Candy Doesn't Pay

Every so often, the British remind us of how they managed to lose most of an enormous global empire with breathtaking speed.

A recently published study chronicles a research project in which British experts studied more than 17,000 children born in 1970 for about four decades. Their findings? Of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69% were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34, a substantially higher percentage than those who consumed sweets on a less-than-daily basis.

The conclusion is clear. While an apple a day keeps the doctor away, a candy a day will eventually lead to keeping the bail bondsman on speed-dial.

In my opinion, this "study," and its conclusion, represent statistical stupidity writ large.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that this study was commissioned by Kraft Foods, in an attempt to supress the valuation of Cadbury, in the former's attempt to complete a hostile takeover of the latter.

On a serious note, has anyone considered that the candy-crime link is a bit flawed?

Perhaps children of single-parent households, or those with relatively less-educated parents, or those from lower-income households are more likely to eat unhealthy diets, such as daily servings of candy, or other sorts of junkfood.

Coincidentally, children from those less-advantaged income or family-structure segments are much more likely to commit violent crimes in adulthood.

How's this for a statistical conclusion? Remember how your parents always told you to tie your shoelaces when you were a kid? They pointed out that if you walk around with your shoelaces untied, you could get hurt. Turns out they were right. Research shows that people who walk around with untied sneakers (and who wear their pants six inches below their waists, and their baseball caps sideways, and wear an overabundance of large gold-plated jewelry) are 20 times more likely to be injured or killed in a drive-by shooting. Shocking. It's enough to make me want to trade in my cap-toed oxfords for a pair of loafers, just to minimize the risk.

In other words, there probably isn't a direct link, or at least a causal relationship, between candy and violent crime. Rather, those distinct groups - daily candy eaters and violent criminals - share common background characteristics. So, a rich suburban kid, from a dual-parent home, who happens to eat candy regularly when he/she is 10 years old, is no more likely to eventually commit a violent crime than is his neighbor or private-school classmate.

Then again, perhaps I'm just trying to discredit this study, and its ramifications, for personal reasons. After all, if there truly is a link between daily candy consumption and violent crime, FBB and I have got a future serial killer or two on our hands.