As I started to pack for thanksgiving break, I came across some leftover candy that I still had from Halloween. I then thought a blog about candy would be pretty interesting to do. So as I searched the internet for some sort of topic I can write about for candy I came across a very strange article. The article was called ” Candy- gobbling kids may turn violent as adults”. (NBCnews.com). So I thought this was an interesting thing to say about candy and kids, so I went on and read about it and looked at the study.
This was a study that was done by British experts who claim that children who ate candy daily grow up to be violent in some kind of way. ” British experts studied over 17,000 children born in the 1970s. Their conclusions were that “of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69 percent were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34, and of those who didn’t have any violent clashes, 42 percent ate sweets daily”.(NBCnews.com). After the studies were done, Simon Moore who was a part of these studies agreed that they needed more studies to be done to really prove this. The experts and Moore tried to “find more controlled variables that linked the candy to the violence such as the child behavior at home and also, the lifestyles that they were living”.(NBCnews.com). Moore concluded “that the candy could not be the blame for the children’s violence in their adult lives, but there could be a link, but it is just hard to say at this point in time”. I Agree with Moore that in order to truly get to the bottom of this, more studies should definitely get done because this is a very interesting topic.
Since this was a study and it was an observational one.Third variables can play a huge role as to why these children became violent in their adult lives. Like Moore said ” parents who consistently bribe their children into good behavior with candies and chocolates could be doing harm to them”.(NBCnew.com). Also because since this was such a huge study it is more likely for a third variable to occur because there are so many people being studied that it’s more likely for something to be different. This also goes with the concept of chance playing a role in this study because anything could have occurred during the years in between of the childs life before ending the study. When it comes to direct and reverse causation I say that there could be a possibility, but in this case I do believe like Moore said, “that more studies need to be done” (NBCnews.com). The direct causation would be that eating candy can lead to a person becoming violent,The reverse causation would be that a violent person eats a lot of candy, but it is actually hard to say that it could be reverse causation also in this instance because when it comes to a study being done over a certain amount of time reverse causation can be ruled out. I will say in my opinion this was an “ok” study. When Moore talked about looking at the more controlled variables in the study, I believe they should have been doing that from the beginning to try and get a more accurate possible answer to this question. To go further into finding out if candy and violence could be a possible link, I think researchers should start off a little bit smaller with the studies. What I mean by that is, when Moore talked about parents bribing their children with candy, I think that should be a study of its own. This study would compare how a child acts when it must be bribed all the time with candy compared to a child who has to be bribed little or to none: seeing their personalities, and actions etc. The smaller studies could give more answers and lead up to better conclusions in my opinion. I do agree with Moore when he said ” this is an incredibly complex area”(NBCnews.com), because it is, and I believe that it is a very difficult link to match up with one another. Overall this is a very cool topic to think about when it comes to kids and eating candy.