The evil white powder that leads inevitably to violence!

[figmentPez]

via Slashdot
Daily Candy in Childhood Linked to Violence in Adulthood

Children fed candy and sweets on a daily basis are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes as adults, a new study finds.

...

About 69 percent of those who reported having committed violent acts also reported eating candy daily at age 10, compared to 42 percent of those who did not have a violent criminal past, the study authors noted.

...

\"We think that it is more to do with the way that sweets are given to children rather than the sweets themselves,\" Moore said. \"Using sweets to quiet noisy children might just reinforce problems for later in life.\"

...

\"While it's an interesting correlation, any scientist will tell you that a correlation never shows causation,\" said Melinda Johnson, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. \"If there is any real link, my instinct is that the daily candy may be indicative of certain lifestyle factors that the researchers did not capture. For example, I do not see that the researchers were able to control for violence in the home. Perhaps children who end up violent as adults also tend to grow up in violent homes, and perhaps candy is used excessively as an 'ease the pain' tool.

Another possibility is that a diet high in sweets is indicative of poor nutrition overall, which could have led to abnormal brain growth during a critical period of development, Johnson added.

Despite my sensationalist thread title, the article is actually more balanced than most news of this sort. It actually posits some pretty good reasoning for both sides of the issue.

EDIT: well, that and my thread title is wrong because most candy these days doesn't have sugar in it anymore, it's mostly high fructose corn syrup, which sure aint a white powder.

 

[Ross]

Why do people keep getting money to research things like this?

"You know, we found these two pieces of information to have a minimal correlation with each other, but the data we got could be biased (which we already knew before we began the study), yet we're going to announce our finds anyway."

I hate it. People who perform these kind of studies should be shot on site. No self-respecting researcher would even START researching something that could be construed either way, no matter how many "facts" they gather, in essence not proving ANYTHING.

 

[Wasabi Poptart]

We think that it is more to do with the way that sweets are given to children rather than the sweets themselves

That makes sense to me, but the headline sure makes it sound like the sugar itself is to blame instead of poor parenting skills.

 

[North_Ranger]

If that were correct, I'd likely want to kill all of you.

 

[figmentPez]

Why do people keep getting money to research things like this?

Probably because studies like this are easier to do than actual double-blind trials, and even though a survey like this can't show causation, it may help narrow down what should be studied for causation with controlled stuides.



And, on a simliar note, from Popular Science:
Science Confirms the Obvious!

• Gamblers Don't Learn From Their Mistakes
• Potato Chips are Bad for You
• People Binge-Drink on their 21st Birthday
• Girls Like Pink
• Husbands Create More Housework
• Scrawny or Fat Boys Don't Like Gym Class
• Ducks Like Water
• Faceshields Protect the Face
• Toothpaste is a Luxury in Poor Countries
• Violence Occurs Near Bars and Liquor Stores
  
  Check the link to see why these "Duh, obvious!" statements actually have some important science behind the studies.

 

[Hailey Knight]

We think that it is more to do with the way that sweets are given to children rather than the sweets themselves

That makes sense to me, but the headline sure makes it sound like the sugar itself is to blame instead of poor parenting skills.

Pinatas... violence... yes, I do see the correlation.