Leading article: Children deserve our doubts

There may be those who will accuse The Independent on Sunday of scaremongering in its reporting of drinks additives. We repudiate that allegation and believe it important to set out our reasons. These are not confined to the issue of the preservatives, flavours and colours added to food and drink. Recently, this newspaper has led the way in reporting grounds for caution about, and further research into the effects of, Wi-Fi networks, portable baby monitors and mobile phone masts. For some time, we have been in the forefront of coverage of the potential health risks of mobile phones themselves.

In every case, our twin guides have been transparency and the precautionary principle. Always, our argument is for more information, not less. Of course, reporting should avoid sensationalising small or hypothetical risks.

Related articles

• E211 Revealed: Evidence highlights new fear over drinks additive
• Phone mast locations kept from public
• Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health
• Search the news archive for more stories

We hope we have done that, but generally we take the view that informed citizens and free media tend to sift data and assess risk better than any attempt to confine such matters to "experts".

We are of course dependent on experts to carry out the research and to offer their views on its significance. In the case of sodium benzoate, a preservative known as E211, we report the concerns of Professor Peter Piper at Sheffield University.

Plainly, his experiments on the effects of the chemical on yeast cells are some way from proving harm to humans. But this is where the precautionary principle kicks in. What matters is that there is a credible theoretical risk to human health, substantiated by sound scientific research. In such cases, the opposite of the ruling principle of law applies, in that there is a presumption of guilt. It is then up to the food and drinks companies to prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that their products are safe.

In many cases, including E211, mobile phones and Wi-Fi, the risk is primarily to children, and in all these cases the precautionary principle requires that they should be protected.

This was the conclusion of Sir William Stewart, who is now chairman of the Health Protection Agency. He carried out a review of the evidence for the health risks of mobile phones seven years ago and another, after the Government had taken no action, two years ago.

Although he concluded that there were no proven risks from prolonged use - apart from their use by car drivers or by pedestrians crossing roads with minds elsewhere - he thought children under the age of eight should not use them at all.

Sir William has recently expressed his concerns about the rapid expansion of Wi-Fi technology, particularly into schools. It was this concern that prompted our report last month about the possible health risks of the electromagnetic soup of wireless networks.

Now, of course, it is perfectly possible that Wi-Fi and E211 are safe, even for children. It may be that fears about the siting of mobile phone masts - on which we continue to report today - are unfounded.

But there is an uncertainty in all these cases that has sufficient basis to invoke the precautionary principle in respect of children. Parents are entitled to decide for themselves whether their children should drink E211, use mobile phones or be exposed to Wi-Fi or phone masts in or near their schools.