It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eating Candy in Childhood Linked to Adulthood Crimes

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
From Yahoo!:




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.


This sounds ridiculous to me. What kid didn't eat too much candy some time or another? That's part of growing up. I think there's an underlying cause, and not the candy alone.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I think this is a load of crap and quite frankly propaganda. America goes through certain "fads" if you will when it comes to food and drink. In todays thought anything with surgar is bad. They are even gonna tax pop and any other drink with surgar in it!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kingoftheworld
 





I think this is a load of crap and quite frankly propaganda. America goes through certain "fads" if you will when it comes to food and drink. In todays thought anything with sugar is bad. They are even gonna tax pop and any other drink with sugar in it!!!


You are correct. The media is used to "soften up" the sheeple so they will accept another bar in their cage or another shearing (tax) by TPTB. Did you realize every red cent you pay in tax goes straight into a bankers pockets???


The IRS deposits people's income tax checks directly in the Federal Reserve banks--not in the United States Treasury. See the back of your payment to the IRS and check out the Grace Commission Report:

"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." - from the Grace Commission Report
famguardian.org...




The Soda tax
Several of the nation's leading health experts are calling for a tax on soda as a means of curbing America's obesity epidemic.






“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.” James Madison





posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
oh noos, terrorist candy, run.......

really, "news" and "scientist say" is really getting out of hand. I could claim to be a scientist, then fudge some numbers, and reports, and make any claim I wish to make. Its is fxxing depressing.

Food is bad for us. since they keep modifying it
The sun is bad for us, the air is bad for us.
Now Candy.

Soon scientists will say that if you were born, then there is a 100% chance you will die.

thanks for the laugh.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
This is on the same level of random as the thread that kids who are spanked have a lower IQ.

So remember, if you let your kid eat candy and dare spank them they will be a low IQ criminal.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ineverknew
 


Watch out now!

The next thing we know, is that they will say parents are not countering terrorism, by not encouraging their children to brush their teeth.

If the people who put out these studies only knew just how idiotic they sounded.

This is nothing more than a scam to cover bad parenting skills, period.

When will they stop throwing away our tax money on silly as Hell studies, and actually study something important, like how lying is linked to politics and the genetic make-up of Congressmen who cheat on their spouses with hookers?

Or, better yet, how politics is just a game to seperate people from their wallet?

Or, still better yet, a study on why politicians let lobbyist groups and special interest groups make demands for their votes, bypassing our Constitutional Rights through neglected representation?

 



Originally posted by Le Colonel
oh noos, terrorist candy, run.......


Funny as Hell.

Run away, run away, the candy will terrorize me!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
While I wouldn't draw the connection that increased sugar intake will turn kids into gun toting criminals robbing banks and murdering people there is definitely a link between excess sugar impacting the brain chemistry, mood, and psychology of kids. This is SCIENTIFIC FACT! It's not so much anymore that kids are indulging in the occasional pack of chewing gum, soda, or hard candy. SUGAR IS EVERYWHERE AND KIDS ARE EATING IT LIKE CRAZY! If you for a second don't think all this sugar is affecting kids directly you need to inform yourselves and pay more attention to your surroundings. And it's not just candy/sugar.............LOTS of food marketed towards children in our society is loaded with chemicals, preservatives, MSG, transfats etc. Corporate America spends BILLIONS on marketing cheap, junk food to kids with impressionable young minds and delicate brain chemistry at a time in their lives where they need to be eating as healthy as possible. We may not be able to control the air we breathe or the water we drink but we certainly can control the food we allow our children to eat.


I haven't even mentioned the sociological implications of all this fancy marketing creating kids lust for candy and sweet stuff. I wonder if any of you posting so far have kids? Try taking a kid into a grocery store and watching them kick and scream and throw a tantrum when you try to tell them no they can't have that candy or junk food. There is very much an emotional and psychological connection to junkfood and candy when it comes to children. Like I said there is a reason food companies spend billions of dollars researching and marketing to kids. They can hook them for the rest of their life on this "I want it, I need it, if it feels good do it" mentality.





[edit on 5-10-2009 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Alright, this is probably the stupidest article I've seen lately.

I'm aware of some stupid research topics. I don't use stupid lightly while referring to researchers/studies; what I think may be stupid might be important to someone else, and I keep that in mind.

However it's pretty obvious that most of us responding here are at least over 16. I'm over 25. I ate candy as a kid, as I'm sure the rest of you did. I know I'm not a very violent person.

If anything it's not the candy that brings out the behaving problems, it's how their parents continue to use items to pacify their kids in the longrun that would be the problem.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It's my opinion that parents that use candy to pacify or bribe their children are rather derelict in parenting skills to start with. Perhaps it's not so much the candy that is at fault as it is the derelict parenting.

Also, I think the "Twinkie defense" has been shown to not exempt anyone from the consequences of their actions.

Sugar does have a psychological as well as physiological affect on people but I don't think it negates our abilities to make a CHOICE in our behaviors.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
BULL!!!!!

I have no criminal record, and I have eaten alot of candy through my entire childhood and adult life. I'm talking brown paper bags full of nowalaters, redhots, lemonheads, jawbreakers, bazookas, sugar daddies and sugar babies, pop rocks, blowpops, that stick thing with the powdered sugar..I forgot the name...

btw.. my daily candy habit was supported by a $1 a day allowance.

Cavities yes.. Criminal..NO!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by worldwatcher
 


You got a dollar a day?!

I only got .50 cents a week!

Ohhhh the candy I could have bought with a dollar a day. *sigh*

This "study" is just to gear the people up for increased taxes and getting tough on crime. We'll probably have to start tackling bubble-gum chewing kids in the street....for the greater good and the safety of us all.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I haven't seen any real detailed critique of the method presented in the paper. Calling the alleged results of the research "stupid" doesn't do anybody a favor, and neither is "I ate candy and turned out OK". Judging by quality of such posts, well maybe you didn't.

Can somebody point to a real fault in method etc.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 





This "study" is just to gear the people up for increased taxes and getting tough on crime. We'll probably have to start tackling bubble-gum chewing kids in the street....for the greater good and the safety of us all.


No No they want to tazer the kids and run over them with their police cars. That'll teach the little hoods to eat candy.

Given our school has candy and coke machines in the building I find the whole thing very hypocritical. The group that CAUSED the problem is now trying to make even more money off the sheeple.



The same agricultural policies that made farmers into commodity crop growers are at the root of the current obesity epidemic.

America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it...

This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful – though unelected – financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies.[1]

CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught. Farmers found themselves encouraged to give up on a farming system that employed minimal outsourced inputs and capital and get “efficient” by adopting instead a system that required they go into debt in order to purchase ever more costly inputs, like fossil-fuel based fertilizers, chemicals, seeds, feed grain, and machinery. The local, decentralized food distribution networks that were previously in place became subject to corporate buyouts, vertical integration and consolidation, leaving farmers with fewer and fewer outlets to sell their goods. With this consolidation of grain handlers, railways, food processing, meat packing, brewing and beverage makers, cereal makers, food retailers and restaurants, more and more of the food dollar went to processors and retailers, which gained increased market power.

Farmers, meanwhile, were and continue to be squeezed on both ends: by input suppliers putting upward pressure on selling prices and by output buyers exerting downward pressure on their buying prices. This analysis is confirmed by the Keystone Center, an establishment think tank with representatives on its board from Monsanto, DuPont, Shell, Coca-Cola, Dow, General Electric and the Rockefeller Foundation, to name a few. The organization's 2001 report “The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Trends in Agriculture” observes that “Agricultural policy in many respects supported the concentration of farming into larger and fewer units. Some would say agricultural policy is biased toward bigness.”

Agricultural Policies, Our Health Crisis, and Food Security

America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it....
This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful – though unelected – financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies

The same agricultural policies that made farmers into commodity crop growers are at the root of the current obesity epidemic. According to a report by the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy called “Food Without Thought: How US Farm Policy Contributes to Obesity,” “the problem with the extensive use of cheap commodities in food products is that they fall into the very dietary categories that have been linked to obesity: added sugars and fats. US Farm policies driving down the price of these commodities made added sugars and fats some of the cheapest food substances to produce. High fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated vegetable oils – products that did not even exist a few generations ago but are now hard to avoid – have proliferated thanks to artificially cheap corn and soybeans.”[13] In other words, US farm policies make poor eating habits an economically sensible choice – with long-term negative health consequences for consumers and economically devastating consequences for family farmers.
www.opednews.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
BULL!!!!!

I have no criminal record, and I have eaten alot of candy through my entire childhood and adult life. I'm talking brown paper bags full of nowalaters, redhots, lemonheads, jawbreakers, bazookas, sugar daddies and sugar babies, pop rocks, blowpops, that stick thing with the powdered sugar..I forgot the name...

btw.. my daily candy habit was supported by a $1 a day allowance.

Cavities yes.. Criminal..NO!!!


Wow, according to your list, if the report was valid, you would be right up there on the list of major criminals with Al Capone and Dick Cheney.


Just teasing.


This report is a farce, probably paid for by some dentist who wants everyone to rebel against it, just to get cavities, in order to give him more business.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I wonder if they tested the opposite, kids who are genetically predisposed to crime tend to crave sweets as children.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Le Colonel
oh noos, terrorist candy, run.......

really, "news" and "scientist say" is really getting out of hand. I could claim to be a scientist, then fudge some numbers, and reports, and make any claim I wish to make.


Be careful, if he fudges those numbers (and eats them) he'll become violent.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join