artificial colour warning labels in march 2010 the united states raised concerns about eu regulation ec 1333 2008 on food additives. article 24 of the regulation required warning statements on food products that contained one or more of six colour additives sunset yellow e110 quinoline yellow e104 carmoisine e122 allura red e129 tartrazine e102 and ponceau 4r e124 . the united states was particularly concerned with the scientific basis of the regulation its potential negative impact on international trade and the transparency of its adoption. most of these six colour additives were widely used by the food industry in products such as confectionaries and beverages. when the regulation was notified to the wto secretariat g sps n eec 291 it did not contain the provision on warning statements and the united states was not aware of an addendum to the original notification. statistics from the university of southhampton and the european food safety authority efsa did not substantiate a link between the individual colours and possible behavioural effects in infants. the united states was also concerned that the european union planned to implement the measure in july 2010. new zealand and mexico supported the concerns raised by the united states noting that the measure did not seem to be based on scientific evidence. the european union stressed that the issue of colorants was complex and delicate matter especially in confectionary and beverages consumed by children and infants. the identified additives raised concerns related to health problems in children such as hyperactivity attention loss and deficit-disorder. the study by the university of southhampton raised concerns and media interest which led shops and retailers to phase out the sale of products containing those food additives. the new eu regulatory regime on additives and colorants was not an import ban but only introduced certain specific labelling provisions. an opinion from efsa concluded that although the changes noticed in children behaviour were small they were statistically significant. the european union also clarified that an addendum to the original notification had been submitted to the wto secretariat g sps n eec 291 add.1 . the new measure allowed for an 18-month transitional period before entering into force. the measure was not discriminatory since it is applied equally to european producers and imports from third countries. in june 2010 the united states reiterated concerns about ec regulation 1333 2008 on food additives. article 24 of the regulation required warning statements on food products that contained one or more of six colour additives sunset yellow e110 quinoline yellow e104 carmoisine e122 allura red e129 tartrazine e102 and ponceau 4r e124 . the united states was particularly concerned with the scientific basis of the regulation its potential negative impact on international trade and the transparency of its adoption. most of these six colour additives were widely used by the food industry in products such as confectionaries and beverages. when the draft regulation was notified to the wto g sps n eec 291 it did not contain the provision on warning statements and the united states was not aware of an addendum to the original notification. scientific evaluations from the university of southampton in 2007 and the european food safety authority efsa in 2009 did not substantiate a link between the individual colours and possible behavioural effects in children. the united states was also concerned that even though efsa was unable to substantiate a link the european union planned to implement the measure in july 2010. the united states had recently petitioned the european union to delay implementation and would shortly provide the european union with more than 580 studies to warrant a thorough scientific review of relevant evidence. new zealand and mexico supported the concerns raised by the united st