Has the “Twinkie Defense” been validated?
A new study in the journal Injury Prevention reports that adolescents who consumed more than 5 cans of soda per week were more likley to engage in violent behaviors (e.g., carrying a gun and violence towards friends, girlfriends and children).
The researchers hypothesize that it might be the sugar, or some organic factor that leads to high soft drink consumption and aggressive behavior.
This of course is the stupidest of studies, first for entirely relying upon the responses of teens to in-class surveys — i.e., unverified self-reporting — and next for essentially likening sugar to PCP.
The premise for the study was:
In 1979, Dan White was tried for the assassinations of San Francisco city district Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. His lawyers argued that he had diminished capacity and was unable to premeditate his crime. Part of the evidence for his depressed and altered state of mind was that he had recently changed from a health-conscious diet to junk food and Coca-Cola. Although Twinkies, a popular packaged snack cake filled with cream, were mentioned only in passing during the trial, the legal argument became known as the ‘Twinkie Defense’. The defence was successful: White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than homicide.
By the way, this effort to rename the “Twinkie Defense” as the “Coca-Cola Defense” was another example of your tax dollars at work, courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Why not just let the government take the money to Vegas? At least taxpayers would have a chance for a positive outcome.