Anyone who lived through it will tell you the difficulties of rationing through the war.
But restricting sugar in early life can protect against diabetes and hypertension as someone grows older, a study suggests.
Researchers have discovered that reduced sugar intake during the first 1,000 days of life – from conception – can protect against diabetes and hypertension in later years.
And it shows how the period up to the age of two is critical for long-term health.
In early life, children are exposed to high amounts of sugar through what their mothers eat when pregnant, during breastfeeding, and in infant formulas and baby food.
Research also suggests that most infants and toddlers consume sweetened foods and beverages daily.
To study the long-term health impacts of early sugar consumption, researchers from the University of Southern California leveraged a natural experiment in the UK – the end of a decade-long sugar and sweets rationing following the Second World War in 1953.
During rationing, adults typically received 8oz (0.5lbs) of sugar per week and 12oz (0.75lbs) of sweets every four weeks.
The sugar allowance was comparable to today’s UK dietary guidelines, including those for pregnant women and young children.
Experts tracked the health of people in Britain before and after rationing to examine how access to sugar affected disease risk.
However, the end of rationing led to an immediate, nearly twofold increase in sugar consumption almost overnight.
The team examined health data on people who spent their first 1,000 days after conception either during the rationing years or after they ended.
Analysis revealed that early-life exposure to sugar rationing had long-term health benefits.
According to the findings, people’s risk of developing diabetes and hypertension decreased by about 35 per cent and 20 per cent by the time they were in their 50s and 60s.
The onset of these diseases was also delayed by four years for diabetes and two years for hypertension for those who lived during the ‘rationing’ years.
Writing in the journal Science the researchers said: ‘For an average adult, daily sugar consumption sharply increased from 41g in 1953 to about 80g by 1954, and this similarly high level was sustained for several years.
‘These data are for adults, but others have shown that sugar intake for children more than doubled post-rationing and that their oral health deteriorated as well.’
Commenting on the study Dr Hilda Mulrooney, reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said: ‘This is a really interesting and timely paper, given the currently high intakes of sugar in the UK population, and prevalence of chronic disease including Type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
People in the US have almost five-and-a-half sugary drinks a week on average, while people in the UK guzzle around four-and-a-half. This includes fizzy cola, lemonade, energy drinks and fruit-flavoured drinks, based on the latest available data for 2018 (shown in graphic).
‘The potential for diet in utero to impact on long-term health risks has long been recognised, and there are a number of plausible mechanisms to explain how these may occur.
‘In this study, the authors used data from what could be considered a natural experiment – rationing in response to World War II.
‘By comparing individuals exposed and not exposed to sugar rationing in utero and in early childhood, a significant effect was seen.
‘Early childhood was especially important; only a third of the increase in risk for both type 2 diabetes and hypertension was explained by in utero exposure. This highlights the potential for early childhood diet as a risk factor for chronic disease.
‘Given the high levels of sugar in foods and drinks aimed at toddlers and young children, this is of concern.’
Earlier this year, a report warned that British children face a lifetime of poor health as junk food diets have stunted their growth and fuelled a rise in obesity and Type 2 diabetes.
The Food Foundation says kids are growing up in an environment that makes feeding them healthily ‘an almost impossibly difficult challenge’.
It blames the ‘aggressive promotion’ of food that is high in fat, sugar and salt and ‘shocking’ levels of poverty that put healthier alternatives out of reach for some families.