This is a bit tangential, sorry, but am I alone in not seeing what's so uniquely horrendous about the (revolting-sounding) spray candy, compared to 95% of the other stuff on sweet shop shelves? Apparently the lurid ones in this picture contain:
- Glucose syrup, a simple sugar that a lot of sweets contain instead of/in addition to sucrose — you kind of need sugars to qualify as a sweet so not seeing a big deal here
- Water
- Acids: citric acid (like in lemons/oranges), malic acid (like in apples)
- Flavourings, not specified but again, loads of sweets contain all kinds of food-safe flavourings, so you'd end up having to ban most of the sweet shop to avoid these, as well as masses of other foods too
- Preservative: potassium sorbate, not as far as I know been found to have any negative effects in doses a human could feasibly ingest, and turns up in all kinds of everyday things like yoghurts and dried fruit
The only additives I'm aware of where there's plausible concern about hyperactivity, to the point of adding label warnings, is a couple of very specific artificial colours. And it seems like one of the benefits of spray sweets is that the product itself doesn't need colouring. Any hyper behaviour you're seeing is probably the novelty of the thing, or psychosomatic, so you can just be clear that acting "hyper" is unacceptable. Even if you're a believer in sugar highs, why would sugar dissolved in water behave any differently to sugar dissolved in spit?
Re: teeth, if you're spraying repeatedly and keeping your mouth permanently sugar-coated for hours (I don't know how long the bottles last), it seems equivalent to a packet of any hard sweet which takes time to suck on — so, not fantastic, but not out of the ordinary either, as far as sweets are concerned. And at least the sugar swills away quickly when you stop, rather than getting wedged in crevices for hours like toffees or crisps.
The hypothesised gateway to vaping is an interesting idea, but without any actual evidence, it doesn't seem much more convincing than hypothesising that sucking the sherbet up the liquorice in a sherbet fountain (which, incidentally, I was recently irked to find has not been possible for many years, as they removed the bloody hole down the middle!) is a stepping stone to snorting coke, or sucking lollipops or drinking pop through a straw is a gateway to smoking.
I mean, spray candy seems kind of revolting to me as a 30-something woman — like buying ready-sucked lollipop spit, because using your own saliva as a solvent and putting in all that tongue work is so twentieth century. (Plus they seem like an environmental over-packaging nightmare zone, and ridiculously overpriced for what they are.) But we had all kinds of stupid sweets when I was a kid where the main draw was the ridiculous delivery method — ring-pops, push-pops, whistle lollipops, UFOs, sherbet fountains, Pez, and God knows what else. Generally you tried them once or twice, realised that they didn't actually taste that great or cost way more than they were worth, and didn't bother again.
It's true that the sprays are obviously pretty much a nutritional void barring calories, offering only naked energy with a bit of added flavour to enhance their appeal. But that's most sweets, isn't it? I suppose if it's the flavourings/preservatives that bother you, you could buy only chocolate, or organic artisanal naturally-flavoured naturally-coloured preservative-free cruelty-free gluten-free fairtrade gummies, or certain traditional sweets, or other carefully-selected items, and ban everything else (and check the labels on every packet in your weekly shop, too), but it doesn't sound like OP is doing mass bans of anything containing flavourings or preservatives — pretty much just the spray candy stuff?