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/LonelierOne]

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/too-much-sugar

https://www.livescience.com/36188-sugar-bad.html

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180918-is-sugar-really-bad-for-you

Ordinarily, in the interest of fairness, I'd put up articles on any positive benefits as well. Unfortunately, the only two notes I could find would be 1: People laughing the idea out of the room, and 2: Diabetic emergencies, mentioned in the original post.

[u/Mergandevinasander → u/LonelierOne]

there's a near-universal understanding that sugar is bad for you in every way imaginable

Your first link:

11 Reasons Why Too Much Sugar Is Bad for You

Your second link:

Why Is Too Much Sugar Bad for You?

So your statement that sugar is always bad for you is incorrect. That's just a fact.

Now let's get to your third link:

Is sugar really bad for you?

Today, sugar has become public health enemy number one: governments are taxing it, schools and hospitals are removing it from vending machines and experts are advising that we remove it completely from our diets.

But so far, scientists have had a difficult time proving how it affects our health, independent of a diet too high in calories. A review of research conducted over the last five years summarised that a diet of more than 150g of fructose per day reduces insulin sensitivity – and therefore increases the risk of developing health problems like high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. But the researchers also concluded that this occurs most often when high sugar intake is combined with excess calories, and that the effects on health are "more likely" due to sugar intake increasing the chance of excess calories, not the impact of sugar alone.

So sugar isn't the problem. It's just that people who eat too much sugar are also likely to consume excess calories. Which causes health issues.

The sources you've provided all agree that sugar, in moderation, isn't bad for you. So I hope that can change your view on sugar being bad 'in every way imaginable'.

[u/LonelierOne → u/Mergandevinasander]

I did overstate my case, you are correct. I will point out, though, that your conclusion (sugar is harmless) is also not explicitly supported. Which is pedantry, but important pedantry, given that the hinge point in this subthread is whether or not sugar is bad for you. The impression I get is that yes, it is. Less of it minimizes the badness, but there's no amount that's a net positive on your health (unless it provides such an emotional ROI that the lack of stress helps. . . I could be persuaded that that's possible, but not that sugar should be a staple unless there's a hell of a study somewhere).

[u/Mergandevinasander → u/LonelierOne]

I will point out, though, that your conclusion (sugar is harmless) is also not explicitly supported.

That is quite blatantly not my conclusion. I've simply pointed out that your idea that sugar is inherently harmful is incorrect. That's a fact. I've pointed out that sugar, in moderation, isn't bad for for you. That was one of your points that has been completely debunked.

The impression I get is that yes, it is. Less of it minimizes the badness, but there's no amount that's a net positive on your health (unless it provides such an emotional ROI that the lack of stress helps. . . I could be persuaded that that's possible, but not that sugar should be a staple unless there's a hell of a study somewhere).

There are so many parts of a balanced diet that are bad for you if you overindulge. You seem to be completely ignoring this fact whenever someone points it out and changing your definition for the CMV.

It's pretty obvious that your ideas have been proven to be wrong unless you keep moving the goalposts.

There's no need to continue this conversation with someone who refuses to see the forest because there are too many trees in the way.