Posted on 10/03/2009 3:09:15 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
What parent hasn't used candy to pacify a cranky child or head off a brewing tantrum? When reasoning, threats and time-outs fail, a sugary treat often does the trick. But while that chocolate-covered balm may be highly effective in the short term, say British scientists, it may be setting youngsters up for problem behavior later. According to a new study, kids who eat too many treats at a young age risk becoming violent in adulthood.
The research was led by Simon Moore, a senior lecturer in Violence and Society Research at Cardiff University in the U.K., who specializes in the study of vulnerable youngsters. Moore had been investigating the factors that lead children to commit serious crimes, when, during the course of his work, he discovered that "kids with the worst problems tend to be impulsive risk takers, and that these kids had terrible diets - breakfast was a Coke and a bag of chips," he says. (See nine kid foods to avoid.)
Intrigued by this association, Moore turned to the British Cohort Study, a long-term survey of 17,000 people born during a one-week period in April 1970. That study included periodic evaluations of many different aspects of the growing children's lives, such as what they ate, certain health measures and socioeconomic status. Moore plumbed the data for information on kids' diet and their later behavior: at age 10, the children were asked how much candy they consumed, and at age 34, they were questioned about whether they had been convicted of a crime. Moore's analysis suggests a correlation: 69% of people who had been convicted of a violent act by age 34 reported eating candy almost every day as youngsters; 42% of people who had not been arrested for violent behavior reported the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
My guess is that the sugar coated cereals on every store shelves are as bad as candy...and is criminal!
Is this the twinkie defense run amok?!
Thank goodness, poptarts, cocoa puffs, and honeybuns aren’t candy.
So what’s next? Ban Halloween trick-or-treating and Easter baskets?
Seriously, this is so junk science. Maybe the parents that couldn’t feed their kids nutritious food also batted them about the head every day, didn’t talk with them, and didn’t set any moral standards. Did this “study” control for any of those factors?
I’m a stone cold dark chocolate killer.......
Okay, I was a regular little Private Pyle as a kid, and I’ve so far managed to avoid committing any serious crimes.
Maybe it wasn’t the candy that caused it but the parents who bribed kids for good behavior with candy so much that they grew up to be selfish, entitled criminals.
Sometimes I can see logic in these studies, not this one. I suppose a parent that never says no and always caves to tiny tyrants will have a bratty “give it to me or else” kinda kid.
Shoot I should be in Prison right now.. I mean I do poke people with needles all day.. Maybe that is my bad streak...
This is why children should be rewarded with Slim Jims.
Right...it’s candy that is responsible for committing crimes in adulthood. It’s not no father in the home, poor parenting, peer pressure, greed, etc...it’s M&Ms and Hershey bars.
When I used to live in Scotland with the Hubbie, I used to go to the Woolworth on the High Street and buy £1.40p worth of candy and a bag of Quavers every week. But I swear I never robbed anyone.
Who pays for all these dumb studies...the same thing could be said about peanutbutter and jelly sandwichs, because I am sure every criminal ate those sandwiches as a child...
I bet they drank water every day too!
Time/CNN it must be true, right?
Then my friends and I should be on Death Row.
Alternative theory, based on same evidence: Junk food doesn’t contribute to children turning out badly, incompetent parenting does. To give a misbehaving child candy is to reward bad behavior. Teaching your children that bad behavior pays is a good start to turning them into criminals.
And as for the whole Coke-and-chips-for-breakfast - any parent who would permit that either a) isn’t attentive enough, or b) lacks judgment. I’m no health nut, but even I wouldn’t eat a breakfast like that, or permit any child under my supervision to.
Maybe all this did was single out the spoiled kids.
I’ve often wondered why popular cereals have to be that sugary sweet. To me it’s almost nauseating. I’ve gone to things like corn flakes (that still may have some sugar but it isn’t “in your face” sweet).
Apparently not. Is it just marginally possible that parents who cared enough to insist that their kids eat nutritious food where better parents who taught self discipline and right from wrong? Naw, it's the junk food pass some more taxes and ban candy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.