Halloween: The Tainted Candy Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

Disney Dad Canada

Passing on my Disney obsession to my 3 kids, and a
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
1,394
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_scare

Just listened to the latest show, and heard people talking about "where else can you let your kids eat out of the bag"?

It's really sad that we live in a society of unwarranted fear. Most people take common fears at face value, without bothering to check their validity. "These days" is aphrase that parents have used since the beginning of time. I'm sure cave men went on and on about "these days".

"The good old days" were never that good, and "these days" we should not live in constant fear of mythological boogy men.
 
Every year there are stories on the news where people find razor blades, etc. in their candy. I don't think it is a myth.

It is perfectly fine to check your childrens candy. Personally I don't understand in these times going to perfect strangers homes and get candy. I think it is perfectly fine not to have a little mistrust. An ounce of prevention is a good idea for Halloween.
 
Every year there are stories on the news where people find razor blades, etc. in their candy. I don't think it is a myth.

"Stories" are old wives tales, and are rarely factual. You can do "what if's" all day and never leave your house.

Read the link, or do a Google search and find an actual case; you won't find one.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_scare

Just listened to the latest show, and heard people talking about "where else can you let your kids eat out of the bag"?

It's really sad that we live in a society of unwarranted fear. Most people take common fears at face value, without bothering to check their validity. "These days" is aphrase that parents have used since the beginning of time. I'm sure cave men went on and on about "these days".

"The good old days" were never that good, and "these days" we should not live in constant fear of mythological boogy men.

When I was a kid, we were allowed to go out to play in the early morning and our only requirement was that we be home before the street lights came on.

If we were hurt or scared, we felt we could go to any house in the neighborhood, as we knew everyone by name and everyone's Mom "watched" everyone's kid.

We went "trick or treating" at dusk and came home when we were exhausted or couldnt carry the candy we'd collected. No parents...just us.

I never had a bike helmet. I used to ride standing up in the back of my Grandfather's pick up. When we were thirsty, we drank out of the neighbors garden hose.

The only child that was ever "abducted" was huge news and I'd bet, to this day, that anyone that grew up in the same area that I did can not only tell you her name, but the details. It was so rare that it was imprinted on your brain.

Unfortunately, times have changed. I'm betting that most parents dont allow their kids the sort of unbridled freedom that we were allowed.....and for good reason.

Children being taken from the streets are a much more common occurrence ...so much so , that we now have a special code and announcement for it. We have the Amber alert.

Just watching the nightly news tells you that the boogeyman is no longer mythological.
 

Unfortunately, times have changed. I'm betting that most parents dont allow their kids the sort of unbridled freedom that we were allowed.....and for good reason.

Children being taken from the streets are a much more common occurrence ...so much so , that we now have a special code and announcement for it. We have the Amber alert.

Just watching the nightly news tells you that the boogeyman is no longer mythological.

While it may FEEL that way, it's not true. It was much worse in the 80s than it was now when it comes to both crimes in general and crimes against children specifically.

Unfortunately, there's a large difference between what people DO fear verses what we SHOULD fear. For example, it's MUCH safer to fly than it is to drive, but which do people fear more?

Try looking at freerangekids.com for more examples of perceived verses actual dangers.
 
While it may FEEL that way, it's not true. It was much worse in the 80s than it was now when it comes to both crimes in general and crimes against children specifically.

Unfortunately, there's a large difference between what people DO fear verses what we SHOULD fear. For example, it's MUCH safer to fly than it is to drive, but which do people fear more?

Try looking at freerangekids.com for more examples of perceived verses actual dangers.

I have a question Disney Dad........do you allow your kids to go trick or treating at night without you? Are they allowed to go anywhere they pretty much want to go?

Are they allowed to rip into those bags of candy without your even looking at them?

Are they allowed to go at at 9:00am and return at 9:00pm without calling, texting, emailing etc?

We have electronic signs over our highways here in FL (which are relatively new) and while they have many uses...warnings of road closures, traffic advisories etc.....one of their uses is to alert motorists of AMBER alerts so that they can be on the look out for car models and plate numbers and alert the police.

As for whether it was worse in the 80's.....tell that to the parents who were just informed that their little girls body was just found.
 
When I was a kid, we were allowed to go out to play in the early morning and our only requirement was that we be home before the street lights came on.

If we were hurt or scared, we felt we could go to any house in the neighborhood, as we knew everyone by name and everyone's Mom "watched" everyone's kid.

We went "trick or treating" at dusk and came home when we were exhausted or couldnt carry the candy we'd collected. No parents...just us.

I never had a bike helmet. I used to ride standing up in the back of my Grandfather's pick up. When we were thirsty, we drank out of the neighbors garden hose.

The only child that was ever "abducted" was huge news and I'd bet, to this day, that anyone that grew up in the same area that I did can not only tell you her name, but the details. It was so rare that it was imprinted on your brain.

Unfortunately, times have changed. I'm betting that most parents dont allow their kids the sort of unbridled freedom that we were allowed.....and for good reason.

Children being taken from the streets are a much more common occurrence ...so much so , that we now have a special code and announcement for it. We have the Amber alert.

Just watching the nightly news tells you that the boogeyman is no longer mythological.

Kevin, while I agree with you, it's important to remember that the VAST majority of missing children are runaways or victims of a family abduction/custody issues.

This is a wonderful article about kids and freedom these days.
 
When we were kids (not too long ago), people were also not suing everybody for the smallest thing.
 
I have a question Disney Dad........do you allow your kids to go trick or treating at night without you? Are they allowed to go anywhere they pretty much want to go?

Are they allowed to rip into those bags of candy without your even looking at them?

Are they allowed to go at at 9:00am and return at 9:00pm without calling, texting, emailing etc?

We have electronic signs over our highways here in FL (which are relatively new) and while they have many uses...warnings of road closures, traffic advisories etc.....one of their uses is to alert motorists of AMBER alerts so that they can be on the look out for car models and plate numbers and alert the police.

As for whether it was worse in the 80's.....tell that to the parents who were just informed that their little girls body was just found.

For their age group, my kids are allowed to do pretty much the same thing I did at their age. My son is 10, and my twin girls are 7. They walk to and from school by themselves (about a 20 minute walk) unless the weather is bad, then our nanny gives them city bus tickets to go the two bus stops to school.

When I have tickets to the Toronto Bluejay games after work (once or twice a year), I give my son a bus ticket and ask him to meet me at the subway station. It's one bus, so no transfers are needed, and he knows where to wait for me. It's a 20 minute bus ride, but he's fine doing it.

I let them play outside by themselves, and come in when they are tired. In the beginning they wanted Daddy out with them, and I was more than happy to oblidge. But now when they want to go play and I'm dealing with other things, I allow them to grab my keys and go (the keys are needed to get into the lobby door to our condo).

As far amber alerts, any child that disappears is a tragedy, and I wouldn't for a moment minimalize the pain and suffering that both the child and the family goes through. But last year there were 117 stranger child abductions in the US, or roughly a 1 in a million and a half chance that it will happen to your child. Of those 11 were killed. Compare that to 1,274 death do to car crashes, and you can see that "Stranger danger" isn't nearly as prevolent as we feel it is. I'm not for a moment saying that these lives lost aren't horrific, it's just that "stranger danger" or tainted candy should be put in their proper perspectives. Stranger danger happens rarely, and candy tainting NEVER has.

And as for trick or treating, my kids INSIST I go with them.Not because they are afraid but because they like seeing me in my Fantasia Mickey outfit. The only candy looking I do with my kids is for stuff I like. :)
 
it's just that "starnger danger" or tainted candy should be put in their proper perspectives.

I guess that this is the part that confuses me.

We did a show about Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween Party and suggested that it was a great thing that parents could feel safe letting their kids trick or treat and not worry about checking the candy.

Is that not the proper perspective?

I understand that not as many children die from abduction (or tainted candy) as die from traffic fatalities, but we do things to protect children riding in automobiles as well. We use car seats and safety restraints.

We do what we can to protect kids.
 
Abduction and abuse of children hasn't gone up. The reporting of it has. It isn't like there weren't rotten people 50 and 100 years ago, too. The fact that it is news to me or you doesn't mean it is a brand new event on the planet.

If people want to keep their kids super-duper sheltered to the point of never having the kid leave their sight, that is good for them.

If others want to let their kids go swing at the park and Trick-or-Treat, that is good for them.

And nobody really needs to worry about how other people raise their kids, IMO. If we all do our best to raise our own, that'll do.
 
I guess that this is the part that confuses me.

We did a show about Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween Party and suggested that it was a great thing that parents could feel safe letting their kids trick or treat and not worry about checking the candy.

Is that not the proper perspective?

I understand that not as many children die from abduction (or tainted candy) as die from traffic fatalities, but we do things to protect children riding in automobiles as well. We use car seats and safety restraints.

We do what we can to protect kids.

My point is that you don't need to worry about searching kids candy anywhere. It's an urban legend, a myth. It's just as likely as you being abducted by aliens, or killed by Bigfoot. Protecting your kids from car crashes by using seat belts is sensible. Worrying about an imaginary fear is not.

As a parent, it's not my job to protect my children from every potential fear, no matter how small or imagined. It's to teach them how to live independantly, to be able to think for themselves.
 
Also, I think it's important to remember that just because the candy comes from Disney doesn't make it automatically safe. There's ALWAYS a chance that something is unsafe (see the Tylenol deaths in Chicago thirty years ago). Risk is a part of life.
 
I guess that this is the part that confuses me.

We did a show about Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween Party and suggested that it was a great thing that parents could feel safe letting their kids trick or treat and not worry about checking the candy.

Is that not the proper perspective?

I understand that not as many children die from abduction (or tainted candy) as die from traffic fatalities, but we do things to protect children riding in automobiles as well. We use car seats and safety restraints.

We do what we can to protect kids.
I'd still check the candy. The fact that someone handed it to my kid in the MK doesn't mean that the person is beyond reproach or that I shouldn't do a once-over. They're still strangers. I don't know what is in their hearts/heads. But that's me.

It's FINE for people who don't want to check it. It's FINE for people who don't want to let the kids Trick-or-Treat.

And I don't think there was anything wrong with you said (as it has been described.) I think most people would figure that it's Disney, nothing bad will happen. And there is an EXTREMELY good chance that they're right. :)
 
Wikipedia is hardly a credible source for anything.

What the OP said may or may not be true, but citing a Wikipedia entry as the expert reference doesn't prove any case.

That's all. I'm not going to debate the issue, people feel how they feel. Carry on. :)
 
Trying to change behavior, especially fear based behavoir, by citing statistics on risk is like trying to persuade people not to buy lottery tickets when the powerball reaches $50 million or more.

From a rational standpoint, I've always sided with Disney Dad Canada but my kids were never allowed to eat their Halloween candy until I looked through it (even though I know the folks in my neighborhood pretty well).

The more realistic measure isn't so much the statistics as it is the effort/consequences ratio. It takes comparatively little effort to check candy (or buy a lottery ticket) and the consequences/reward is comparatively significant.
 
Wikipedia is hardly a credible source for anything.

What the OP said may or may not be true, but citing a Wikipedia entry as the expert reference doesn't prove any case.

That's all. I'm not going to debate the issue, people feel how they feel. Carry on. :)

Then find an actual case, Google it, you won't find one.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/051025_halloween_candy.html
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/halloween.asp

Not sure which other reference you prefer, but there's a couple more.
 
Maybe it's not as dangerous (in some places) now because people take more precautions. The fact that there are not as many incidents "these days" is due to parents being more cautious and not less "Boogeymen". One more thing. I live in New Orleans and while my child is in a safe neighborhood, I suggest you google New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago crime and see how many murder victims are teenagers and in some cases, pre teens. It was NOT this bad in the 80's in my part of the world. Some of us have to be obsessive about our kids safety because their lives depend on it. I personally had multiple friends that died before we graduated high school and I know people that have lost kids. For some of us, the Boogeyman is very real.
 
Trying to change behavior, especially fear based behavoir, by citing statistics on risk is like trying to persuade people not to buy lottery tickets when the powerball reaches $50 million or more.

From a rational standpoint, I've always sided with Disney Dad Canada but my kids were never allowed to eat their Halloween candy until I looked through it (even though I know the folks in my neighborhood pretty well).

The more realistic measure isn't so much the statistics as it is the effort/consequences ratio. It takes comparatively little effort to check candy (or buy a lottery ticket) and the consequences/reward is comparatively significant.

I agree 100%. It's not checking candy that's the big issue (it takes what, 5 minutes), it's the unwarranted fear of everything. Unfortunately, fear will win over reality, no matter how crazy the fantasy stories are. Fear sells, reality doesn't.
 
Maybe it's not as dangerous (in some places) now because people take more precautions. The fact that there are not as many incidents "these days" is due to parents being more cautious and not less "Boogeymen". One more thing. I live in New Orleans and while my child is in a safe neighborhood, I suggest you google New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago crime and see how many murder victims are teenagers and in some cases, pre teens. It was NOT this bad in the 80's in my part of the world. Some of us have to be obsessive about our kids safety because their lives depend on it. I personally had multiple friends that died before we graduated high school and I know people that have lost kids. For some of us, the Boogeyman is very real.

Chicago Homicides

1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 931
1994: 929
1995: 827
1996: 789
1997: 759
1998: 704
1999: 641
2000: 628
2001: 666
2002: 647
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442
2008: 510
2009: 458

Sorry, still lookking up other cities. In case you're wondering, this is FBI data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE



New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom