After a while, I'm numb to the insult.

The amount of research a parent would have to do is alarming. The fact that it's expected and not just taken care of for us is degrading.

I admit, one can get carried away with the natural stuff. You have to have more time and money than I have, to go totally organic, made from scratch, crunchy-munchy-all-the-time. I respect it, but can't do it. It's possible, but not practical.

We choose our battles here. We do organic milk, because it's consumed by the girls gallon by gallon, and because the hormone thing scares me to pieces. But we buy regular meat, because we aren't growing money trees out back. Our cups are all BPA free, as of last summer when the shit hit the fan on that one. We avoid high fructose corn syrup when we can, and try not to dwell on the one cup of Yoplait yogurt I ate each day of my pregnancy with Keelyn, which apparently contains mercury. And I'm supposed to be comforted by the suggestion that it's only small traces. Like any traces are okay. I limited my fish consumption, all the while eating mercury laden yogurt. And I'm not alone.

We've seriously considered moving to the boonies, buying some chickens, and calling it a day. But then, there'd be some sort of coup to keep, I imagine. And I've never thought of myself as much of a coup keeper.

It's interesting, really. The consumers kind of won the BPA thing. The media made a big deal of it, despite the FDA's continuous claim that the plastic was safe (this, determined by a study conducted by the plastics industry). But when consumers made angry phone calls, and sent angry letters...and when the Born Free website was out of stock on every cup...other manufacturers realized the demand, and one year later it's difficult to find a cup in Target that doesn't display a screaming bright notice that it is, in fact, BPA free. Now, the FDA admits there may be relevance to the rumors. They're looking into it...but I'm not holding my breath.

So, why then, pray tell, does the FDA not respond to the threats presented by particular food additives and dyes? And further, why do the manufacturers not do it for them? And if you don't know why I'm asking these questions, then you probably qualify as one of the many parents who doesn't have the time to look into all of these things...what, with the kids, and laundry, and life, and dishes, and life, and jobs, and oh yeah, kids...until they're staring you down.

I was stared down cold on Sunday. We first offered Keelyn Kraft Mac 'n' Cheese a few months ago, alongside Big Sissy who could pretty much live off the stuff. We noticed that her face got a little blotchy around the mouth, but honestly thought it to be contact dermatitis in a kid just a little young for the greasiness. Didn't seem to bother her, but was concerning when it happened a bit more severely, on another occasion. So, we gave it a few months. Sunday, we tried again. This time, her face was covered in hives. Big, itchy, welty hives. This, about 30 seconds after eating only 10 noodles. A few seconds and some gagging later, we gave her Benadryl, and she was fine within minutes.

Our doctor had mentioned based on my previous concern, that there is the possibility of food dye allergies, but generally this is in kids with asthma, and other allergies as well. After raiding our pantry and fridge, to find that in fact, nothing else she's ever eaten contains Yellow 5, I headed for the computer for some validation. I was blown away.

I was amazed. Disgusted. Kinda mad. But not surprised.

I think I might remember hearing about this randomly a few years back. I'm familiar with the thought that there is a possible link between popular food dyes and hyperactivity...I even know parents who swear by it, with their own children to prove it. But an allergy? One that can't just be argued away by saying that there could be other causes, or that the studies aren't conclusive? One that is plastered across the mouth of a child, staring me in the face, red and blotchy, with tears in her eyes? One that is apparently "uncommon" as in only 1 in 10,000 people have it...but is common enough (and concern enough) that the FDA requires it to be listed on food labels, tested by them before distribution, and the Food Standards Agency even calls for voluntary removal in foods by 2009? It's 2009!

This is madness.

And don't get me started on the countries who have already banned its use. What? Are they just smarter than us? More concerned for their citizens? Dare I say, less concerned for the big guy who wants to make the cheapest stuff he can at the threat of our children? How is this any different than allowing toxins in paint and baby formula?

And, why is the suggestion for removal merely voluntary? Why does the food have to be that yellow? Annie's makes great organic mac 'n' cheese, sans the tartrazine. My kids love it. It's still yellow. It just costs more.

So I guess I just don't get it. If it's possible to make foods without additives that have adverse affects on a large enough portion of the population that I can find information on it so quickly, why the additives? Cost isn't the answer. Remove the additives, settle for pasta that's a little less yellow, and save a step in the whole manufacturing process...SAVE money. Right? It seems so logical.

It's kind of like salt. If you never use it, you taste the food for what it is, and your palette adjusts. I'd imagine the eyes of a three year old would adjust as well. But how will a three year old adjust to having to forgo a treat in preschool because she's allergic? And why, in a society that knows your kids should no longer drink from a garden hose, do we allow such new things to be introduced into our foods and beverages? Sure, our parents survived it, and my grandma used to play with mercury as a kid...but we know better.

And we don't need yellow pasta.

Why should my daughter, along with many others, spend her whole life avoiding something so unnecessary in the first place?