Never mind the tidings, it’s food that brings comfort and joy at Christmas. I’ve definitely had the cake, chocolates and mince pies flowing. It’s no surprise that the new year’s resolutions that keep overpriced gyms in operation swiftly follow as people worry about this unhealthy eating having lasting effects. After all, 28% of us are obese, double the rate of the early 1990s. A new study brings a long-term perspective to a more specific question: how lasting are the effects of young children consuming too much sugar? To find out, the authors examine the impact of the end of postwar sugar rationing in the UK in 1953, which saw sugar consumption double. The effects are almost unbelievably large, in part because the people consuming more sugar as young children went on doing it for life. Fifty years on, those born after rationing consumed over 22% more sugar than those born during it. We’re talking three Oreos a day. Unsurprisingly, the health impact was significant: those born after rationing had around 50% higher rates of diabetes and arthritis later in life. But the impacts go far wider, with those born just after rationing having a materially reduced likelihood of gaining post-secondary education, having a high-skill job or accumulating more than typical wealth. So let’s panic less about what we consume in a particular week of the year and focus more on our diets generally – and those of the youngest children. Here, policy can make a difference. Just before Christmas the World Health Organization called on countries to tax sugary drinks and published a manual for countries looking to do so, drawing on the UK’s successful version. Rationing isn’t the future but less sugar might be. Torsten Bell is the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation. Read more at resolutionfoundation.org