Confession: as a teacher, nutritionist and feeding therapist, I no longer place soft-drink bottles on a table with sugar cubes and ask children to guess the sugar content. Nor do I use the same concept with chocolate bars, lollies, cereals, condiments, and fruit. If you’ve used this activity before, you’re not alone. Many of us believed it was helpful.
Here is why I have shifted my practice.
Since first publishing this blog in 2019, Australia’s new Health and Physical Education curriculum (Version 9.0) has strengthened its guidance on food education. It now cautions against activities that label foods as “good” or “bad,” use of food diaries, or calculating calories and BMI because these can unintentionally fuel anxiety and disordered eating. This shift in curriculum mirrors what I’ve noticed in practice.
Yes, on the surface, this task is visual and tactile and it can be a fun guessing game but, is it really helping children curb their sugar intake? Possibly yes, in the short term because it has instilled fear and worry. And for some personality types, this seemingly innocent activity and surrounding discussion can result in disordered eating behaviours. An extreme situation, but this is the reality of the anti-sugar movement. Ultimately, this falls well short of gold-standard, evidence-based teaching.
Why do fear-based sugar lessons backfire?
Primary aged children are rule-based thinkers. They tend to focus on a single aspect of a situation and can easily fixate on particular ideas. The problem with the activity frames sugar as something to fear, and children may develop worries or misconceptions that are difficult to shift. The vulnerability of the child’s stage of cognition allows for health messages to be misconstrued as they try to piece together information from parents, teachers and even the media. A child’s understanding is like a sentence with missing words, they fill in the blanks, sometimes misinterpreting information to create their own meaning.
What is wrong with the anti-sugar movement?
These misconceptions don’t just shape classroom lessons, they also influence how we judge what children bring in their lunch boxes.
As a nutritionist, I need to promote health messages that are current and evidence-based in an ethical manner. The problem with the anti-sugar movement is that fear-mongering and misinformation fuel misguided messages and twisted truths. The human body’s health is shaped not only by our biology and genetics but also by the environment we live in. That environment includes social and economic factors such as food access, family traditions and cultural practices. For some families, affordable, shelf-stable foods with added sugars may be the most reliable options. Effective nutrition education needs to acknowledge this diversity without judgement
The simplicity of the message ‘quit sugar’ or ‘eat less sugar’ neglects to recognise that health is far beyond a single ingredient like sugar. When we demonise sugar, we add it to our ‘don’t eat’ or ‘bad food list’. This consumes our thoughts and creates higher stress levels. The more we position sugar as something to avoid at all costs, the more powerful and tempting it becomes. If we see all foods can be available to us, then we’re removing power from that single ingredient, sugar. Tuning into our body and recognising when we’re stressed, tired, overworked and unwell are more beneficial than quitting sugar.
What about those children who have lunch boxes with lots of sweet foods?
This is a complex area, and it’s important to recognise that your values around food may differ from a child’s family values. Those differences can stem from culture, budget, food availability or simply family routines. Approaching these conversations with curiosity rather than criticism respects the reality of each household. Eating competence develops over many steps; simply filling a lunch box with ‘healthy’ foods doesn’t automatically build those skills. We need to remember the years of eating experience children have compared to adults. Children approach food differently: while adults may view food through a moral lens, children experience it primarily through their senses.
How do we teach children not to eat too much sugar?
We focus on building children’s repertoire of food from the five food groups and include discretionary foods. Offering sugary foods alongside whole foods keeps all foods on an even playing field. Parents can make decisions on serving sizes and frequency of consumption when it comes to sugary foods. Avoiding nutritional commentary helps children build positive, relaxed relationships with food. For example, rather than saying, “no you can’t have more chocolate, you’ve had too much sugar today,” try, “That’s enough chocolate for today. Would you like to choose a chocolate bar to add to your lunch box sometime this week?” This way children still see that the food is available to them.
It’s essential to help children develop language to describe how their body feels when they haven’t eaten enough or have eaten too much. As each child’s feeding experience is unique, developing adaptive eating behaviours requires social support. Building eating competency over time with frequent family meals is fundamentally the most effective way for children to learn about food. Let’s recognise the need for positive food experiences in children’s lives and prioritise learning situations that support this. By shifting from fear to curiosity, we give children the skills and confidence to navigate food choices for life, without turning sugar into the enemy.
