Well, what a surprise. An authoritative new report published in medical journal The Lancet has confirmed that artificial colouring in children's foods can cause physical and mental damage, leading to hyperactivity, poor behaviour and allergic reactions.

The study, carried out by the Food Standards Agency, only confirms what all too many parents have known for years, that excessive additives do a great deal of harm to vulnerable youngsters.

The research is some sort of vindication for those of us who have for so long expressed our fears over the growing fashion for harmful chemical ingredients in snacks and soft drinks.

Too often in the past we have been attacked for warning of the dangers of E-numbers, which are now widely used in everything from biscuits to chewing gum, and crisps to breakfast cereals.

We have been ridiculed as paranoid and cranky. Some have said that we have misunderstood science, others have claimed that we are not living in the real world.

By raising doubts about artificial ingredients in food, we have even been accused of trying to avoid responsibility for problems in parenting, and passing on the blame for our own supposed inadequacies in disciplining our children.

Yet the latest report from the Food Standards Agency exposes the hollowness of these charges. It is the products, not the parents, that are the cause of the trouble.

Children and their families have been unfairly labelled as troubled, all because of modern diets. Eager to peddle their multi- coloured, over-chemicalised wares in place of natural foodstuffs, the manufacturers are the real architects of the current epidemic of illhealth and hyper-activity among the young.

As a steadfast campaigner against E-numbers, I have known this essential truth for more than 30 years. The official government scientists have just taken a heck of a long time to catch up.

My understanding of the issue was based on my own experiences with my son Miles, an extremely bright boy who was acutely hyperactive almost from the moment he was born. Indeed, he was diagnosed with this condition when he was just two and half, so dramatic were the symptoms.

Though he was fascinated with the world around him, he had poor sleep patterns, was extremely restless, and turned almost every situation into a battle of wills. At times he could be aggressive. There was barely a moment's peace in our home.

Prams and pushchairs would be overturned and he would continually disappear, even when we were out on shopping trips. On occasions, to my horror, he would climb inside the metal guard of our fireplace. He had absolutely no sense of fear and no awareness of boundaries.

For a while I thought there was nothing I could do, despite the severe anxiety his behaviour caused. But then I got hold of the writings of Professor Ben Feingold, an immunologist from San Francisco.

He argued that the chemical ingredients in a diet could be a major factor in children's conduct, especially those who might be susceptible to hyperactivity.

So I radically altered what Miles was eating. Out went the fizzy drinks, the crisps, the sugary cereals and in came far more natural products: squash, water, vegetables and fruit.

The change in Miles was dramatic. He was suddenly far calmer and less fidgety and rebellious. Peace descended on our house. I had a tremendous sense of liberation from the eternal cycle of aggression and tantrums. Miles remained a lively, inquisitive boy, but his eager spirit was now less wayward.

The positive results of changing Miles' diet got me thinking. There must be thousands of families going through exactly the same ordeal as my own family, with a high- spirited child becoming an uncontrollable ball of energy because of their diet.

So, inspired by Professor Feingold, I set up the Hyperactive Children's Support Group in 1977. Our dual aims were, first, to tell parents that they did not have to live with the misery of disruptive children, that there were steps they could take to relax them, and second, to campaign for the Government to outlaw additives in food.

It was obvious to me, after my experience with Miles, that these E-numbers were doing nothing but harm. They were only there to give a superficial, synthetic appeal, but the damage they caused far outweighed the shallow charm they provided in taste or image. Childrens' health was being sacrificed on the altar of commercial gain.

So why on earth has the FSA not called for a complete ban on additives in childrens' foods? I simply cannot understand the logic of the FSA's position. It says that these chemicals are bad for children, but does not want to see them outlawed.

A body which was established to protect the interests of the public should not be acting in such a manner. But I'm sad to report that this approach is typical of all my dealings with state-funded quangos: all talk and no action.

It is as if the quangocrats inhabit an academic world, where evidence is gathered purely for its own sake, not for any wider public benefit. If the FSA really believed in the findings of its study, it would be calling for a ban today.

Of course, I can understand the liberal view that we already have too much nannying in the country, that people should be free to take responsibility for their own decisions, even if they cause harm. But that hardly applies to children, who cannot make an informed choice and can easily be exploited.

Moreover, the present Government and its institutions cannot hide behind liberalism to justify their reluctance to impose a ban, for that would by the height of hypocrisy.

After all, New Labour has been ruthless in cracking down on smoking in the name of the wider public good, while additives have been banned from baby foods, precisely on the grounds of health risks.

It is time that we applied that logic more widely to children's foods. There is no point in having a Food Standards Agency if its research has no results. The only possible justification - that the profits of the big food manufacturers and supermarkets might be hit by such a crackdown - is hardly an edifying one.

The Government regulates the market all the time in the public interest - and there is no greater cause than the health of children.

A ban would not be an example of the nanny state. It would be a measure of reform in public health.