Learning Begins in a Healthy Body
(an excerpt from the Healthy School Lunch Action Guide)
Our health care crisis becomes easier to understand when we begin to understand the relationship between diet and disease, and yet there is another crisis facing our nation-the literacy crisis.
The Department of Education has high aspirations for reaching some challenging
academic performance goals by the year 2000. One of their goals states "that every school in America. will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning." It is ironic that we talk about freeing our schools of drugs, yet we feed our children animal products containing antibiotics, growth hormone residue, and which are contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and artificial colors, flavors and preservatives. A conducive environment for learning must first be created in the body. According to a recent study, 50% of our adult population is functionally illiterate. Given the importance of nutrition in academic performance, the Department of Education's National Education GOALS 2000 are unrealistic unless they include good nutrition as an integral component in their accomplishment.
To demonstrate what good nutrition can do for students' ability to learn, here are the results of some remarkable case studies as narrated by John Robbins in his new book, Reclaiming Our Health. This excerpt was taken from the Chapter entitled "Hugs Not Drugs," where the author discusses how frequently Ritalin is prescribed in the U.S. for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (adhd). Drawing on a large body of research and heattrending stories, the author shows the link between the food children eat and how they behave. The author cites one remarkable study conducted in New York City which measured the largest gain in academic test scores ever assessed in any comparable period of time in any metropolitan school district in the country. If your child or anyone you know has been diagnosed with adhd or has any behavior or emotional symptoms, we highly recomrnend reading this chapter in Reclaiming Our Health for greater understanding, and for more resources on this subject.
If You Love Me Don't Feed Me Junk Food
Among the many factors that shape the lives of children, nutrition often plays a critical role. As research in the last few decades has focused on the nutritional factors that affect the way our brains process information, it has become increasingly evident that what children eat can exert an enormous influence over the molecular environment and neurochemical functioning of their brains, and hence over the way they think, learn, and act. Many studies
have found, for example, that children with higher intakes of B vitamins and other brain- active micronutrients do better in school than those children whose diets are lower in these nutrients. Other studies have found that children who are exposed to heavy metals (such as lead, cadmium or mercury) through their food, air or water have reduced learning and memory, and impaired functioning of the central nervous system. Marian Cleeves Diamond, Ph.D., of the University of California at Berkeley is among the world's foremost researchers who have described the impact of environmental factors, A including nutrition, on the anatomy and function of the brain. Her work has shown conclusively that environmental enrichment through sensory and nutritional stimulation "results in an increased number and size of synapses, conical thickening of the brain, and increased potential to secrete the neurotransmitters that regulate neuronal function."
Might it be that some of the children who are diagnosed as hyperactive are experiencing altered brain chemistry due to poor nutrition? Might some of them be reacting to chemical pollution in their diets, and particularly to the presence of artificial additives in their food?
I have been struck by the many parents of children diagnosed as hyperactive who are frustrated and do not want to put their kids on drugs, yet are unable to find other answers for their children. Fortunately, I have seen many of them achieve worthwhile results when they turn to programs like the one developed by Dr. Ben Feingold at the Kaiser- Permanente Medical Center in San Francisco.
In 1973, this distinguished pediatrician and allergist told a meeting of the AMA that food additives were responsible for 40 to 50 percent of the hyperactivity he had seen in his practice. He had found that a substantial number of hyperactive children improved dramatically when they stopped eating foods that contained artificial colorings, flavors, and certain preservatives. Additionally, he found that a variety of childhood learning disabilities and other behavioral problems were reduced by the same diet changes.
The Feingold program is based on the fact that although most human beings have the ability to tolerate a certain amount of exposure to harmful substances, some of us are more reactive biochemically than others. Some of us are not having an easy time coping with a world where neither our water nor our air is pure, where we are exposed to countless chemicals every day that have never been known in nature until the last few decades, and where our food has been subjected to processing and refining that removes essential nutrients and adds a plethora of artificial chemicals. For children who happen to be especially sensitive, the three most troublesome chemicals-synthetic food dyes, artificial flavorings, and preservative scan cause a host of physical, emotional, and mental reactions, and lead to being diagnosed as hyperactive.
Unfortunately, many parents, educators and physicians believe that the Feingold program has been disproven. This erroneous idea stems from a series of studies undertaken during the late 1970s which purported to find Feingold's methods wanting, and which were widely quoted. But these studies were subsequently discovered to be seriously flawed. One study, for example, eliminated only eight of the more than 3,000 additives in our food supply, and when children did not show major improvement, wrote the whole program off as worthless. Others were undertaken by the Nutrition Foundation, an organization funded by the makers of Coca Cola, Fruit Loops and C & H Sugar and other junk food manufacturers. The studies took hyperactive kids, gave them doses of either additives or placebos, and then noted very little difference in response. But an analysis of the controversy, published in the journal Science in 1980, revealed that the methodology of these studies seemed almost intentionally designed to discredit the Feingold program. The researchers had used doses of the additives that were far too small to produce a noticeable effect. In fact, when the amounts were raised to a level commensurate with children's typical eating habits, the hyperactivity/food additive link was confirmed. Eighty-five percent of the hyperactive children reacted adversely when they were exposed to realistic levels of artificial colorings, flavorings, preservatives, and other synthetic food additives. In 1985, Lancet published the most convincing evidence to date. In an extremely well designed study, 79 percent of hyperactive children improved when suspect foods were eliminated from their diets, only to become worse again when the foods were reintroduced.
Artificial colorings and flavorings were the most serious culprits; sugar was also found to have a noticeable effect when parents are willing to try the Feingold approach, the results can be extraordinary. One such mother, Gayle Giza, described a long history of disappointment and frustration with her son, Mark. Finally, she tried the Feingold program. Mark was willing, she says, because he "had become so unhappy with his life by the time he was ten years old, he welcomed a chance to change things.... After we began the program he no longer had problems which we hadn't even identified as problems! He could come to the dinner table and sit down without spilling everything, could go to sleep without rocking, and stopped talking out in his sleep. He stopped incessantly teasing his sister, being argumentative, and could now turn off the TV without a confrontation. I soon received a letter from his teacher, which says 'Mark is a pleasure to have in class.' After ten years of worry and searching, I can't describe the feelings this brought. Needless to say, I still have the letter.
Mark had no problems with reading or spelling after that, and sixth grade was a real success story. . . . The day our ten-year old told us, 'I really like me the way I am now,' I knew no amount of effort would have been too much."
Of course, a program can generate anecdotal success stories without being grounded in scientific testing. It may work for a few kids here and there without being of any use to the vast majority. Do programs that improve nutrition and remove chemical additives in children's diets actually have value on a large scale? I have found that the scientific literature supporting such programs, though not widely known to the general public, is impressive.
A series of studies in the l98Os removed the chemical additives and reduced the sugar in the diets of juvenile delinquents. Overall, 8,076 young people in twelve juvenile correctional facilities were involved. 'The result? Deviant behavior fell 47 percent. In Virginia, 276 juvenile delinquents at a detention facility housing particularly hardened adolescents were put on the diet for two years. During that time, the incidence of theft dropped 77 percent, insubordination dropped 55 percent, and hyperactivity dropped 65 percent. In Los Angeles County probation detention halls, 1,382 youths were put on the diet. Again, the results were excellent. There was a 44 percent reduction in problem behavior and suicide attempts. These and other studies have found that when troubled youngsters are put on a healthy diet based on nutrient-dense foods like whole grains, vegetables, and fruits, and avoid sugar and artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives, the results are predictably outstanding.
Supplementary vitamins and other essential nutrients also often help. A number of double-blind placebo-controlled studies have found that the frequency of antisocial behavior in juveniles is lowered significantly by appropriate supplementation.12 One remarkable double-blind, placebo-controlled study actually compared Ritalin directly with Vitamin B6. Published in 1979 in the Journal of Biological Psychiatry, a mainstream psychiatric journal, this study found that high doses of Vitamin B6 actually did a better job than Ritalin at reducing hyperactivity. Vitamin B6 is, of course, far cheaper (Ritalin prescriptions cost $3-$60 per month) and far safer than the drug, and the study's protocol was outstanding. Nevertheless, most psychiatrists continued on the Ritalin bandwagon.
In 1992, Jane Hersey, Executive Director of the Feingold Association of the United States, explained why she and others work as volunteers for the organization: "I hear some chilling stories from parents of troubled children. They are told that their children are abnormal and have a deficiency that can be corrected by Ritalin. Some doctors call it 'replacement therapy,' as though the drug were a naturally occurring substance. We hear about teachers and counselors telling parents-' If you really loved him, you'd agree to give him the medication.' We hear of doctors prescribing Ritalin or Valium to two-year - olds. We know of parents coerced by treatment centers to agree to multiple medications, and of families facing bankruptcy as a result of these expensive yet unsuccessful therapies.
We know of adhd groups run by professionals with a vested interest in the choice of treatment, and of pharmaceutical industries supplying money to such groups. The trend appears to be growing, and with frightening speed."
(The Feingold Association of the U.S. can be contacted at: P.O. Box 6550, Alexandria, VA 22306)
One Million American School Children Change Their Diets
Perhaps the most amazing study of all those ever undertaken regarding the Feingold diet and children occurred when no less than 803 public schools in New York city were put on the diet for four years.15 Dr. Elizabeth Cagan (the Chief Administrator of the Office of School Food and Nutrition Services for the New York City Public School System Board of Education), and Barbara Freidlander Meyer (City-wide Nutrition Education Supervisor), decided to test what effect, if any, the Feingold diet would have on academic performance. Over a period of several years, they gradually eliminated all artificial colors and flavors, and the preservatives bha and bht, from the schools' cafeterias, while also reducing the amount of sugar available.
It was an extremely large scale, ambitious and ingenious experiment. The dietary modifications were introduced in a series of steps that took place simultaneously in all 803 schools. The alterations took place in the school years 1979-1980, 198El98l, and 1982- 1983. The reason no changes were made in 1981-1982 was to insure that any results that might be obtained during the course of the experiment would in fact be due to the dietary improvements, and not due to some other unknown occurrence that might be taking place simultaneously.
The school children were tested each year using the standard California Achievement Test. The testing began several years before the dietary modifications commenced, and continued throughout.
The results were spectacular. In the three years before the experiment began, the schools placed in the 41st percentile, the 43rd percentile, and the 39th percentile, compared to other schools in the country. After the first year of dietary improvement, during which the Feingold program was partially implemented, the schools jumped to the 47th percentile. The second year, when the program was implemented further, the schools advanced to the 51st percentile. Interestingly, the next year, when no further dietary improvements were made, no increase in academic performance was found. The schools simply held steady in the 51st percentile. The following year, when the program was implemented further, the schools jumped to the 55th percentile.
When the study was published in the International Journal of Biosocial Research, the authors wrote, "In short, New York City Public Schools raised their mean national academic performance percentile rating from 39.2 percent to 54.9 percent in four years, with the gains occurring in the first, second and fourth years (precisely when the dietary improvements were made)."
This was the largest such gain ever measured in any comparable periodEdf time in any metropolitan school district in the country. But that's not all. The researchers added: "In 1979 (before the dietary changes), 12.4 percent of the one million student sample were performing two or more grades below the proper level. Yet, by the end of the 1983 year, & the rate had dropped to 4.9 percent. Again, all gains were found in 1980, 1981, and 1983 (corresponding exactly to the dietary improvements)."17 Such stunning results were obtained even though only cafeteria and other at-school meals were modified. No attempt was made to alter what children ate at home. Since only a relatively small percentage of these children's food intake took place at school, we can only imagine how great the benefits would be if children's entire diets were improved. When foods containing artificial additives are eliminated, and foods high in sugar are dramatically reduced, the benefits that are gained are not simply due to the elimination and reduction of offending substances. This kind of dietary change almost inevitably involves a corresponding shift to more whole and natural foods. Diets become higher in fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and more plant-based proteins. They become lower in fat, and lower in adulterated, refined, and highly-processed foods.
The New York study, entitled The Impact of a low Food Additive and Sucrose Diet on Academic Performance in 803 New York City Public Schools, was published by The International Journal of Biosocial Research, Publication Office: P.O. Box 1174, Tacoma, WA 98401-1174.
Reclaiming Our Health, by John Robbins' For information on how to order Johns' book see Appendix Three, Resources.
More From Our Action Guide
[ Up ] [ Family Size Recipies ] [ Institutional Recipies ] [ Nutritional Facts ] [ Heroes for Health ] [ Now What Do I Eat ] [ 10 Reasons ] [ Our Food Our Planet ] [ Learning Begins ]
[ Healing America's Youth ]
Spirit
In Action
2525-E4
Arapahoe Ave. Suite 322
Boulder, CO 80303
(720) 839-8700
hchp@spiritinaction.org
Action Guide copy write @1994 Earthsave Foundation