T and J: you'll like this extract 
http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/information/oith/oith99.htm
"...In the long term
Dietary management does not produce a magical change within an hour the way medication can. But what do studies show of long term effects?
Following up after two years on families avoiding additives and salicylates, U.S. researchers found 13 out of 14 mothers described their children's behaviour as having improved since the end of the study. Typically, they reported marked improvement in schoolwork and a steady, gradual increase in self-control.
In a British study which used the Few Foods diet, 92% of children in the study were still continuing with the diet when last seen. Researchers commented that being on an acceptable diet did seem to make a remarkable difference in the lives of many of these families.
A study of 6000 institutionalised juvenile offenders found antisocial behaviours were reduced by nearly half following the introduction to a diet low in processed foods. Not everyone improved equally. About 20 per cent of the delinquents accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the bad behaviour. Behavioural improvements started within a few weeks of beginning the diet and continued improving over a period of nearly five months, when they stabilised at the reduced level. Further reading: Conners, CK Food additives and hyperactive children, Plenum, 1980..."
A huge difference in children's behaviour, and in that of Juvenile Delinquents as opposed to the statistics for Ritalin (see one of the articles higher up in this thread). AND ITS FREE, other than the cost of food which we all have anyway.
Unfortunately it rather messes up profits for ritalin manufacturer Novartis (or, Eli Lilly with their new ADHD treatment Strattera, ALREADY PROVEN to cause serious liver problems) and of course the mental health world don't like it much either because the definition of "professionalism" for many 'professionals' has come to mean keeping their job and sometimes their funding - and their credibility - above all else, and jobs depend these days on proving (unsuccessfully so far - in common with people in the flat earth society etc) that mental disorders like ADHD exist, that they are growing and that they need medication, ie, that little test of integrity and courage: my patients lives, health, safety first, or my job?
Tricky one huh?
Variations on that question have to be answered one way or another by many different disciplines. Doctors, politicians (including the MHRA), police, mental health 'professionals' (yes, there are SOME true professionals in mental health, but there's nothing professional about those who put themselves or the drug industry before the safety of others they are responsible for, and nothing professional about corruption) and so on.
On the personal individual level, again the question applies.
Do we choose to do something to help, to protect, to fight what we see resulting from corruption even if we get ridiculed or threatened or accused of being 'activists' or 'mavericks' (in that tone thats similar to the one used for 'terrorists' lol) ...
... or do we take the easy (or in some cases more personally advantageous in some way) path and go with the "if you can't beat them join them" crowd?
Each of us is ultimately responsible for what choice we as individuals make. You, me, everyone.