Sweet science

Times columnist Alex Renton last week wrote about a personal experiment he undertook to see what would happen if he let his son eat as much sugar as he wanted for a day. This, he maintained in an earlier article, was ‘for the sake of science’. 

His conclusion that allowing a child unlimited supplies of the sweet stuff under the assumption that they will know when to stop isn’t all that sensible, let alone scientific. And while his son may have the willpower to refuse a second helping of candyfloss, I know plenty of kids that wouldn’t be nearly so unwavering.

FSA advice is that a healthy balanced diet contains everything you need – with foods high in sugar, salt or fat best eaten in small quantities. Not rocket science, but based on sound science all the same. The UK recommendation, that children’s sugar intake should make up no more than 11 per cent of their overall food energy, is based on a long-term overview of the available science –  the  approach we always take to inform our advice.

Renton is right to be cynical about the myriad of food ‘horrors’ in the media, which are often based on one single study and make for a good scare story. And he’s right that ‘healthy active children’ do need ‘basic carbs’ ...  but let’s not confuse sugary foods with energy-sustaining carbs, such as wholegrain breads, pasta and potatoes - which are also full of other important nutrients.

We know from research that lots of kids are eating much too much sugar. The 11 per cent recommendation was made largely because of the link between sugar and poor dental health, but the WHO also found that children who had lots of sugary drinks were more likely to be overweight. And everybody knows too many of our children are overweight.

Renton’s level-headed son may not be one of those at risk and yes, we should take a common sense approach to feeding our kids. But let’s not disregard the science.