Exploring the controversial dietary approach that promised to transform children's behavior by eliminating artificial additives
In the early 1970s, a California allergist proposed a radical idea that would forever change how parents and physicians think about children's behavior and nutrition. Dr. Benjamin Feingold suggested that artificial food additives—the colors, flavors, and preservatives common in processed foods—were responsible for the growing epidemic of hyperactivity in children. His proposed solution was simple yet revolutionary: eliminate these chemicals from the diet, and watch behavior improve. Thus was born the Feingold Diet, an approach that would become simultaneously celebrated by thousands of families and dismissed by much of the medical establishment. Even today, more than four decades after its introduction, this controversial diet continues to spark debate about the complex relationships between nutrition, brain chemistry, and behavior 3 .
The Feingold Diet emerged during a period of growing concern about chemicals in food, with diagnoses of hyperactivity rising steadily throughout the 1970s.
The Feingold Diet emerged during a perfect cultural storm—rising concerns about chemicals in food, increasing diagnoses of hyperactivity, and growing parental unease with treating children with powerful stimulant medications. Dr. Feingold's approach offered an appealing alternative: a natural solution that put power back in parents' hands. Yet despite enthusiastic anecdotal reports, the diet occupied a contentious position in medicine for decades, with researchers struggling to confirm or refute its effectiveness through scientific studies 8 .
Recent research has brought renewed attention to the possibility that food additives might indeed influence behavior in at least some children, suggesting that perhaps Feingold was onto something important, even if his initial claims were overstated. This article explores the fascinating history, science, and legacy of the Feingold Diet—a story that reveals as much about how medical knowledge is constructed as it does about nutrition and behavior.
The Feingold Diet is an elimination diet that requires removing specific substances from the diet that Dr. Feingold believed triggered hyperactivity and learning problems in sensitive children.
All prohibited substances are completely eliminated from the diet for several weeks, including medications and personal care products containing synthetic fragrances 6 .
After behavior improves (reportedly within 1-6 weeks), salicylate-containing foods are carefully reintroduced one at a time to identify specific triggers 4 .
Though Dr. Feingold initially developed his diet based on clinical observations rather than theoretical science, he proposed that certain children had a genetic sensitivity to these food chemicals that manifested as behavioral issues rather than traditional allergic reactions.
Artificial colors might disrupt the balance of neurotransmitters regulating attention and impulse control.
Food additives might trigger low-grade immune reactions that affect brain function.
Some children may have difficulty metabolizing phenolic compounds due to deficiencies in the sulfation pathway 7 .
While many studies have examined the Feingold Diet, one of the most frequently cited early investigations was published in Pediatrics in 1978: "Relative effects of drugs and diet on hyperactive behaviors: an experimental study." This research attempted to rigorously test Feingold's claims using double-blind methodology and compared the diet's effectiveness against stimulant medication, then (as now) the standard treatment for hyperactivity 2 .
The researchers designed a sophisticated experiment that involved 26 children diagnosed with hyperactivity who underwent four different treatment conditions in random order:
| Condition | Medication | Cookies | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active medication | Challenge cookies (with colors) | Test medication effectiveness with additives |
| 2 | Active medication | Control cookies (without colors) | Test medication effectiveness without additives |
| 3 | Placebo medication | Challenge cookies (with colors) | Test additive effects without medication |
| 4 | Placebo medication | Control cookies (without colors) | Establish baseline without interventions |
The findings revealed a complex picture that neither fully supported nor completely refuted Feingold's claims:
| Assessment Method | Medication Effect | Diet Effect | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher Ratings | Significant improvement | Significant effect of colors | No significant interaction |
| Parent Ratings | Significant improvement | Minimal effects | No significant interaction |
| Direct Observation | Not reported | Significant effect of colors | Not reported |
"While medication produced more dramatic and consistent effects, artificial food colors did appear to worsen behavior in a subset of hyperactive children."
Research into the Feingold Diet requires specific materials and methodologies to properly test its effectiveness. Here are key components of the research "toolkit" for studying diet-behavior relationships:
| Material | Function | Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Challenge foods | To experimentally test effects of specific additives | Must be identical to control foods in appearance, taste, and texture |
| Placebo medications | To control for medication effects when testing diet | Should be indistinguishable from active medication |
| Behavior rating scales | To quantitatively measure changes in behavior | Should be completed by multiple informants (parents, teachers, researchers) |
| Food composition databases | To identify natural salicylate content in foods | Salicylate levels can vary by plant variety and growing conditions |
| Double-blind protocols | To prevent bias in administration and evaluation | Crucial for maintaining scientific rigor |
After falling out of favor in the 1980s and 1990s, the Feingold Diet and related approaches have experienced something of a resurgence in recent years. This renewed interest stems from several developments:
Although early studies yielded mixed results, more recent research has provided stronger evidence that artificial food colors can indeed affect children's behavior:
Researchers increasingly recognize that children may vary dramatically in their sensitivity to food additives:
The modern Feingold Program, maintained by the Feingold Association, has evolved from its original formulation:
Despite these improvements, the diet remains challenging to implement and may not be necessary for all children with behavioral issues.
The story of the Feingold Diet offers important lessons about how we evaluate scientific evidence, particularly when it challenges established medical practices. Feingold's approach was initially dismissed by many medical professionals, yet persisted because of consistent anecdotal reports from families who found it transformative for their children 3 .
Today, we understand that the relationship between diet and behavior is complex and multifaceted. While the Feingold Diet in its strict original form is not necessary for most children, contemporary research suggests that reducing artificial additives may benefit some children—particularly those with existing behavioral issues or sensitivities 6 8 .
The Feingold Diet may not have been the revolutionary solution that its creator hoped, but it served an important purpose in prompting deeper investigation into how nutrition affects brain function and behavior.
As research continues to unravel the complex connections between gut health, immune function, and brain chemistry, we may come to appreciate that Feingold was simply ahead of his time in recognizing that what we eat affects not just our bodies, but our minds as well 8 .
Reference section to be populated with citation details