easiest fix to me). I have no problem with what is said - just that it is pretending to be a quote and it is not. Shulae (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I do have a question, however -- in other places in Wikipedia pages, when something refers to a specific study, the study itself is also referenced. I don't have a specific example at the moment, but I'm sure you are aware of that too. Here, the specific study is discussed but not referenced and you say it would not be okay to do so. In graduate school, looking directly to the primary source was heavily stressed, and it became very obvious that often enough the secondary reviews or other sources got it wrong when describing the study. So while I understand what you said, working with reviews and other secondary sources on a controversial topic is not easy. Shulae (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is odd that a study on the general population would be considered unable to be extrapolated to the general population. I don't know how to fix that but I sure would like to just leave out the sentence. Maybe just say they all said they want more research? Shulae (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"In graduate school, looking directly to the primary source was heavily stressed" ← That was a hard mental adjustment for me to make too, but WP prefers secondary sources to avoid original research, which is what professors want from students. Editors definitely do use primary sources, but it's generally discouraged, and it's more explicitly discouraged for health-related claims. In short, WP:MEDRS says health related claims should be sourced to systematic reviews, meta-analyses or official government guidelines, basically because the vetting by those secondary sources, while imperfect, is more reliable than vetting by individual editors. Maybe there are other sources that satisfy MEDRS with more clear wording. I'll look around. What would you have suggested from the original source? —PermStrump(talk) 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

exactly what PermStrump indicated-MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If we could use the original source, I would quote the final sentence in their abstract, as follows:

According to this study, "Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population."

If I had to use the currently cited sources, I would quote the FSA brochure, as follows:

According to the Food Standards Agency of the UK, the study "supported a possible link between the consumption of these artificial colours and a sodium benzoate preservative and increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population."

The current page says that the study "found a possible link" (wimpy) ... whereas the FSA said the study "supported a possible link" -- stronger -- and the study itself actually came to a far stronger conclusion - that there is a true link, not a "possible" link.

I was at the FDA hearings in 2011. The FDA admitted that the Southampton studies were "robust" and their only complaint was that because sodium benzoate was incorporated into the mix, the study couldn't prove that the food dyes alone were the problem. That was the "study limitation" referred to in our page. My personal feeling is so what? Even if food dyes have to be ingested with sodium benzoate to be problematical, that is exactly how they are really eaten in the real world. The FDA Advisory Committee was so sure that they were going to recommend labeling foods containing food dye that they had a lengthy debate about what the label should say. Unfortunately, the questions the FDA made them vote on were YES/NO questions with multiple parts. The Committee complained bitterly - the questions were so confusing that on one of them the person reading the questions actually said, "Now be careful here because a YES vote really means NO." Even so, they came within one vote of approving the label request.

As for the inability to apply the findings to the general population ... well, the UK did just that, so I guess they could be (and were) after all. Can we just leave that sentence out? The FDA said a lot of other things we are not quoting, so maybe we don't have to say that, either? (I have the entire transcript of the Hearings if you like that stuff) Shulae (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just really not sure and was hoping more editors would chime in, but maybe there aren't too many paying attention to this page because it doesn't come up in my watchlist a lot. I'll make a post at WT:MED to get more input. —PermStrump(talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The current content reflects the most recent MEDRS sources we have. If there are newer MEDRS sources that say something different, I am all ears, otherwise there is nothing to do here. There is no significant difference between "found" and "supported". One is more germanic and one is latinate, is all. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

True. "found" and "supported" are not a problem. Saying "link" or only "possible link" is the question. The study itself said "link." They were definite about that. But both the FSA and FDA downgraded that to "possible" ... probably for their own purposes. It's not accurately reflecting what the study actually found. Shulae (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops - I almost missed this: "The Advisory Committee to the FSA" ...... although the other resource is the FSA (UK), the committee was the Advisory Committee to the FDA (US). Can one of you kindly change that or give me permission to do so?

Thank you - I see it's been fixed. Shulae (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note it was the US organization who said it could not be extrapolated to the general population ... in the UK, the FSA had already done so, which means it could indeed be extrapolated to the general population ... and how much "extrapolation" was needed anyhow when the study was actually done on the general population? So, of course, I would like to just dismiss that controversial sentence as trying to further discredit the study results. Do we have to keep it just because somebody previously put it in? Shulae (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

we follow the secondary sources, not primary sources, as Permstrump explained to you above. (briefly, in the sciences, primary sources are the way that scientists communicate to one another. They never take each other's research results and interpretations at face value; scientists interpret each other's work all the time. Editors in Wikipedia are now allowed to interpret primary sources. Instead, we rely on review articles or statements by major medical/scientific bodies, in which experts in the field interpret the primary literature and put a story together.). Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still getting used to that. Here you have two governmental (and therefore acceptable) sources - one (FSA) says that the population should be protected because of the study, and the other says the study doesn't really prove an effect on the population and more research is needed (FDA). Whoever originally wrote this put both ideas in there as though both organizations said both things. I think I can fix it, if I may (but I will be traveling for the next few days so there is no hurry). Shulae (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

possible solution?

How would this wording work?

Although the study found "a possible link between the consumption of these artificial colours and a sodium benzoate preservative and increased hyperactivity" in a group of over 300 children of the general population,[1][2] the US FDA recommended further testing.[1]

After that, the next sentence re the UK FSA and the precautionary principle flows nicely, I think.

I just realized -- this US recommendation for more testing was not given by the Advisory Committee at all, but in the Background Document which was given TO the Advisory Committee by the FDA prior to the Committee Hearings. It should not be attributed to the Advisory Committee. Shulae (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You cannot add editorializing language. The "Although xxxx, they did yyy" adds your opinion that what they did was wrong. You cannot do that in WP - please never, ever do that. We have so much trouble from people who try to do that. You may not like what the MEDRS source says but you have to follow it. That is what it means to be a WP editor. If you want to express your opinion there are tons of blogs for that... Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I understand. What about the sentence beginning "However, in 2009 the EFSA ..." Is that editorializing language too? The quoted words that appear to be the EFSA 2009 conclusion are not from the EFSA at all, but from the same FDA document provided to the Committee for the Hearings in 2011. I have begun to read each of the citations for the EFSA reviews - and they, also, do not say what the writer claims. One did lower the ADI, and two others complained that people currently eat more than the ADI ... I'll finish reviewing them later (this was a lunch stop, and my time is up).

How about something like this?

The study found "a possible link between the consumption of these artificial colours and a sodium benzoate preservative and increased hyperactivity" in the children.[1][2] The European regulatory community, with an emphasis on the precautionary principle, required labelling and temporarily reduced the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for the food colorings, and the UK FSA called for voluntary withdrawal of the colorings by food manufacturers.[1][2] In the US, the FDA held Advisory Committee hearings on food dyes in 2011. In their background documents for the Committee, they reviewed all previous studies, including the Southampton study. There they quoted the Committee on Toxicity's conclusion that "because of study limitations, the results could not be extrapolated to the general population, and further testing was recommended".[1]

The reason I have changed the order is to put it in the order in which they took place. The FDA quote was not a conclusion of the Advisory Committee at all, but part of the background documents given to Committee members. The quote from the FDA ducument, is quoting another document (can we do that?) attributed to the COT. Shulae (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

a little grammar error

I just noticed that there is a closing quote without any opening quote at the end of the paragraph under Food Coloring and Additives -- after the word recommended. Can someone remove it? Or I can, if you say okay. Shulae (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You and every other editor are free to work on the article. If your edits don't comply with our content policies, they may be reverted. Not a tragedy - this place is all about give and take but the discussion must be based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, not how people feel about stuff. Everybody here has patience with new editors, as long as they are willing to learn the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - my error, anyhow. I found the starting quote. Shulae (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I just checked the history and see that you added the original opening quotation marks -- I should have looked there first. Thanks. I also checked the quote in the FDA page cited, and it is accurate. So that's done. Shulae (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Genetic susceptibility to additives

Seems to be that PMID 20551163 PMID 20826852 buy the theory that some HNMT polymorphisms interact with exposure, explaining some of the conflicting results seen earlier. I'm curious though if there were controls for parental ADHD status as potential confounders in the studies. Parental ADHD could potentially contribute to baseline exposure (e.g. more fast food/junk food) and child's acquired preferences. This would show up as a correlation between the two without any implication about causality. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Those two sources are primary research and your question about them is a good example of why MEDRS requires secondary sources (related to the discussion above). —PermStrump(talk) 22:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you, LeadSongDog ... except that in the study you refer to, parents shouldn't matter. All the kids were put on an additive-free diet, and those with the genetic profile reacted more than others. So that should not be connected to whatever diet or preference they normally had at home. However, there are some good review studies we can use on this page. I will write up some possible paragraphs for consideration. Maybe tomorrow. Shulae (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I went through the article, improved a lot of refs, and marked many (hopefully most/all) primary research sources with {{Primary source-inline}}. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That is very helpful - I do understand, however, that primary studies are sometimes okay. How to determine that? I have been out of touch a while -- in Yellowstone, where internet was almost impossible to use. I will try and work on finding some good resources for these in the next few days. Shulae (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

pretty much never. Maybe a really huge clinical trial that gets published in NEJM that people have been really waiting for. Maybe. For almost all health content in WP there are adequate literature reviews and/or statements by major medical/scientific bodies. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In the article you linked to, it also mentions a "narrow-scope literature review" as included in a peer review journal article presenting new research. If I wanted to refer to such a lit review - and most primary research in this field starts with one - how would I appropriately do that?Shulae (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Secondary material in primary sources is also treated with suspicion, because it it not the principal focus of the paper and is often biased in order to lend weight to the study results. It may sometimes by okay for uncontentious claims. We should stick to good sources as defined by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sugar Regulation

In this section, the study on expectations is marked as primary research. Indeed, it is. It is a small one (15 matched pairs of kids)and an old one - 1994. It is not much included in reviews and I don't find anything really useful to improve its mention. I would like to remove this study description if nobody objects, and have a go at rewriting the paragraph. Shulae (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a review which discusses and is generally supportive of the interpretation of that primary reference. I think that the description is helpful in that knowing the method gives some credence to the claim, but I'm sure that it could also be written better. Klbrain (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge with ADHD article

It appears that related content is already covered in the ADHD article, under the "diet" section. That article doesn't appear to link to this article in any way. I would argue that a section there and a whole article here is redundant. I propose that this article be merged with that section. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 04:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is a subarticle of the main article. It goes into more detail than the ADHD article. The ADHD article is already long enough so oppose merging. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, it looks like a fair amount of content overlaps, so the merge wouldn't add a significant amount of text to the main article. I'm going to open for a RfC to get additional input. To clarify for any new editors, I previously had proposed this article for deletion based on NOTAJOURNAL and possible original research, but I have since retracted my suspicions about OR. I don't feel particularly strong about NOTAJOURNAL, my main issue is that this content seems redundant based on what is already in the ADHD article. I'm always open to constructive discussion and feedback. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Should this article be merged with the main ADHD article? Why or why not? ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a WP:RFC matter; please follow the directions at WP:MERGE - such as using tags like {{merge-from}} and {{merge-to}} on the articles concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No it should not be merged. The content here can be expanded. It should not be expanded at ADHD as more content on diet there would be WP:UNDUEDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm dropping the issue. Thanks everyone for your feedback. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hello, I have proposed a merge of Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Please join the merge discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Basilosauridae and Doc James who participated in a similar discussion in 2018. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)