How to Talk to Kids About Sugar Without Creating Food Fear
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 29, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Talking to a child about sugar is not a choice between pretending nutrition does not matter and turning sweets into something frightening. A useful conversation does three things at once: it gives accurate information, keeps food morally neutral, and leaves the adult responsible for the food environment. Children can learn that added sugar is something families limit for nutritional and dental reasons without learning that eating a cookie makes them “bad,” unsafe, or out of control.
The central idea is simple: explain sugar as an ingredient and a nutrition concept, not as a moral test. Use age-appropriate facts, describe patterns rather than catastrophes, set predictable limits without drama, and avoid making sweets the prize for virtue. This approach fits the emerging evidence on parent–child food communication, the stronger evidence on modeling and structured food environments, and the mixed but important evidence on restrictive feeding.
Quick answer: how should you talk to kids about sugar?
Use calm, concrete language. A preschooler can understand, “Some foods taste sweet because they contain sugar. We eat lots of different foods because our bodies need different things.” A school-age child can learn the difference between naturally occurring and added sugars and can start reading labels. A teenager can understand public-health guidance, marketing, portion context, and why nutrition rules are about patterns over time rather than the moral value of a single food.
When you need to limit sweets, make the limit about the situation: “Candy is not on the menu right now; we’re having a snack after school.” That communicates structure without making candy dangerous or the child wrong for wanting it. When sweets are available, avoid requiring the child to earn them through obedience, exercise, or eating another food first.
There is no single scientifically validated sentence that prevents “food fear.” The most directly relevant systematic review found that parent food communication research is still developing: child-centered communication showed promising associations with more positive eating behavior, while parental diet-focused communication was associated with poorer outcomes, but most included studies were observational and cross-sectional. Norton and colleagues’ systematic review is therefore a reason for thoughtful communication, not proof that one vocabulary guarantees a particular outcome.
What “food fear” means in this article
“Food fear” is a descriptive phrase, not a DSM or ICD diagnosis. Here it means a pattern in which a child becomes unusually anxious, guilty, morally preoccupied, or rigid around ordinary foods because those foods have acquired a threatening meaning. A child may repeat frightening claims about ingredients, worry that one food will immediately damage the body, feel ashamed after eating, or become increasingly rule-bound about what is “safe” or “clean.” Those experiences can exist without an eating disorder, and they can also occur within clinically significant feeding or eating problems.
The goal is not to remove every nutrition rule or every limit. Children need adults to provide structure, safe food, developmentally appropriate portions, and a varied food environment. The goal is to separate structure from threat. “We usually drink water with dinner” is a family practice. “Soda is poison” turns a practice into a danger message. “Dessert is after dinner tonight” is a schedule. “You were good, so you deserve dessert” turns food into a moral currency. For the broader question of how recurring household rules can shape children's sweet preferences and learned expectations, see Family Food Rules and Children's Sweet Preferences.
Start with the right concept of sugar
Children often hear the word sugar as though it names one single category of “bad food.” Nutrition terminology is more precise. Added sugars are sugars added during processing, preparation, or at the table. Naturally occurring sugars are present within foods such as whole fruit and plain milk. The current U.S. Dietary Guidelines explicitly distinguish naturally occurring sugars in fruits and plain milk from added sugars and recommend limiting foods and beverages with added sugars. For the full food-label definition, see Added Sugar: What It Is, Where It Hides, and How Labels Count It.
WHO uses another term, free sugars, which is broader than the U.S. regulatory concept of Added Sugars. Free sugars include sugars added by manufacturers, cooks, or consumers and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit-juice concentrates; sugars inside intact fruits and vegetables are not included. WHO’s current sugars and dental-caries guidance is useful when an older child asks why juice, candy, and whole fruit are not treated as identical foods.
This distinction matters psychologically as well as nutritionally. If adults call all sugar “bad,” a child may reasonably conclude that an apple, yogurt, birthday cake, and soda belong to one forbidden category. Accurate categories allow a more intelligible message: foods can all contain sugars while differing in fiber, protein, micronutrients, concentration, form, frequency of exposure, and the role they play in the overall diet.
For the birthday-specific distinction between celebration ritual and earned food reward, see Birthday Sweets and Learned Reward: Why Celebration Changes Meaning.
Public-health guidance is for food patterns, not for frightening children
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend reducing highly processed foods with added sugars, avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages, and avoiding added sugars during infancy and early childhood. The current federal guidance is written for dietary planning. It does not require parents to describe ordinary sweet foods as toxic, addictive, contaminated, or morally wrong.
That distinction is especially useful when a child is old enough to notice that nutrition guidance contains strong words such as “avoid” and “limit.” Adults can translate the guidance into proportionate language: “The recommendation helps families choose what to serve most often. It does not mean you are harmed or have done something wrong because you ate a sweet food.” A guideline can set the direction of the food environment while the conversation remains calm.
Why the way adults talk about food can matter
Children do not learn about food only from explicit lessons. They learn from what adults buy, what appears regularly at meals, what is scarce, what earns praise, what causes conflict, what adults eat themselves, and what family members say about their own bodies. In the USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review prepared for the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, structured practices such as food availability, accessibility, modeling, monitoring, and family meal routines were associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake in children ages 2 to 6; the evidence was graded moderate. The same review found too much inconsistency to draw a firm conclusion about controlling feeding practices. The USDA review is a useful reminder that the environment often teaches more reliably than a lecture. For the broader child-focused overview of sweetness, nutrition, behavior, and family routines, see Sugar and Kids: Sweetness, Health, Behavior, and Family Habits.
Direct research on verbal food communication is thinner. Norton et al. identified only 23 eligible studies and noted that most were cross-sectional. A newer systematic review focused on observed mealtime communication also found heterogeneous patterns and contradictory findings for some forms of controlling speech. Throm and colleagues concluded that parental communication and modeling are relevant to offspring eating behavior, while the field still needs stronger causal evidence.
So the evidence supports a measured conclusion: language is part of the food environment, and some communication patterns are associated with eating outcomes, but science has not established a magical “perfect food vocabulary.” Parents can use neutral, accurate language because it is developmentally coherent, consistent with broader feeding evidence, and less likely to load ordinary food decisions with shame or threat.
Do not make sugar a moral category
“Good food” and “bad food” are easy shortcuts, but they blend nutritional characteristics with moral judgment. A child who thinks concretely may hear “bad food” as “something bad people eat” or “something I should feel bad about wanting.” You can preserve the nutritional information by naming the actual property instead: “This drink has a lot of added sugar,” “Fruit gives us fiber and vitamins as well as sweetness,” or “Candy is mostly for enjoyment, so it is one of the foods we have less often.”
Neutral does not mean nutritionally blank. A cookie and an apple do not have the same nutrient profile. Neutral language means describing the difference without attaching virtue, disgust, purity, or personal worth to the eater. Children can learn that some foods are nutrient-dense, some foods contain more added sugar, some foods are served more often, and some foods are chosen mainly for pleasure. Those are usable facts.
Talk about what foods do, not what they make a child worth
Body- and weight-focused talk deserves special care, particularly with older children and teenagers. A meta-analysis of parent–child weight talk found that encouragement to lose weight and criticism of weight were associated with poorer physical self-perceptions, more dieting, and more dysfunctional eating; encouraging healthy lifestyles without explicit weight reference showed more favorable associations, although evidence for that pattern was limited. The meta-analysis cannot prove that every comment causes harm, but it supports shifting the conversation from appearance to behavior and health.
The American Academy of Pediatrics similarly recommends that adolescent obesity-prevention messages focus on sustainable healthy behavior rather than weight, dieting, or body dissatisfaction. Its clinical report, Preventing Obesity and Eating Disorders in Adolescents, advises families to talk less about weight and do more to facilitate healthy eating and activity. For a conversation about sugar, that means there is rarely a need to say, “You will get fat if you eat that.”
Set limits without turning sweets into forbidden treasure
A calm limit is different from dramatic prohibition. Parents decide what foods enter the home, what is served, when meals and snacks occur, and what choices are available. That structure can coexist with a child being allowed to like sweets and to feel disappointed when the answer is no.
Experimental work helps explain why overt scarcity can sometimes amplify attention to a food. In a classic within-subject study of preschool children, restricting access to a palatable food increased children’s behavioral response to it and, in one experiment, increased subsequent selection and intake in the restricted context. Fisher and Birch showed a real forbidden-food effect under specific experimental conditions.
The broader evidence is more complicated. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analyses found that some measures of restrictive feeding, especially overt restriction, correlated with food responsiveness and other eating behaviors. Say, Garcia, and Mallan also found substantial differences depending on how restriction was defined. A separate 2024 systematic review of restriction and dietary intake found no statistically significant pooled effects across its meta-analyses and concluded that restriction may be unrelated to, or sometimes associated with more favorable, dietary intake. That review makes blanket claims such as “any restriction makes children overeat” scientifically indefensible.
The practical distinction is between structure and overt psychological control. Keeping soda out of the daily home routine, deciding when dessert is served, or buying a limited quantity of candy are forms of adult food-environment management. Constantly policing bites, announcing that a food is forbidden because it is dangerous, or making access depend on moral performance adds attention and emotional charge. Families need structure; they do not need theater.
Do not use sweets as the payment for eating other foods
“Three more bites of broccoli and then you can have ice cream” seems efficient because it can change behavior immediately. It also teaches a hierarchy: broccoli becomes the task, ice cream becomes the prize. Over time, repeated food-reward contingencies can strengthen the symbolic value of the reward food and make the target food feel like an obstacle.
Longitudinal evidence is not perfectly consistent, but it is strong enough to take the mechanism seriously. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies found that use of food as a reward predicted more child emotional eating, while several child eating traits also predicted parents’ later use of restrictive or reward practices. Wang and colleagues emphasize this bidirectionality: parents shape eating, and children’s appetitive behavior also changes how parents respond.
The American Academy of Pediatrics likewise advises against using sugary foods as rewards. HealthyChildren.org notes that rewarding behavior or bites of another food with sweets can teach children to expect the sweet reward. In psychological terms, this is ordinary reward learning, not proof that sugar is a drug. The broader mechanism is explained in Sugar and Reward Learning: How Sweet Foods Become Powerful Cues.
Let children like sweetness without turning preference into a problem
Children commonly like sweet tastes. Sweetness has biological appeal early in life, and experience then shapes which particular foods, flavors, brands, rituals, and contexts become preferred. Liking sweet foods is therefore not evidence that a child lacks self-control, has an addiction, or has a psychiatric or neurodevelopmental disorder. For the broader mechanism, see Why Do People Like Sweet Foods? Biology, Learning, and Reward.
Parents sometimes create fear unintentionally by interpreting ordinary preference as a sign of pathology: “You cannot control yourself around sugar,” “You are addicted to candy,” or “Sugar makes you crazy.” Those labels are stronger than the evidence. “Sugar addiction” is not an established clinical diagnosis, and reward responses to sweet foods do not by themselves demonstrate substance addiction. The evidence boundary is covered in Is Sugar Addictive? What Human and Animal Evidence Actually Shows.
Similarly, a lively birthday party is not a diagnostic experiment. Expectations, excitement, peers, novelty, noise, sleep, and the social setting can all shape behavior. Claims that sugar automatically causes a “rush” or explains hyperactivity are far more confident than controlled evidence supports. The broader myth-and-expectation question is covered in Sugar Rush: Is It Real? Energy, Expectation, and the Evidence.
Use age-appropriate explanations
Preschoolers: one fact at a time
Young children do not need a biochemical lecture. Use immediate, concrete explanations. “This cereal is sweet because it has added sugar.” “We are having water now.” “Cookies are one of the foods we enjoy sometimes, and lunch has lots of other foods our bodies use to grow.” Keep the explanation short enough that the limit remains the limit; a five-minute defense of every “no” can accidentally make the sweet food the most fascinating object in the room.
Preschool conversations work best when adult behavior carries most of the message. Put a range of foods on the table, eat with the child when possible, let familiar and less-familiar foods coexist, and keep meal and snack rhythms reasonably predictable. The USDA evidence review gives more support to this kind of structured environment than to elaborate control strategies.
School-age children: teach categories and context
School-age children can understand that foods differ in what they contain and what they contribute. You can explain that added sugar is put into foods or drinks during preparation or processing, while the sweetness in a whole piece of fruit comes with the fruit’s fiber, water, and micronutrients. You can compare two labels without turning the exercise into surveillance: “Let’s see how these yogurts are different.”
This age is also a good time to explain advertising and social context. A package can make a food look exciting; a sports event can make soda feel like part of the ritual; a birthday can make cake mean celebration. That does not make the child gullible. It teaches them that food choices are shaped by taste, convenience, culture, marketing, habits, and other people as well as nutrition.
Teenagers: give the full explanation and preserve autonomy
Teenagers can handle uncertainty. Tell them where evidence is strong, where it is mixed, and why recommendations exist. A teenager who asks about sugar deserves a better answer than “because I said so,” but also a better answer than a viral claim that a single ingredient explains mood, attention, acne, body weight, or mental health by itself.
With adolescents, avoid turning nutrition into body surveillance. Discuss food access, habits, sleep, sports demands, dental health, convenience, and the overall dietary pattern. If a teenager wants to change their diet for weight, appearance, athletic performance, a medical condition, or significant digestive symptoms, that is a better moment for individualized guidance from an appropriate clinician or dietitian than for escalating household rules.
Useful answers to common questions
“Is sugar bad?”
A useful answer is: “Sugar is a carbohydrate and it also makes foods taste sweet. Some foods contain sugar naturally, and some have sugar added. Foods with a lot of added sugar are foods we limit because our diet needs room for many nutrients and because frequent sugar exposure matters for teeth. Eating something sweet does not make you bad.” This gives the child a category, a reason, and a boundary without a threat.
“Why can’t I have candy right now?”
Answer the schedule, not the child’s character: “Candy is not the snack we’re having now. You can choose yogurt or toast.” If candy is planned later: “We’re having some after dinner.” If it is not planned: “Not today.” A calm no is allowed. Food neutrality does not require permanent access to every requested food.
“But you said sugar is unhealthy.”
Clarify the scale of the claim: “I mean that foods with lots of added sugar are not what we build most meals around. Health comes from what we usually eat and do over time. One dessert is one part of the whole pattern.” If you previously used frightening language, correct it plainly: “I called sugar ‘poison.’ That was not accurate. I was trying to say we should not have large amounts all the time.”
“Is the sugar in fruit bad too?”
Say: “Whole fruit contains naturally occurring sugars, plus water, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and plant compounds. Nutrition guidelines do not treat the sugar inside intact fruit as Added Sugar.” For an older child, you can add that WHO’s free-sugars category treats fruit juice differently from intact fruit because the food form has changed.
“Am I addicted to sugar?”
Avoid diagnosing from enthusiasm, cravings, or repeated requests. Say: “Wanting a food a lot can come from taste, habit, hunger, cues, emotions, or because we do not get it very often. Addiction is a clinical concept and wanting sweets is not enough to show it.” If eating actually involves recurrent loss of control, marked distress, secretive eating, severe restriction, or other concerning changes, the appropriate next step is assessment rather than a household label.
“Does sugar make me hyper?”
Say: “People often notice children are energetic in places where sweets are served, like parties. The setting itself is exciting, and controlled research has not shown the simple rule that sugar automatically causes hyperactivity.” Keep ADHD and other diagnoses out of an ordinary food conversation unless a clinician is evaluating them.
How to hold a boundary when a child protests
A child does not have to agree with a limit for the limit to work. “I know you want another cookie. We are finished with cookies for now.” Then stop arguing about the nutritional case. Repeated persuasion invites a courtroom drama in which sugar becomes the central object of desire and the parent must prove danger every time.
Predictability helps. If sweets sometimes appear freely, sometimes are earned, sometimes are banned, and sometimes are given after persistent asking, the child is learning a variable reward schedule. That can make negotiation unusually persistent. A steadier routine reduces the need for each request to become a referendum on sugar.
Structure can also be flexible. A birthday, holiday, restaurant meal, travel day, or spontaneous ice cream stop does not invalidate the family’s usual pattern. In fact, treating exceptions as ordinary parts of life can reduce the need to frame them as “cheating,” “being bad,” or “making up for it tomorrow.”
Celebrations: preserve the meaning without making sweets magical
Cake can mean birthday, candy can mean Halloween, and a dessert shared with a grandparent can carry affection and memory. These meanings are learned. Removing all social meaning from sweets is neither realistic nor necessary. The useful question is whether the celebration teaches that sugar is the only route to reward, love, or belonging.
Families can widen the reward system without staging a campaign against sweets. A birthday can contain cake and also music, games, attention, rituals, and chosen activities. A team can celebrate with food and also with recognition, play, or a shared experience. This gives children more than one learned route from celebration to reward.
When grandparents, teachers, coaches, or friends use different language
Children will hear “sugar is poison,” “you earned a treat,” “that food is junk,” and “you’ll get fat if you eat that” outside the home. You do not need to turn every comment into a family conflict. Give the child a stable interpretive framework: “People use different words about food. In our family, we try to be specific. Some foods have more added sugar, and we decide how often they fit. We do not call people good or bad because of what they eat.”
For caregivers, schools, and relatives who regularly feed the child, practical coordination matters more than ideological agreement. State the routine: what drinks are usually offered, whether food is used as a behavioral reward, what allergies or medical restrictions exist, and how meals and snacks are handled. A shared plan reduces the chance that the child becomes the messenger between adults.
What not to promise
Do not promise that neutral language will prevent every struggle with food. Eating behavior is shaped by temperament, sensory sensitivity, developmental stage, neurodevelopment, appetite, family resources, culture, marketing, peer norms, stress, sleep, and many other factors. A child can have anxiety around food even in a thoughtful household, and another child can hear clumsy comments without developing lasting fear.
Do not promise that removing restriction will automatically produce perfect self-regulation. The research on restrictive feeding is heterogeneous, definitions differ, and parent–child effects run in both directions. Children also differ in food responsiveness and satiety responsiveness. The purpose of a calmer approach is to create a clearer learning environment, not to guarantee a specific appetite phenotype.
Do not turn “no food fear” into a new perfection rule. Parents will occasionally say something awkward, negotiate dessert, or use a treat strategically. One sentence is not a destiny. What matters more is the recurring pattern and the willingness to correct inaccurate or shaming messages when they appear.
When concern about food needs professional attention
A preference for sweets, asking repeatedly for dessert, eating more than expected at a party, or being disappointed by a limit is not itself a diagnosis. Concern becomes more clinically relevant when there is persistent distress or impairment: severe anxiety around eating, rapidly narrowing “safe” foods, recurrent loss of control, secretive eating accompanied by distress, compensatory behaviors, self-induced vomiting, fasting, compulsive exercise tied to eating, intense weight or shape preoccupation, significant weight change, growth concerns, or conflict that dominates family life.
For adolescents, the American Academy of Pediatrics advises early assessment when eating patterns change in ways that may indicate an eating disorder. The goal is not to wait for a child to “look sick.” Feeding and eating disorders can occur across body sizes. A pediatrician or other qualified clinician can assess growth, medical risk, eating behavior, and whether specialist mental-health or dietetic care is needed.
Medical diets require a different conversation. Diabetes, food allergy, celiac disease, metabolic disorders, gastrointestinal disease, and other conditions can require specific restrictions. In those cases, accurate safety language and an individualized clinical plan take priority. This article addresses ordinary family communication about dietary sugar, not blood-glucose targets, A1C, hypoglycemia, insulin, or diabetes management.
Evidence status: what is established, mixed, and still emerging?
Established enough for practical use: parents shape the food environment; children learn from modeling, availability, routines, and repeated experience; added sugars and naturally occurring sugars are distinct nutrition concepts; frequent free-sugar exposure is relevant to dental caries; food rewards and restriction can participate in learning; weight-focused and dieting communication in adolescents is associated with less favorable eating and wellbeing outcomes.
Mixed evidence: the effects of restrictive feeding on later dietary intake and eating behavior vary with how restriction is defined, how outcomes are measured, child characteristics, and study design. Overt restriction has produced increased attention and intake in controlled experiments, while broader meta-analytic evidence does not support a universal rule that every limit on sweets causes overeating.
Emerging evidence: the exact effects of specific parent wording about sugar are not well established. Systematic reviews of food communication find promising patterns but also heavy reliance on cross-sectional studies and heterogeneous measures. Claims that avoiding the words “good” and “bad” will by itself prevent an eating disorder go beyond the evidence.
Practical meaning: use precise language, keep the emotional temperature low, provide structure, model the pattern you want to teach, and let nutrition guidance operate at the level where it belongs—food provision and repeated habits. Children can learn why added sugar is limited without learning to fear themselves for wanting sweetness.
A simple family framework
A workable framework has four parts. First, facts: “Added sugar is sugar put into foods or drinks during preparation or processing.” Second, pattern: “We eat many different foods, and foods with lots of added sugar are not what we build most meals around.” Third, structure: “This is what we are serving now.” Fourth, permission to experience: “It is okay to like sweet foods, and it is okay to feel disappointed when you cannot have one right now.”
That framework lets adults remain adults. It does not outsource the pantry to the child, and it does not require a child to manage public-health nutrition policy. The child receives truthful explanations and predictable boundaries; the adult manages purchasing, routines, and the overall food environment.
Frequently asked questions
Should parents call sugar “bad” for children?
It is more accurate to describe what you mean: a food may contain a lot of added sugar, contribute few other nutrients, be something the family serves less often, or increase dental-caries risk when free sugars are consumed frequently. Moral labels add little nutritional information and can attach shame to the eater.
Should sweets be completely unrestricted so children do not fear them?
No. Parents can set limits on what is bought, served, and available. The evidence does not support equating all structure with harmful restriction. The useful distinction is between predictable food-environment structure and highly salient, coercive, or fear-based control.
Does banning sweets make children want them more?
It can under some conditions. Controlled experiments have shown that restricting access to a palatable food can increase attention, selection, or intake of that food. Broader systematic reviews are mixed, so the effect is not universal and depends on how restriction is practiced and measured.
Is it okay to offer dessert after dinner?
Yes. A family can have a dessert routine without turning dessert into a reward. The psychologically important distinction is whether dessert is simply part of the planned meal pattern or is made contingent on behavior, moral worth, exercise, or eating a required number of bites.
Should parents explain health risks of sugar?
Yes, in proportion to the child’s age and question. Explain concrete reasons such as dental health, nutrient balance, and why added-sugar foods are limited. Avoid catastrophic claims that imply a single sweet food will cause disease or immediate bodily damage.
What if my child asks for sweets constantly?
Repeated asking can reflect liking, hunger, habit, cue exposure, inconsistent boundaries, scarcity, boredom, or learned negotiation. It does not by itself establish addiction. Look at meal and snack structure, access patterns, sleep and stress, and whether requests are being intermittently rewarded before assigning a clinical label.
Can I correct myself if I already used scary food language?
Yes. A short correction is enough: “I said sugar was poison. That was not accurate. I meant that we limit foods with a lot of added sugar and eat a variety of foods.” Correcting a claim models how to update beliefs when better information is available.
When should I worry about food fear?
Seek professional assessment when fear or rules around food become persistent, distressing, medically concerning, or disruptive to eating and daily life—especially with significant restriction, rapid dietary narrowing, recurrent loss of control, compensatory behavior, body-image preoccupation, or growth and weight changes.
For the current age-specific numbers and the differences among U.S. federal, AHA/AAP, and WHO guidance, see How Much Added Sugar Should Children Have? Guidelines Explained.
Related Articles
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. How to Tame Your Child’s Sweet Tooth: Tips for Parents. HealthyChildren.org. https://www.healthychildren.org/english/healthy-living/nutrition/pages/how-to-tame-your-childs-sweet-tooth.aspx
Fisher, J. O., & Birch, L. L. (1999). Restricting access to palatable foods affects children’s behavioral response, food selection, and intake. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(6), 1264–1272. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/69.6.1264. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10357749/
Fisher, J. O., Eicher-Miller, H. A., Odoms-Young, A., et al. (2024). Parental and Caregiver Feeding Styles and Practices and Consuming a Dietary Pattern that is Aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: A Systematic Review. USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review. DOI: 10.52570/NESR.DGAC2025.SR25. https://nesr.usda.gov/2025-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee-systematic-reviews/caregiver-feeding-practices_diet-quality
Gillison, F. B., Lorenc, A. B., Sleddens, E. F. C., Williams, S. L., & Atkinson, L. (2016). Can it be harmful for parents to talk to their child about their weight? A meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine, 93, 135–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.010. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27746340/
Golden, N. H., Schneider, M., Wood, C., et al. (2016). Preventing Obesity and Eating Disorders in Adolescents. Pediatrics, 138(3), e20161649. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-1649. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27550979/
Norton, L., Parkinson, J., Harris, N., Darcy, M., & Hart, L. (2023). Parental food communication and child eating behaviours: A systematic literature review. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 34(2), 366–378. DOI: 10.1002/hpja.604. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35363899/
Say, A., Garcia, X. de la P., & Mallan, K. M. (2023). The correlation between different operationalisations of parental restrictive feeding practices and children’s eating behaviours: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Appetite, 180, 106320. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106320. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36210017/
Throm, J. K., Schilling, D., Löchner, J., Micali, N., Dörsam, A. F., & Giel, K. E. (2024). Parental verbal communication and modeling behavior during mealtimes shape offspring eating behavior: A systematic review with a focus on clinical implications for eating disorders. Appetite, 200, 107584. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107584. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38944057/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2026). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 (10th ed.). https://odphp.health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/dietary-guidelines/current-dietary-guidelines
Wang, J., Zhu, B., Wu, R., Chang, Y.-S., Cao, Y., & Zhu, D. (2022). Bidirectional Associations between Parental Non-Responsive Feeding Practices and Child Eating Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Prospective Studies. Nutrients, 14(9), 1896. DOI: 10.3390/nu14091896. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35565862/
Werner, L. M., & Mallan, K. M. (2024). Associations between restrictive feeding practices and children’s dietary intake: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Appetite, 200, 107508. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107508. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38795944/
World Health Organization. (2025). Sugars and dental caries. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sugars-and-dental-caries