Candy isn't criminal
Beth Clothier
Issue date: 10/7/09 Section: Opinion
It's safe to say that I eat sugar. In fact, it's safe to say that a large percentage of those reading this eat sugar in some form or another. Because I grew up in a time before the crusade for healthy snacks and beverages in schools, my regular after-school treat was a can of pop and a 10 cent Jolly Rancher stick. Giant suckers and candy bars were our usual fundraisers, and it was nothing for us to buy both of these treats during class, munching away happily as we learned multiplication tables and spelling lists.
My childhood is marked, as are those of my friends, by the various sugar-loaded snacks we consumed on a daily basis. Lik-a-Sticks, Pop Rocks, Astro Pops, Big League Chew, Bubble Tape, Nerds, Atomic Fireballs - it was a veritable Wonkaland of candy overload.
In these days of health consciousness and sugar vilification, a recent British study has linked sugar consumption to violent criminal activity, according to an article on Yahoo! News. I don't know about you, but I think I have to call the bull crap on this one.
If this were true, then according to the old standardized test logic, if most people eat sugar and all people who eat sugar are violent criminals, then most people are violent criminals. This just doesn't pan out in my eyes.
The article states that, "regardless of other environmental and lifestyle factors, like family-income level, parenting style or children's level of education, the data suggested it was only the frequency of confectionery consumption in childhood that strongly predicted adult violence." Interesting indeed, but I wonder what other questions these violent criminals were asked.
For example, were they asked whether or not they had ever been influenced by drugs, whether they had ever found themselves in trouble with money, whether they had ever been under the influence or compelled by the fear of someone else to act as they did or was it simply whether they had eaten a lot of candy when they were younger?
The fact is that we don't truly understand why people act the way they do. My best guess would be that humans are creatures of passion and emotion, feelings and sensitivity, and that as independent beings we never truly learn how to coexist with others. Since the beginning of civilization there has been violent crime, but the influence of sugar on mankind's diet is relatively new.
It feels like just another argument to further the health crusade, which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. I believe that teaching children healthy habits is crucial to their future well-being and could have benefited from such lessons myself. However, calling sugar out as the main component in the creation of violent criminals is going a little too far to do so.
My childhood is marked, as are those of my friends, by the various sugar-loaded snacks we consumed on a daily basis. Lik-a-Sticks, Pop Rocks, Astro Pops, Big League Chew, Bubble Tape, Nerds, Atomic Fireballs - it was a veritable Wonkaland of candy overload.
In these days of health consciousness and sugar vilification, a recent British study has linked sugar consumption to violent criminal activity, according to an article on Yahoo! News. I don't know about you, but I think I have to call the bull crap on this one.
If this were true, then according to the old standardized test logic, if most people eat sugar and all people who eat sugar are violent criminals, then most people are violent criminals. This just doesn't pan out in my eyes.
The article states that, "regardless of other environmental and lifestyle factors, like family-income level, parenting style or children's level of education, the data suggested it was only the frequency of confectionery consumption in childhood that strongly predicted adult violence." Interesting indeed, but I wonder what other questions these violent criminals were asked.
For example, were they asked whether or not they had ever been influenced by drugs, whether they had ever found themselves in trouble with money, whether they had ever been under the influence or compelled by the fear of someone else to act as they did or was it simply whether they had eaten a lot of candy when they were younger?
The fact is that we don't truly understand why people act the way they do. My best guess would be that humans are creatures of passion and emotion, feelings and sensitivity, and that as independent beings we never truly learn how to coexist with others. Since the beginning of civilization there has been violent crime, but the influence of sugar on mankind's diet is relatively new.
It feels like just another argument to further the health crusade, which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. I believe that teaching children healthy habits is crucial to their future well-being and could have benefited from such lessons myself. However, calling sugar out as the main component in the creation of violent criminals is going a little too far to do so.
Be the first to comment on this story