has anybody else found fruit shoot is a behavioural disaster

[zippitippitoes]

in toddlers?

I think nulcat you'll see that i couldn't have come from a less judgemental position, the thread was an enquiry to see if this drink had produced challenging behaviour in young children..observed by their parents or anyone else.

Now I've looked into it some more I think it is justified to wonder why soft drinks manufacturs are marketing artificially sweetened drinks for children and doing this by trying to capture a healthy image.

i think young children have challenging behaviour no matter what they eat and drink!!

anyway its friday night and ive got other plans that dont involve discussing sweeteners im off to celebrate paddys day with a vast consumption of additives of the alcoholic kind which im sure will lead to a change in my behaviour!

there's a lot of evidence to suggest that isn't the case

I haven't read the whole of this thread yet but my DD is taking part in a 'Food & Behaviour in Children' study by Southampton University. The main things they are studying is sodium benzoate, tartrazine and the 'sunset yellow' E number, along with some others. DD has to have an additive/preservative free diet for 6 weeks and we have a booklet of all the drinks/foods/sweets etc she can and can't have and fruit shoots are a big no-no.

That stuff is crap. DD1 has never had anything but watered down fruit juice and milk. Aspartame tastes disgusting and I don't believe in fake food or sweetners. Gag.

Well I'll stick my neck out here and say that my children have a fruit shoot on the odd occasion that we take them out somewhere, eg for a meal at PizzaHut. So maybe once a month, twice?

Doesn't seem to affect them, and I can live with my decision.

oh zephyr [thrilled geek nerd emoticon]

is that the ongoing 2004 to 2007 study which I've just found on the food standards agency website?

I'm surprised they haven't answered my email yet!

In Darryl's reply he says that

The enormous cost of these drinks is what principally drives the soft drink industry. Not health of the customers.

They take a tiny proportion of natural ingredient..fruit juice...and then add water, to make it look and taste full strength they then have to find the cheapest possible additives to colour and flavour it. One reason for using artificial sweeteners is that theoretically and in the eyes of the consumer sugar is bad for teeth, but also..

Sugar is cheap. It costs about 6p to sweeten one litre of soft drink. But some artificial sweeteners are even cheaper, costing only 2p or 3p to sweeten one litre of drink. You might expect to pay less for artificially sweetened drinks, but most manufacturers sell their sugary and artificially sweetened drinks at the same price.

There are only a few artificial sweeteners permitted in foods, and these are restricted to certain uses. Acesulfame-K (E950) and Aspartame (E951) are 200 times sweeter than sugar. Saccharin (E954) is 350 times sweeter than sugar. There's also a new sweetener starting to be used in some foods and drinks, called Sucralose.

In the case of fruit shoot having made it from a tiny amount oif natural fruit juice they then add vitamins to give it a healthy image. This is because drinks perceived as unhealthy are experiencing declining sales and juice drinks sales are increasing.

I am a dental nurse and until DD was eating/drinking a more varied diet I was always recommend "sugar free" "no added sugar" as an alternative to sugar.

NOW, however, knowing what I know about these addatives I will always opt for the full sugar version, on the basis that I would rather DD had some sugar than a load of addatives that would do god knows what to her system.

I think we have a long & hard fight on our hands to get this subject realised. From what I have read here, there are more incidents of problematic behaviour after these drinks have been consumed than not.

I am a dental nurse and until DD was eating/drinking a more varied diet I was always recommend "sugar free" "no added sugar" as an alternative to sugar.

NOW, however, knowing what I know about these addatives I will always opt for the full sugar version, on the basis that I would rather DD had some sugar than a load of addatives that would do god knows what to her system.

I think we have a long & hard fight on our hands to get this subject realised. From what I have read here, there are more incidents of problematic behaviour after these drinks have been consumed than not.

sorry for double post, am on PC in library (my broke ) and didn't think it had sent!

My mum insists on giving kids fruit shoots for the 3 hour car journey back home. Needless to say the ride home is a thoroughly pleasant experience . She also tries to give them refresher bars, but these get sneakily binned before we set off.

it is the only time they drink them but they are yuk na d taste horrid. The kids only really have fruit juice and water DD insits on water at parties, mums ger really concerned as if oooh poor kid mummy doesnt give her crappy diluted drinks.

I avoid fruit shoot, as ds has ADHD,tbh I have to avoid the colours blue,red and orange as it sends him into a hypactive nightmare.

welshboris at nulnulchav!

OK, have skimmed thread, but honestly, does anyone think giving chemicals to children is a good plan?

It's not rocket science is it?

It's interesting that there is so much anecdotal evidence but a lot of resistance to believing it.

This article is recent and interesting \link{http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,8363,1671820,00.html\ Combining food additives may be harmful}

hunker the soft drinks federation and the government food agencies and lots of consumers evidently do think it's a good idea to give them to children except it seems msg which is banned from "children's products"...but widely used in crisps etc!!!!

Still bloody odd.

Why is so much "children's food" the biggest pile of crap? Cheap meat, chemicals, etc, etc.

it's because the food industry is largely self regulating when it comes to children's food products ..this is what the government's food bill was/is about but then everyone complains abpout the nanny state and interference with manufacturers right to compete in an open market and parents right to choose what they like for kids

But some parents shouldn't be allowed to choose. You know, the waddling ones with mouths like traps who swear at their children and let them eat chemicals and processed rubbish all day.

it has occurred to me now that the children who should be tried on additives in these scientific trials, to test the behaviour side effects, are children who don't normally have challenging behaviour and who normally have a diet free from a lot of processed products...