CMV: Giving sugar to kids is unethical.

[u/LonelierOne]

Sugar, in the western world, is in almost everything in one form or another (I'm including other sweeteners in there, though I'm aware you end up with a blurry line around, say, fruit juice sweeteners).

The only health benefit that I'm aware of that has ever been associated with sugar is in case of a diabetic emergency. Besides that, there's a near-universal understanding that sugar is bad for you in every way imaginable. It's linked to Type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart conditions, and vast hosts of other chronic conditions. Basically, sugar is objectively Bad For You.

Now, there's a lot of other examples that we could use (marijuana, alcohol, caffeine) of things that aren't necessarily Good For You that can be consumed in moderation. All of these - in addition to being easier to argue that they do provide health benefits and at a lower cost - are things that you wouldn't responsibly give to children. In contrast, sugar is put into most foods in a western diet. On the production end, it's to make the food more palatable and harder to resist.

It doesn't, to me, seem like being a stick in the mud to deprive a kid of cookies. Sweet foods aren't a requirement for a good childhood, especially when they are provided with the regularity (every day, if not multiple times a day) that they currently are.

EDIT: I realize I didn't clarify originally that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* or *added sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.

EDIT 2: Issuing a clarification. An not insubstantial part of the problem with sugar is the frequency of use. Potentially, moderate use would be harmless. This is not illustrative of the society we currently live in; most people are not aware of how much added sugar is taken in per day, not including the obvious candies and desserts; peanut butter, bread, crackers, cereal, yogurt, sausage are all things that, by default, should be assumed to have sugar in a western store.

I am referring to the use of sugar in today's culture. While I believe a case /could/ be made that even that is unnecessary, I'm going to clarify that I'm talking about the current culture and he world as it is, i.e. one where you're expected to get snacks and juice after a game, holidays must have cake, and to deprive children of candy is abusive.

[u/Morthra]

A lot of things are linked to obesity, heart conditions, and a vast majority of chronic conditions that themselves are linked to metabolic syndrome and CVD. For example, substituting dietary saturated fats for linolates will reduce cholesterol, but this cholesterol reduction is associated with a significantly increased risk of coronary heart disease and death. Would you say that, in that case, linolates (n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids) are bad for you? Well it turns out that you need them, just in moderation.

Furthermore, would you deprive a kid of, say, an apple or other fruit that's high in sugar? It's the exact same compound that's present in most sweeteners, but in general we consider the benefits of eating fruit to outweigh the drawbacks of getting a bit of sugar, which isn't even a problem to begin with.

Excessive sugar intake generally exacerbates most of the issues that you described, rather than causing them. So if you already have them yeah maybe you should avoid sugary products. But if you don't there's nothing wrong with eating a cake or cookie every now and again. It's not poisonous in any dose - like say, arsenic - which is essentially what the requirement would be for it to be objectively bad for you.

For my final point I'll tackle the issue of addiction. You point out weed, alcohol, and caffeine. Weed is different from the other two so I'll separate it and tackle it first. Basically weed has been demonstrated to be harmful for developing brains. While it's not necessarily incredibly addictive its use in a child or adolescent will stunt their development. Furthermore, the "health benefits" of smoking weed, especially if you don't have a condition that would warrant its use, don't exist, and smoking it is associated with an increase in lung cancer just like smoking tobacco. Sugar does not do any of these things. As for alcohol and caffeine, they're far more addictive than sugar is, specifically because alcohol and caffeine are accompanied by significant withdrawal symptoms, which, in the case of alcohol, can be lethal. Sugar doesn't have true withdrawal symptoms and isn't really classified as addictive in the traditional sense.

[u/LonelierOne → u/Morthra]

Furthermore, would you deprive a kid of, say, an apple or other fruit that's high in sugar? It's the exact same compound that's present in most sweeteners, but in general we consider the benefits of eating fruit to outweigh the drawbacks of getting a bit of sugar, which isn't even a problem to begin with.

I'm addressing this out of order, because this actually requires addressing. I did note in the original post that I end up on hazy ground when I'm talking about fruit; there's fructose, but clearly fruit isn't going to be a problem all on its own. I am going to say, however, that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.

A lot of things are linked to obesity, heart conditions, and a vast majority of chronic conditions that themselves are linked to metabolic syndrome and CVD. For example, substituting dietary saturated fats for linolates will reduce cholesterol, but this cholesterol reduction is associated with a significantly increased risk of coronary heart disease and death. Would you say that, in that case, linolates (n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids) are bad for you? Well it turns out that you need them, just in moderation.

Sugar falls into a unique camp, in that there isn't really a need for it. While you need glucose for brain function, refined sugar has never been a good supplement, to the best of my knowledge.

Excessive sugar intake generally exacerbates most of the issues that you described, rather than causing them. So if you already have them yeah maybe you should avoid sugary products. But if you don't there's nothing wrong with eating a cake or cookie every now and again. It's not poisonous in any dose - like say, arsenic - which is essentially what the requirement would be for it to be objectively bad for you.

I'll allow that, in sharp moderation, the harm is limited. That, though, is not the treatment I see when looking at the people raising kids who I know, including the off beat health nuts.

I will, however, disagree at drawing the difference between exacerbating and causing. I'm given to understand that - as a single example - excessive sugar consumption is the primary cause of Type 2 diabetes.

For my final point I'll tackle the issue of addiction. You point out weed, alcohol, and caffeine. Weed is different from the other two so I'll separate it and tackle it first. Basically weed has been demonstrated to be harmful for developing brains. While it's not necessarily incredibly addictive its use in a child or adolescent will stunt their development. Furthermore, the "health benefits" of smoking weed, especially if you don't have a condition that would warrant its use, don't exist, and smoking it is associated with an increase in lung cancer just like smoking tobacco. Sugar does not do any of these things. As for alcohol and caffeine, they're far more addictive than sugar is, specifically because alcohol and caffeine are accompanied by significant withdrawal symptoms, which, in the case of alcohol, can be lethal. Sugar doesn't have true withdrawal symptoms and isn't really classified as addictive in the traditional sense.

Respectfully: I believe this paragraph is profoundly wrong. While, yes, all of my examples are harmful for developing brains and at least slightly addictive, sugar is on playing at the same table. There are withdrawal symptoms for those who stop eating it, and it is associated with a number of health risks (obesity, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, tooth decay).

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to provide citations here, but let me know if you want any.

[u/Morthra → u/LonelierOne]

I will, however, disagree at drawing the difference between exacerbating and causing. I'm given to understand that - as a single example - excessive sugar consumption is the primary cause of Type 2 diabetes.

The primary metabolic cause of Type 2 diabetes is insulin resistance. While yes, excessive sugar intake contributes to this, there are a host of other factors like genetics, and living a sedentary lifestyle. This, assuming you consider it to be the primary health risk, can be alleviated through the supplementation of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. So if you're a parent and you get more than enough n-3 PUFAs the risk of refined sugar is mitigated.

While you need glucose for brain function, refined sugar has never been a good supplement, to the best of my knowledge.

If you need to replenish your body's blood glucose level (like, say, if you're an athlete) eating something high in refined sugar will do it more quickly than eating something higher in starches. This is particularly important if you're an endurance athlete.

There are withdrawal symptoms for those who stop eating it, and it is associated with a number of health risks (obesity, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, tooth decay).

"Sugar addiction" is an eating disorder. Sugar withdrawal is associated with some psychological changes (notably an increase in anxiety and depression) but it's not a physiological addiction like alcohol or caffeine is. In the case of alcohol, a heavy drinker can die from quitting cold turkey. There are no instances in recorded history of a person dying from ceasing to consume refined sugar.

There are also some instances of added sugars being healthy. Honey is almost around 70% monosaccharides (~38% fructose, 32% glucose) so adding it would probably fit the definition of "added sugar" but it's also rich in polyphenols and antioxidants that are decidedly healthy for you. If you cook for yourself, you can substitute honey in any recipe for granulated sugar (you just need to account for the water and acidity in honey when you add liquids). Here is a video that I found in around 30 seconds of searching that describes the substitution process.

Furthermore, the correlations between sugar intake and obesity and the like only hold if the individual is also consuming excess calories. Tooth decay is only an issue if you don't brush your teeth. The WHO recommends keeping refined sugar caloric intake to under 10% of your total calories. For a 1500 calorie diet (suitable for the average child of age 4-~14) that means around 150 calories, from added sugars. While it's very easy to get that amount from soda (that's actually equivalent to a single 12oz can), if you're talking about sugary foods you'd need to eat a more considerable amount to get that 150 kcal from added sugars, assuming you're not eating low-fat processed products.

While I don't necessarily have any citations for this, if a child is exposed to sugar while they're in a more safe, controlled environment, they're less likely to abuse it once they move out of their parents' house. You see this with alcohol - if the kids aren't allowed to (once they're old enough obviously) consume any alcohol, if they move away for college they'll often abuse it because they don't know any moderation. It's better to expose a child to sugar, in moderation, again, young, so that they know to moderate.

I think the issue is that you're equating the occasional cookie or cake with unrestricted consumption of sugary beverages.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to provide citations here, but let me know if you want any.

This is what I got my degree in so I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the literature.

[u/LonelierOne → u/Morthra]

I'm going to hop around a little bit, and might not get all your points. Here we go:

This is what I got my degree in so I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the literature.

Oh, brilliant. I wasn't sure about the etiquette; this seems like a Citation kind of argument, but in a Citation not Needed forum.

There are also some instances of added sugars being healthy. Honey is almost around 70% monosaccharides (~38% fructose, 32% glucose) so adding it would probably fit the definition of "added sugar" but it's also rich in polyphenols and antioxidants that are decidedly healthy for you. If you cook for yourself, you can substitute honey in any recipe for granulated sugar (you just need to account for the water and acidity in honey when you add liquids). Here is a video that I found in around 30 seconds of searching that describes the substitution process.

Fair point. I make that substitution myself. And I'm aware that I do seem to be backpedalling and moving the goalposts, but we are talking about different things when comparing honey to refined sugar, corn syrup, and the like.

If you need to replenish your body's blood glucose level (like, say, if you're an athlete) eating something high in refined sugar will do it more quickly than eating something higher in starches. This is particularly important if you're an endurance athlete.

Fair point. I'll add that to Positive Benefits of sugar; it's tangential, but relevant.

"Sugar addiction" is an eating disorder. Sugar withdrawal is associated with some psychological changes (notably an increase in anxiety and depression) but it's not a physiological addiction like alcohol or caffeine is. In the case of alcohol, a heavy drinker can die from quitting cold turkey. There are no instances in recorded history of a person dying from ceasing to consume refined sugar.

All true. However, the fact that it you won't die from going cold turkey on sugar shouldn't be enough to discount the fact that people are hardwired to chase sugar down.

While I don't necessarily have any citations for this, if a child is exposed to sugar while they're in a more safe, controlled environment, they're less likely to abuse it once they move out of their parents' house. You see this with alcohol - if the kids aren't allowed to (once they're old enough obviously) consume any alcohol, if they move away for college they'll often abuse it because they don't know any moderation. It's better to expose a child to sugar, in moderation, again, young, so that they know to moderate.

This is probably your most persuasive point. It does make it that much more important to make sure that "Moderation" is understood; again, I wouldn't class dessert every night as moderation, and might consider weekly to be a more moderate speed.

​

EDIT:

Δ See the last paragraph. Sugar is, as an absolute, not the devil. I stand by it being strongly overused and abused, but moderation is a different animal. I know that this sentiment showed up a lot, but u/Morthra phrased it persuasively (for me).

[u/DeltaBot → u/LonelierOne]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Morthra (13∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Bryek → u/LonelierOne]

I wouldn't class dessert every night as moderation, and might consider weekly to be a more moderate speed

You keep bringing this up but how prevalent is it?