Pizza analogy (a little silly but still holds true)

Imagine that someone can’t stand Pizza. It disgusts them, makes them sick to their stomach, they don’t like the taste, the smell, they can’t even stand to look at it. Others tell them, “Well then don’t order it!” but that is not good enough. They are so repulsed by pizza and they imagine that there must be many others out there that feel the same way they do so they propose a measure to close down all the pizza places. They tell everyone how unhealthy and greasy and unnatural pizza is and how we cannot sit by and pretend it doesn’t exist, we must actually stop it from being made. Suppose people begin to be swayed by this argument and that a major smear campaign featuring anti-pizza politicians and celebrities and doctors spouting out statistics about pizza related health issues, succeeds in passing this measure and ridding the state of pizza once and for all. While this is an extreme example, the message is the same. Others eating pizza does not directly affect you, you can easily make the choice to eat something else but you will not be content until everyone is as disgusted by pizza as you are. You would be willing to eliminate my right to enjoy pizza just because the thought of it makes you uncomfortable.

bunch of stoners...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. A lot of stones were cast on November 4th condemning those living a homosexual lifestyle to a life on the fringe of society, tolerated but not accepted. Every person who cast a yes vote for Prop 8, especially in the name of God, should take a look at their own life and make sure they are "clean" in the eyes of their god. Isn't abortion a sin? infidelity? breaking marriage vows? lying? stealing? Who the hell are we to judge how other people lead their lives? I thought the Bible told us to leave that to God. Just another example of religious hypocrisy, it seems to me they are always picking and choosing the aspects of their religion that suit them at the moment and setting aside anything that would appear to be contradictory to their actions. The Bible is too long it seems, for anyone to remember ALL of what it says at any given time, so instead we are allowed to pick and choose passages as if they were sound bytes and spit them out at random without any contextualization. It just seems sad that in a state wherethe minorities ARE the majority and they want nothing more than to be accepted and embraced as equal, they would still choose to eliminate equal treatment for another minority group. One African American gentleman in the LA Times said, "they chose to be gay, I didn't choose to be black," as part of his reasoning for supporting discrimination of homosexuality. For a small percentage of the homosexual community, choice may have been a factor in their lifestyle, but for the majority, this is the way they were born and they are trying to accept it and live happy, fulfilling lives (rather than live in the closet like a lot of conservative christian political officials who continue to get caught in homosexual encounters or internet stings).

Holier Than Who?

On May 15, 2008 The Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right in the state of California. From May 15 through November 5, 18,000 same sex couples chose to get married. Proposition 8 was devised to reverse this Supreme Court decision, to change the California Constitution to ELIMINATE that right. A successful misinformation campaign was spearheaded by California churches and other religious organizations. The Yes on 8 Coalition succeeded in convincing voters that without Prop 8 their churches would be forced to perform the same sex unions and that schools would be required to teach children about homosexuality. What people seem to be forgetting (or ignoring) is the fact that without Proposition 8, the law would have stayed exactly the same as it had been since May. Following the Supreme Court decision there was no uproar, no change in curriculum, no mandate requiring churches to perform ceremonies that they did not support, only the implementation of equal recognition by the state and the community.
Even if you do not personally support gay marriage, a vote to amend the Constitution and overturn a Supreme Court ruling is a big deal. It seems that we, as a nation have taken a big step forward by electing an African American president but we obviously have a long way to go before we move past all of our discriminatory ways. Some argue that marriage is a traditional union that should be untouchable and unchangeable, but a brief look back to our history shows us that the definition of marriage has, in fact evolved to suit the times. Only since 1948 have interracial marriages been recognized as legal unions in the state of California, even as late as 1968 in some states.
The main supporters and funders of Proposition 8 were religious organizations. I wonder if this violates any boundaries between Church and State. Churches have a lot of untaxed revenue as well as a lot of influence upon their congregations and to decide to pour millions of dollars into a political campaign seems unconstitutional in itself.
Civil liberties should never be left up to a vote. The minority group in question will always end up on the losing side of the battle.
Supporters of the proposition talk of the sanctity of marriage as if there is not a 1:2 divorce rate and daily infidelity as well as numerous other disrespects to the union of marriage. Traditional marriage is rare in today’s society, most families are made up of step parents or single parents. The average person has more contact with divorced couples than with gay couples or even gay individuals. Nobody is asking you to embrace homosexuality, you do not have to help them, you do not have to applaud them, you do not have to support them but why deny them a basic happiness that comes and goes so easily for you and I? Your religion tells you it’s wrong? Your conscience? What about your heart? Shouldn’t religion be about spreading and sharing happiness? What about doing unto others as we would have them do unto us? Must we, in our fear of change and evolution, attempt to keep this minority in the shadows, ashamed and unhappy and unaccepted?
Your children will not go to school and learn to be homosexual because gays are allowed to be married. If anything, they will learn acceptance, tolerance, and kindness toward their fellow man. Would you love your child any less if they were gay? Wouldn’t you want them to be treated equally and accepted and allowed to experience the joys and pains of marriage and having a family? Just because a homosexual person wants to enter into the union of marriage does not mean they will take that step any more lightly than a straight person. The sanctity of marriage and the meaning of the vows and the commitment still hold true. Why would anyone feel that some love deserves this right more than others? Even with Proposition 8, homosexuals still exist, they still live amongst us, we cannot hide from the truth of the world, all we have done is shown the rest of the world that there is still a lot of fear and ignorance that needs to be addressed before we can see real progress and change.

Crime & Punishment

1. From a functionalist perspective, there are a number of reasons why a society may “need” crime. The existence of crime creates career opportunities for millions of people. In fact, if criminal activity was to stop altogether today, the government would probably pass new laws criminalizing more trivial offenses. Crime helps citizens recognize the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Rules and laws are a part of the glue that holds society together. However, no society could enforce total conformity. It would be too repressive. Instead, they give citizens just enough room to make their own decisions and then punish them when they make the “wrong” decision. Crime and punishment strengthens the norms and the ideals about behavior that a society holds and demonstrates its values.
2. Racial profiling acts as a self fulfilling prophecy. If there are ten cars driving by and 5 are driven by minorities, racial profiling would pull those 5 over on the basis of “probable cause” and maybe find 2 out of the 5 guilty of some traffic or legal infraction thus validating their belief that minorities commit more crimes than white people. However, if the 5 white drivers had been pulled over, the chances that 2 out of those 5 had committed some infraction would be just as likely. Racial profiling undermines public confidence in law enforcement and erodes the legitimacy of the justice system. People, minorities especially, become so fearful of law enforcement officials and so willingly compliant that the result is exactly what the profiling meant to accomplish. A decrease in attempted crime by minority races. While such discrimination may seem to have societal benefits like lowered criminal activity and increased compliance during routine traffic stops, I do not believe the benefits outweigh the costs. I believe that far more damage is done to the credibility of law enforcement agencies as well as the possibility of increased criminal activity by white members of society who may feel that they can get away with more since the police seem to be watching minorities more closely.
3. Laws were first intended to “correct the effect, and check the cause”; punishment was only meant to prevent future mischief. Punishment only needs to be severe enough to produce the desired effect of compliance and anything more severe is superfluous and therefore tyrannical. If the paradigm shifted and value was placed on leading men to the maximum of happiness and the minimum of misery instead of a maximum of obedience, with money poured into education and employment programs, and emphasis on community involvement rather than increasing police, implementing new laws, and constructing more jails, the crime problem would begin to solve itself. The law enforcement industry is far too lucrative, and the implementation of new, tougher laws and stronger punishments only stands to create more criminals and thus more revenue. NCPA.org (The National Center for Policy Analysis) reports that punishment does work as a deterrent to future offenses and that those that receive harsher punishments are less likely to be repeat offenders than those who received softer, alternative treatment. They also dispute labeling theory and the effectiveness of rehabilitation. However, other research has shown that harsher punishments and tougher laws have done little to deter crime. The three strikes law, for example has had little effect on the recurrence of criminal behavior.There could be a number of reasons for the steady increase in violent and aggressive behavior. From media representation of violence and frequent images on the news, to untamed frustration and lack of self control. It is definitely too rampant to blame on individual responsibility alone. There is a societal value at play that seems to be normalizing aggressive behavior, especially among boys and more recently among girls as well. Two functionalist theories that relate to increased aggression are strain theory and social bond theory. Strain theory would propose that people tend to act more aggressively when they are exposed to goals they cannot reach. Social bond theory would say that people’s ties to society are generally weaker than in the past and that would explain the increase in aggression. Symbolic Interactionists value Differential association theory, which would theorize that since aggression and violent behavior is becoming a societal norm, individuals will be more likely to associate with deviants and therefore more likely to participate in criminal behavior.

it's NORML

I tend to agree with NORML’s policy for marijuana decriminalization. I believe that personal responsible use by adults in their home or another safe environment should be legal. Alcohol causes far more problems than marijuana in our society but because it is taxable and brings in a lot of revenue both in sales and in penalties, legislators turn a blind eye to the problems associated with alcohol use. Inversely, marijuana, with its medicinal properties and rare troubles associated with its use, because it is so easy to grow and not so easy to tax, has been demonized, and its use, criminalized. If they applied the same laws to marijuana that they do to alcohol then state revenue would go up and jails would stop being crowded with “criminal” marijuana users. I know a lot of people whose only problem with marijuana is the fact that it is illegal. If it was legalized for medicinal or responsible personal use with laws framed around selling, purchasing, driving and age limits rather than simple possession, we may find fewer legal troubles surrounding marijuana use than alcohol related incidents.

Religious Implications of AA

As a person who is very familiar with the world of addiction and recovery my opinion is that 12 step programs have taken human nature’s tendency to crave support and belonging and turned it into a way for people to replace the negative addictions in their life with more positive addictions. I think that Rational Recovery’s methods are more practical in theory, however, not a lot of people, especially addicts, are strong enough to stand on their own feet right away after letting go of an addiction and having a strong support group may be part of that important first step. The problem with AA is that people don’t tend to ever “graduate” , even if they have completed their 12 steps they continue to come to meetings. Some hang around because they feel like they owe it to the newcomers who will need the advice of someone who has recovered but others come because they still need to be there, they do not know how to deal with life’s issues without the Book or the other members. Many times it appears that they have replaced one addiction with another and still haven’t learned how to find the strength inside them to be able to survive without support. AA is definitely a religion. Prayer, belief in a higher power, a Big Book that answers all of your questions, a sense of belonging and community and the “cult-style mind control.” AA is a very popular organization and it has helped a lot of people recover from drug and alcohol addiction, however I do not feel that recruiting lifetime members should be a part of AA’s message. I think for individuals who do not have the strength to do things on their own or are totally without any positive support in their lives AA (and religion!) can be very positive forces in a person’s life. The steps are meant to bring you to the same place that Rational Recovery ends up but without the dependence on a group of outside influences that are not guaranteed to always be there.

Overmedicated and Under-educated

Most definitely I think that Americans take too many medications. We tend to be big fans of the quick fix and we have been socially conditioned that if we have a problem there is a pill out there that can fix it. American society, as with many other world societies have put a lot of trust and faith in our doctors, the trouble with this is that in some cases insurance and pharmaceutical companies tend to have more effect on the doctors orders than the patients immediate well being. The pharmaceutical industry is a huge money maker and more often than not a doctor will write a prescription to take care of the symptom rather than trying to find the root of the problem. If you look at the advertising in most magazines, television shows and websites, they are all pushing medications and prescription drugs for everything from headaches to “restless leg syndrome,” some commercials don’t even tell you what the pill is for, they just say ask your doctor if such and such pill is right for you.

Freedom of Sexual Behavior

Well, now that marriage itself is becoming an outdated complex- with more and more adults being disillusioned with the sanctity of the commitment due to the fact that over 50% of marriages end in divorce- I do not feel that any decisions made by two consenting, tax paying adults should be considered criminal if it does no harm to them or any other individual. I think sex outside of marriage when you have agreed to the commitment of marriage should be a crime (at the very least a breach of contract) and may deter a lot of marital infidelity. I, as a Libertarian believe in limited government and a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. Respect for individual rights is essential to freedom. Beyond individual actions and decisions, society or the representatives we elect to our state should set the standard for what is acceptable but not by their personal, moral beliefs but by common public consensus and only those issues which concern the group as a whole and not individual actions within. Each adult should have a right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, the freedom to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

The Immigration Issue

I cannot speak for others but I know that I feel strongly against anyone who attempts to come here illegally. I fully support those who attempt to come and live and work her the right way and pay taxes and become active members of society but I do not believe that social services, healthcare and public education should be extended to illegal immigrants. California is in the hole, financially speaking, due partly to the fact that we are carrying a lot of individuals on our backs. As tax paying citizens we should not have to worry that our resources are supporting people who are not willing to put in the same amount of work and money. This goes along with the cultural segregation: Individuals that want to come here and take all of the good that we have to offer in this country (and in this state) but they want to sacrifice nothing in return. We need to have a sense of reciprocal altruism in order to not be taken advantage of. The wealth and resources of this country are being exploited and we cannot afford to be nice anymore. I do not think the trend of Latino migration will change, if that is what the question was regarding, if it meant will the fight against the Latinos will change, I think that it will inevitably change. Whether by means of laws enacted to enforce immigration regulations or simply by the fact that there is already an overwhelmingly large latino population that has brought with them a strong sense of culture and an unwillingness to bend to local values and lifestyle. I do not believe that there are many people who are strongly opposed to individuals, regardless of ethnicity, who want to come here and work and vote and pay taxes and become active members in their community and work toward the goals of society as a whole, the opposition comes from not wanting to take care of people who refuse to take care of themselves. With a money shortage and a job shortage and overpopulation draining our resources and crowding our highways, all people want is for someone to come and “grab onto the rope” to help get us out of this hole rather than weighing us down more and making it even harder for us, as a nation to pull ourselves out.

The Myth of The Melting Pot?

the realities of the United States show that we are no longer moving toward the development of a multi-ethnic society in which the ingredients in the pot (the people of different cultures, races and religions) are combined. Instead, as the article stated, our nation will continue to ”fracture into separate, disconnected communities with no shared sense of commonality or purpose.” People want to come to this country to start a new life but they do not want to let go of their old life, their old ideals, their old culture. They simply want to find others who share the culture of their homeland and create mini-societies here where they never have to fully integrate into the life and culture of the “natives” around them. It is pretty sad that most children don’t view America as the best country anymore (although in this political day and age I can’t say that I blame them much)- children used to at least be taught to have pride in their country and look beyond the differences in individuals. Now, they are being taught one thing at school and the complete opposite at home and by the time they reach the critical age (somewhere around Junior High School) the divisive lines have already been drawn and the cliques begin to form.
Immigrants seem to be opposed to this assimilation of culture because they feel that it somehow devalues their ethnic origin but in my cold, callous way I must ask, if your culture is so great and you are so proud of it why didn’t you just stay there?? I don’t go to Egypt and insist that everyone speak English or complain because there are not enough American restaurants, clubs, organizations etc. I go in a totally open and accepting way of their culture and am even willing to modify my “American ways” in order to show respect to their culture by not dressing skimpily or behaving in ways that are contradictory to their cultural norms.

Do Ethnic Pride events perpetuate stereotypes?

I think ethnic pride events definitely perpetuate stereotypes. We have Black Entertainment Television, Black Miss America, innumerable Latino and African American events and yet we are made to feel as if the segregation and discrimination comes from the Caucasian community. One is only a victim to the degree that they allow themselves to feel victimized. Any minority group that propagates the cultural and physical differences yet insists that they want to be treated as part of the whole are grossly mistaken in thinking that others are the ones that cause the separation. I do believe that Individual discrimination and racism occur but on a larger scale, racism is largely brought about by the constant reminders that “they” are different. All cultures should be respected in their own right but to ignore the culture of the country where you choose to reside and claim superiority of your own culture is instilling more division and more conflict where there need not be.If we eliminated Black Pride, Latino Pride and other minority organizations and had more American Pride events or groups that focus on the commonalities that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity then we create an environment of unity and togetherness rather than division and fragmentation. There are certain issues that transcend race and exist among us as a people. We do not need to find our “community spirit” amongst our ethnic lines (which are becoming more and more blurred as mixed races are born daily); there are plenty of ways to “classify” ourselves if belonging to a group is so important- values, religion, politics, family… It is obviously important to know where we come from and respect and cherish that culture and teach it to our children but it is equally important to know where we are and where we are headed.

The Propoganda Virus

Media outlets and news sources claim to provide us with unbiased information yet it is clear that the owners and corporate sponsors prefer that a certain message or underlying promotion of values be expressed. They expect stories to be presented in a certain way and they expect that certain stories will be given more attention than others. Any time a message is aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people rather than providing impartial information we are being subjected to propaganda. We are being manipulated and directed. We are presented with selective facts that exploit our insecurities and agitate our sentiments leading us to bypass rational thought and instead react to stories in an emotional manner.
I used to only notice the propaganda in advertisements and commercials guiding consumers to buy certain products or to eat at certain restaurants but then I became aware of how pervasive this mechanism really is. Just the words used to describe something can mold the way we think about it. Anyone can successfully argue their side when you are not given a chance to hear the other side. Take, for example, The Voter Registration guide- if you only read the pro side of every proposition you would be likely to vote yes on all of them because the representatives who write the pro argument are trained in how to phrase things that evoke a certain response.
Propaganda is everywhere; it is used by advertisers, the medical industry, politicians, radio personalities and journalists-anyone that has an interest or a benefit in influencing behavior. It is hard to keep emotion or opinion out of issues; it creeps in even if on a subtle, subconscious level, the reader/viewer generally knows the presenter’s opinion of the topic. It is the individual’s responsibility to control how they process all of this information. Rather than control the images we are bombarded with on a daily basis (since there is such a thing as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion to be considered) we should attempt to control our sources of input. We should become informed and examine both sides of an issue before making decisions. We must resist the short cut past rationality and learn how to think independently and how to make up our minds rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
The responsibility of the advertiser, media, press etc. is to be honest about the stance that they are taking on an issue and not claim to be unbiased in their presentation of “the facts.” It has become increasingly difficult to find impartial sources on anything from health to politics to world news. We need more sources allowing us to see both sides of the argument. With the implementation of the internet people are able to access limitless information from all perspectives. It is wise to examine more than a few sources before drawing your conclusion on an issue.
Propaganda is unavoidable in this era of capitalism. It doesn’t seem to be a trend that is going away any time soon. It works! They capitalize on the ambiguous nature of language and bend the rules of logic to convey their message. Anyone that has something to gain-or lose by presenting a certain stance should not be trusted as an impartial source.

Surviving vs. Thriving

In the article Paradigm Shift: Why A Focus On Health Is Important, Ickovics and Park attempt to break down the concept of thriving and characteristics common to individuals or groups who thrive following stressful or adverse situations. They suppose that there are certain universal factors that determine how people deal with stressful events. This article begins to dissect why some people or groups of people go beyond survival and recovery following a stressor or illness and thrive.
First, they examine the conceptual considerations, knowing that we must have a grasp on what exactly we mean by thriving before we can understand how and why it occurs. Is it decreased reactivity to future stressors, faster recovery from challenge or a consistently higher level of functioning? Do personality and coping processes lead to growth and thriving? Is it related to physical health through the window of hormonal balance?
Methodological issues are also covered. The problem with using traditional research models to examine thriving is that the researcher’s values could compromise the impartial analysis of the subject. Also outlined are a few personal and social accounts which show that changes in self perception, priorities, attitude, social connection and beliefs affect resiliency. Along with these changes, factors such as parenting and strength of family and community tend to contribute to the thriving of nations and individuals.
In the study of the social context of thriving, the role of race, class and gender equality in the organization of a society is discussed. Thriving in the face of a challenge seems to be largely determined by one’s location in the social hierarchy. It is suggested that if we begin to move away from vulnerability and deficit models to focus instead on triumphs in the face of adversity we may see a paradigm shift. We focus so much on telling people their weaknesses that they forget they have strengths!
The conclusion of this article finds that incorporating these various interdisciplinary methodologies to the scientific study of thriving can enhance our understanding of health, not just for individuals but also as applied to families, organizations and even nations attempting to recover in the face of profound challenge. The authors were successful in conveying their message that a change of thinking is necessary. It is time to shift the paradigm from illness to health. There has been too much focus on what makes people sick instead of what makes them well. By focusing on the scientific implications of thriving versus surviving we can develop programs of intervention and prevention with an eye toward enhancing health and well being rather than simply promoting a return to the status quo. It is time to stop thinking that “not being sick” is the same as “being healthy.”

Functionalism

I think that when this country was built it was with the intent of laying out a Functionalist society. At a time when the nation's best minds planned for the future of the greater good. Where social institutions were developed to organize main concerns and activities of the people. But a boom in population, technology and knowledge (all in a relatively short time period) pushed us into a state of chronic revolution, where we experienced the effects of militarism, segregation, Vietnam... ; these are just a few issues that divided our country. We no longer shared the same values and ideals (anomie). Thus began the Era of Conflict Theory. Capitalism, discrimination, the continuous power struggle for control, us vs. Them. United we stand, divided we fall right? Well, in my opinion, the leaders today are not interested in closing the gap that was created over the past 70 years, this state of chaos is much more beneficial to them because they can portray the conflicts and constant chaos as a need for an even stronger means of controlling the people. They are creating the values they want us to have and constantly sending mixed messages which lead to more confusion, division and chaos, not to mention crime and violence. The media shows us individual stories from an interactionist perspective which makes it appear as though those are the norms of the day, but if the news would spend half as much time highlighting the positive stories; the students who rose up over insurmountable odds, random acts of kindness, charity, goodwill, praising intelligence instead of promoting the dumbing down of America, maybe things would be different... I think that Americans, in a general sense still believe we exist under the functionalist paradigm. They believe these institutions were set up to create order and stability and if there is a dysfunction occuring it is because of us, the individuals, not the institutions as a whole. They are conditioned to think that we just need to keep working, keep moving, get back on track if we want to believe that any improvement in the state of society is possible. It is much harder, I think, for people to accept chaos as the natural state of things because we all WANT order and direction, we don't want to have to make decisions; just tell us what to do so we don't screw it up!! This may have worked when our leaders were society's brightest and wisest, but now it is not about leadership ability and decision making skills, it is about money and popularity and control... Sad, I hope one day (soon) things shift in a more positive direction, otherwise there may be no turning back.

Do Food Dyes Affect Children's Behavior?

Over the past few years many differing opinions have surfaced regarding sugar and whether it has an effect on children’s behavior or whether it is the activity and excitement surrounding the sugary treats that causes the over-stimulation. Most parents blame the sugar for their children’s behavior but The Center for Science in the Public Interest has concluded that artificial food dyes are a more likely culprit.
The Center has filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban eight artificial food colors that are currently used in processed foods. They are also asking the FDA to require warnings on the labels of food containing the dyes until the ban passes and to require neurotoxicity tests for new dyes and additives.
In the 1970’s Dr. Ben Feingold discovered the link between food dyes and hyper-activity but his studies failed to prove a conclusive link. In the last ten years interest in this topic has been renewed and studies are beginning to show a definite connection between attention and behavior problems and the consumption of artificial dyes and additives. The article cites numerous studies that concluded that the dyes did in fact have a significant effect on children’s behavior. The study does not yet consider what possible long term effects may occur from over-exposure to the synthetic additives.
Food manufacturers could use a natural pigment in their products rather than the petrochemical and coal tar based chemical dyes that are presently used but it costs a little more and some U.S. companies do not want to have to raise their prices. However, Pete Maletto, a food scientist and consultant from New Jersey argues that people will gladly pay 10 cents more for a product that says No Artificial Flavors. The majority of food makers though, won’t act unless the FDA bans the colors or requires a warning label.
Chapter 5 in our book deems such studies to be fallacy. It states that there is no link between sugar or additives and hyperactivity. Instead, the book blames ADHD and related behavior problems to protein-calorie nutrition deficiency in infancy. While problems stemming from infancy can never fully be reversed, problems arising from poor nutrition in later childhood can be treated with nutritional rehabilitation.
Chapter 4 teaches about the FDA and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act as well as the laws regarding the listing of specific information about food additives on labels.
I found a couple possible examples of bias in the article. Child psychologist Scott Benson says he hasn’t seen enough evidence to warn parents of the link but he treats hyperactive children and may have financial interests at the heart of his skepticism. Professor Mark Meskin of Cal Poly Pomona also rejects the idea of a wholesale ban on synthetic dyes. He would like the studies to pinpoint which artificial colors have problems before taking drastic measures. He is a spokesman for the food industry trade group Institute of Food Technologists who may also be concerned with profit margins.
There is one thing everyone can agree on. A child with a diet rich in nutrients and vitamins and with little or no artificial dyes or additives will be less likely to have behavioral problems than a child who is malnourished and gets most of his calories from artificially colored, highly processed foods.