Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
January 27, 2025
Organic farming aims to protect biodiversity, promote animal welfare, and avoid using pesticides and fertilizers made from petrochemicals. Some pesticides are designed to target insects’ nervous systems but can also affect brain development and health in larger animals, including humans.
Many people believe organic food is healthier than conventionally produced food, which might be true for certain foods and health factors. But does eating organic food during pregnancy impact the chances of a child developing ADHD or autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?
In Norway, researchers can use detailed national health records to study these connections on a population-wide level, thanks to the country’s single-payer healthcare system and national registries.
The Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) invites parents to participate voluntarily and has a 41% participation rate. The study includes:
For this research, a team tracked 40,707 mother-child pairs from children born between 2002 and 2009. They used questionnaires to measure how much organic food mothers consumed during pregnancy. ADHD and ASD symptoms in children were assessed using validated rating scales.
The final analysis included:
The researchers adjusted for factors like maternal age, education, previous pregnancies, BMI before pregnancy, smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, birth year and season, and the child’s sex.
The researchers concluded that eating organic food during pregnancy has no meaningful effect on the likelihood of a child developing ADHD or ASD. They stated, “The results do not indicate any clinically significant protective or harmful effects of eating organic food during pregnancy on symptoms of ADHD and ASD in the offspring. Based on these findings, we do not recommend any specific advice regarding intake of organic food during pregnancy.”
Johanne T. Instanes, Berit S. Solberg, Liv G. Kvalvik, Kari Klungsøyr, Maj‑Britt R. Posserud, Catharina A. Hartman, and Jan Haavik, “Organic food consumption during pregnancy and symptoms of neurodevelopmental disorders at 8 years of age in the offspring: the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa),” BMC Medicine (2024), 22:482, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03685-5.
If we are to read what we believe on the Internet, dieting can cure many of the ills faced by humans. Much of what is written is true. Changes in dieting can be good for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney stones to name just a few examples. But what about ADHD? Food elimination diets have been extensively studied for their ability to treat ADHD. They are based on the very reasonable idea that allergies or toxic reactions to foods can have effects on the brain and could lead to ADHD symptoms.
Although the idea is reasonable, it is not such an easy task to figure out what foods might cause allergic reactions that could lead to ADHD symptoms. Some proponents of elimination diets have proposed eliminating a single food, others include multiple foods, and some go as far as to allow only a few foods to be eaten to avoid all potential allergies. Most readers will wonder if such restrictive diets, even if they did work, are feasible. That is certainly a concern for very restrictive diets.
Perhaps the most well-known ADHD diet is the Feingold diet(named after its creator). This diet eliminates artificial food colorings and preservatives that have become so common in the western diet. Some have claimed that the increasing use of colorings and preservatives explains why the prevalence of ADHD is greater in Western countries and has been increasing over time. But those people have it wrong. The prevalence of ADHD is similar around the world and has not been increasing over time. That has been well documented but details must wait for another blog.
The Feingold and other elimination diets have been studied by meta-analysis. This means that someone analyzed several well-controlled trials published by other people. Passing the test of meta-analysis is the strongest test of any treatment effect. When this test is applied to the best studies available, there is evidence that the exclusion of fool colorings helps reduce ADHD symptoms. But more restrictive diets are not effective. So removing artificial food colors seems like a good idea that will help reduce ADHD symptoms. But although such diets ‘work’, they do network very well. On a scale of one to 10where 10 is the best effect, drug therapy scores 9 to 10 but eliminating food colorings scores only 3 or 4. Some patients or parents of patients might want this diet change first in the hopes that it will work well for them. That is a possibility, but if that is your choice, you should not delay the more effective drug treatments for too long in the likely event that eliminating food colorings is not sufficient. You can learn more about elimination diets from Nigg, J. T., and K.Holton (2014). "Restriction and elimination diets in ADHD treatment."Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 23(4): 937-953.
Keep in mind that the treatment guidelines from professional organizations point to ADHD drugs as the first-line treatment for ADHD. The only exception is for preschool children where medication is only the first-line treatment for severe ADHD; the guidelines recommend that other preschoolers with ADHD be treated with non-pharmacologic treatments, when available. You can learn more about non-pharmacologic treatments for ADHD from a book I recently edited: Faraone, S. V. &Antshel, K. M. (2014). ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions. Child AdolescPsychiatr Clin N Am 23, xiii-xiv.
According to Vox, "Homeopathy is a $1.2 billion industry in the US alone, used by an estimated 5 million adults and 1 million kids. It's become such a staple of America's wellness industry that leading brands such as Boiron and Hyland's are readily available at high-end health-focused chains like Whole Foods and sprouts, supermarkets like Ralph's, and superstores such as Walmart."
Yet, this highly profitable "wellness" industry has shown little to no interest in supporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to test the efficacy and safety of its products.
In a team of Italian physicians, Rana comprehensive search of the medical literature and found only nine RCTs exploring the efficacy and safety of homeopathic remedies for psychiatric disorders that met the selection criteria.
Only two of these RCTs addressed efficacy for ADHD, with a combined 99 participants. Neither reported any significant effect.
Combining them into a small meta-analysis likewise found no significant effect.
But that's not all. According to the study authors, "The paucity of published trials does not allow a reliable estimate of publication bias, which would require a larger number of studies. This is a major issue since it has been reported that, among completed trials of homeopathy registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 46% were published within 2 years of completion, and among these, 25% altered or changed their primary outcomes. It is, therefore, possible that the results of the present meta-analysis are distorted because of selective publication."
The authors conclude, "The most surprising result of this meta-analysis is the paucity of available data from RCTs," and "Based on the very few available trials, homeopathy did not produce any relevant effect on symptoms of ADHD ... Ethical considerations should therefore prevent clinicians from recommending HRs [homeopathic remedies], which have a cost either for patients or for health care systems, until when a sufficient amount of solid evidence becomes available."
Several meta-analyses have assessed this question by computing the Standardized Mean Difference or SMD statistic. The SMD is a measure that allows us to compare different studies. For context, the effect of stimulant medication for treating ADHD is about 0.9. SMDs less than 0.3 are considered low, between 0.3 to 0.6 medium, and anything greater than high.
A 2004 meta-analysis combined the results of fifteen studies with a total of 219 participants and found a small association(SMD = .28, 95% CI .08-.49) between consumption of artificial food colors by children and increased hyperactivity. Excluding the smallest and lowest quality studies further reduced the SMD to .21, and a lower confidence limit of .007 also made it barely statistically significant. Publication bias was indicated by an asymmetric funnel plot. No effort was made to correct the bias.
A 2012 meta-analysis by Nigg et al. combined twenty studies with a total of 794 participants and again found a small effect size (SMD =.18, 95% CI .08-.29). It likewise found evidence of publication bias. Correcting for the bias led to a tiny effect size at the outer margin of statistical significance (SMD = .12, 95% CI .01-.23). Restricting the pool to eleven high-quality studies with 619 participants led to a similarly tiny effect size that fell just outside the 95% confidence interval (SMD = .13, CI =0-.25, p = .053). The authors concluded, "Overall, a mixed conclusion must be drawn. Although the evidence is too weak to justify action recommendations absent a strong precautionary stance, it is too substantial to dismiss."
In 2013 a European ADHD Guidelines Group consisting of 21 researchers (Sonuga-Barke et al.) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis that examined the efficacy of excluding artificial colors from the diets of children and adolescents as a treatment for ADHD. While many interventions showed benefits in unblinded assessments, only artificial food color exclusion and, to a lesser extent, free fatty acid supplementation remained effective under blinded conditions. The findings suggest that eliminating artificial food dyes may meaningfully reduce ADHD symptoms in some children, though it should be noted that the positive results were mostly seen in children with other food sensitivities.
The research to date does suggest a small effect of artificial food colors in aggravating symptoms of hyperactivity in children, and a potential beneficial effect of excluding these substances from the diets of children and adolescents, but the evidence is not very robust. More studies with greater numbers of participants, and better control for the effects of ADHD medications, will be required for a more definitive finding.
In the meantime, given that artificial food colors are not an essential part of the diet, parents could consider excluding them from their children's meals, since doing so is risk-free, and the cost (reading labels) is negligible.
Background:
Recent progress in reproductive medicine has increased the number of children conceived via assisted reproductive techniques (ART). These include:
Although ART helps with infertility, there are concerns about its long-term effects on offspring, especially regarding neurodevelopment. Factors such as hormonal treatments, gamete manipulation, altered embryonic environments, as well as parental age and infertility, may influence brain development and raise the risk of neurodevelopmental and mental health disorders.
With previous studies finding conflicting results on a possible association between ART and increased risk of mental health disorders, an Indian research team has just published a new meta-analysis exploring this topic.
The Study:
Studies were eligible if they were observational (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional), reported confounder-adjusted effect sizes for ADHD, and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals.
A meta-analysis of eight studies encompassing nearly twelve million individuals indicated a 7% higher prevalence of ADHD in offspring conceived via IVF/ICSI compared to those conceived naturally. The heterogeneity among studies was minimal, and no evidence of publication bias was observed.
The study’s 95% confidence interval ranged from 4% to 10%. Further analysis of five studies comprising almost nine million participants that distinguished outcomes by sex revealed that the increase in ADHD risk among female offspring was not statistically significant. In contrast, the elevated risk in male offspring persisted, though it was marginally significant, with the lower bound of the confidence limit at only 1%.
Results:
A meta-analysis of three studies (1.4 million participants) found a 13% higher rate of ADHD in children conceived via ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI) compared to natural conception. The effect size, though doubled, remains small. Minimal heterogeneity and no publication bias were observed.
The team concluded, “The review found a small but statistically significant moderate certainty evidence of an increased risk of ADHD in those conceived through ART, compared to spontaneous conception. The magnitude of observed risk is small and is reassuring for parents and clinicians.”
Our Take-Away:
Overall, the meta-analysis points to a small, but measurable increase in ADHD diagnoses among children conceived through ART, but the effect sizes are modest and supported by moderate-certainty evidence. And we must always keep in mind that the researchers who wrote the original articles could not correct for all possible confounds. These findings suggest that while reproductive technologies may introduce slight variation in neurodevelopmental outcomes, the effects are small and uncertain. For families and clinicians, the results are generally reassuring: ART remains a safe and effective avenue to parenthood, and the results of this study should not be viewed as a prohibitive concern. Thoughtful developmental monitoring and open, evidence-based counseling can help ensure that ART-conceived children receive support that caters to their individual needs.
The Background:
Myopia is a growing global health concern linked to conditions like macular degeneration, glaucoma, and retinal detachment. Its prevalence has surged in recent decades; by 2050, an estimated 5 billion people will have myopia. The increase is especially marked in Asia – a survey in Taiwan reports that 84% of students aged 15 to 18 are myopic, with 24% severely affected.
Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the retina, involved in eye development, visual signaling, and refractive changes. The dopamine hypothesis, suggesting that retinal dopamine release helps prevent myopia, has emerged as a leading theory of myopia control.
Most studies show ADHD is highly heritable, often involving dopamine system genes. ADHD is strongly associated with dopaminergic abnormalities, especially in dopamine transporter function and release dynamics.
Medications for ADHD, like methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, help regulate dopamine to reduce symptoms.
The Study:
Given dopamine’s critical involvement in both ADHD and myopia, a Taiwanese research team hypothesized that medications for ADHD that influence dopaminergic pathways may have a significant effect on myopia risk.
To evaluate this hypothesis, the team conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) program, which covers 99% of the nation’s 23 million residents and provides access to comprehensive eye care and screenings. Taiwan requires visual acuity screenings beginning at age four, with annual examinations for school-aged children to promote the early detection of visual anomalies such as myopia.
Furthermore, ADHD medication and diagnosis are tracked through compulsory diagnostic codes. This permits an accurate assessment of the effects of dopaminergic medications on myopia risk.
Propensity score allocation using a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to reduce bias from confounding influences, pairing cohorts based on similar scores.
The Results:
Comparing 133,945 individuals with ADHD with an equal number without ADHD, untreated ADHD was associated with a 22% greater risk of myopia.
However, after adjusting for covariates (gender, age, insured premium, comorbidities, location, and urbanization level), the ADHD cohort receiving medication treatment showed a 39% decreased risk of myopia relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
Narrowing this further to the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications reduced the risk of myopia by more than half (52%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
Treatment with two dopaminergic medications reduced the risk by well over two-thirds (72%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
There were no significant differences between methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine. Each reduced risk by about 50%.
The team did not directly compare the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications with the non-ADHD cohort. But if there were 122 cases of myopia in the ADHD cohort for every 100 cases in the non-ADHD cohort, and dopaminergic medications halved the cases in the ADHD cohort to about 60, that would represent a roughly 40% reduction in myopia risk relative to the non-ADHD cohort.
The team concluded, “our research indicates that pharmacologically treated ADHD children have a reduced risk of myopia. Conversely, untreated ADHD children are at a heightened risk relative to those without ADHD. Moreover, the cumulative effects of ADHD medications were found to notably decrease myopia incidence, emphasizing the protective influence of dopaminergic modulation in these interventions.”
The Take-Away:
Children with untreated ADHD are more likely to develop myopia, but those receiving dopaminergic medications had a substantially lower risk. The findings suggest that ADHD medications may help protect against myopia by boosting dopamine signaling. More research is needed before firmly drawing this conclusion, but this research could open the door to new approaches for preventing myopia in at-risk children.
Background:
ADHD treatment includes medication, behavioral therapy, dietary changes, and special education. Stimulants are usually the first choice but may cause side effects like appetite loss and stomach discomfort, leading some to stop using them. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective but not always sufficient on its own. Research is increasingly exploring non-drug options, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which may boost medication effectiveness and improve results.
What is tDCS?
tDCS delivers a weak electric current (1.0–2.0 mA) via scalp electrodes to modulate brain activity, with current flowing from anode to cathode. Anodal stimulation increases neuronal activity, while cathodal stimulation generally inhibits it, though effects vary by region and neural circuitry. The impact of tDCS depends on factors such as current intensity, duration, and electrode shape. It targets cortical areas, often stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for ADHD due to its role in cognitive control. Stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to improve response inhibition, making it another target for ADHD therapy.
There is an ongoing debate about how effective tDCS is for individuals with ADHD. One study found that applying tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can help reduce impulsivity symptoms in ADHD, whereas another study reported that several sessions of anodic tDCS did not lead to improvements in ADHD symptoms or cognitive abilities.
New Research:
Two recent meta-analyses have searched for a resolution to these conflicting findings. Both included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using either sham stimulation or a waitlist for controls.
Each team included seven studies in their respective meta-analyses, three of which appeared in both.
Both Wang et al. (three RCTs totaling 97 participants) and Wen et al. (three RCTs combining 121 participants) reported very large effect size reductions in inattention symptoms from tDCS versus controls. There was only one RCT overlap between them. Wang et al. had moderate to high variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, whereas Wen et al. had virtually none. There was no indication of publication bias.
Whereas Wen et al.’s same three RCTs found no significant reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, Wang et al. combined five RCTs with 221 total participants and reported a medium effect size reduction in impulsivity symptoms. This time, there was an overlap of two RCTs between the studies. Wen et al. had no heterogeneity, while Wang et al. had moderate heterogeneity. Neither showed signs of publication bias.
Turning to performance-based tasks, Wang et al. reported a medium effect size improvement in attentional performance from tDCS over controls (three RCTs totaling 136 participants), but no improvement in inhibitory control (five RCTs combining 234 persons).
Wang et al. found no significant difference in adverse events (four RCTs combining 161 participants) between tDCS and controls, with no heterogeneity. Wen et al. found no significant difference in dropout rates (4 RCTs totaling 143 individuals), again with no heterogeneity.
Wang et al. concluded, “tDCS may improve impulsive symptoms and inattentive symptoms among ADHD patients without increasing adverse effects, which is critical for clinical practice, especially when considering noninvasive brain stimulation, where patient safety is a key concern.”
Wen et al. further concluded, “Our study supported the use of tDCS for improving the self-reported symptoms of inattention and objective attentional performance in adults diagnosed with ADHD. However, the limited number of available trials hindered a robust investigation into the parameters required for establishing a standard protocol, such as the optimal location of electrode placement and treatment frequency in this setting. Further large-scale double-blind sham-controlled clinical trials that include assessments of self-reported symptoms and performance-based tasks both immediately after interventions and during follow-up periods, as well as comparisons of the efficacy of tDCS targeting different brain locations, are warranted to address these issues.”
The Take-Away:
Previous studies have shown mixed results on the benefits of this therapy on ADHD. These new findings suggest that tDCS may hold some real promise for adults with ADHD. While the technique didn’t meaningfully shift hyperactivity or impulsivity, it was well-tolerated and showed benefit, especially in self-reported symptoms. However, with only a handful of trials to draw from, it would be a mistake to suggest tDCS as a standard treatment protocol. Larger, well-designed studies are the next essential step to clarify where, how, and how often tDCS works best.
_logo%201.svg)
