With Halloween right around the corner, parents may want to keep tabs on how many treats their kids actually eat. The British Journal of Psychiatry published a study in its October issue suggesting children who eat candy on a regular basis are more likely to go to prison for violent crimes later in life. Researchers Lisa Carter, Stephanie van Goozen and Simon Moore of Cardiff University followed 17,000 children born in 1970 over the course of their lives at ages five, 10, and 34. Moore said in an email that at five, the subjects’ data ‘contained a good deal of information on parental attitudes, education, etc.,’ while age 10 revealed questions on diet and 34 exhibited ‘whether they had been convicted of a violent offence in the past five years.’ The result of the study indicates 69 percent of subjects who ate chocolate or candy at least once a day as children were arrested for violent offenses by age 34, the Associated Press reported. A violent offense as defined in the research does not ‘include robbery and sexual offences,’ Moore said in the email. While the results do not directly condemn sweets and sweet teeth – 42 percent of subjects who were never violent also ate candy daily, the study found – Moore said giving children candy regularly teaches them not to have to wait for things they want. ‘It is an intriguing correlation,’ he said. ‘My interpretation is psychological – I think that giving in to kids and giving them candy every day promotes a more impulsive attitude – whereas it might be possible to teach children to delay gratification.’ The instant gratification of candy may cause children to be quicker to act and more impulsive or spontaneous, which can lead to criminal activity in adulthood, he said. ‘An impulsive attitude is also strongly associated with being violent,’ Moore said. ‘But this is all speculation.’ Moore said he thinks it is interesting what the media has extrapolated from his study. ‘[W]hat was an interesting association has been turned into a statement on world peace,’ he said. ‘But it would be foolish for me to suggest that anyone should make any changes based on an interesting statistical association.’ Many Boston University students and professors expressed both skepticism and interest about the implications of the results. Sociology professor Nazli Kibria said in an email she thought the results could have indirect merit. ‘A statistical association could be misinterpreted to be a [causal],’ she said. ‘It is possible that those eating more candy grew up in high-risk neighborhoods with more poverty and fewer opportunities.’ Sociology professor Susan Eckstein said in an email the study’s scope was overly limited. ‘Too many other factors impact on adult behavior to attribute adult violence to youth eating habits,’ she said. But psychology professor Bob Harrison said in an email the parents who feel they have nothing but candy to give to their children are at fault. ‘[P]arents who felt they had nothing to give to their kids except candy felt deprived themselves, and deprived parents [create] violent kids,’ he said. College of Fine Arts sophomore Joel Cote said he thinks socioeconomic factors play a role. ‘Poorer families don’t have the best diet, and could be a correlation between candy and violence,’ he said. Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences sophomore K.J. Kearney said the study should not be based only on the candy kids are eating, but also on how and why they are getting the candy. ‘ ‘It’s more so about the parenting than candy,’ she said.