The context is not any food.
Collins defines –
sugar coated: (of a story, information, etc) written or told in a way that makes it seem more palatable
It further gives an example..
a sugar-coated view of a boy's introduction to sex
There's no harm or bad intention
But then OALD says –
(disapproving) made to seem attractive, in a way that tricks people
with an example of …
a sugar-coated promise
Certainly, there's some harm/bad intention.
As compared to both above (especially Collins), Macmillan takes it into an entirely different direction –
trying to make something seem less unpleasant than it is
So, the question is, is sugar coated a negative word? Or it's simply a way of presenting thing? But then if the latter is true, presenting bad things good or complex things in an understandable way?
If I come to know that the information is sugar-coated, how should I take it? The information has been simplified to my intellect (as in sex-boy example) or it's actually fake to manipulate me?
Best Answer
Sugar coated isn't a negative word. It doesn't explicity imply a negative meaning.
Its a metaphor.
To sugar-coat a bad story means, it is still a bad story but it is told to sound nicer.
vs
This has been sugar-coated.
Could it be used to manipulate you? Sure, it happens all the time. ADVERTISING.
They show you the best features to make it better so that you buy it.
How should you feel about it?
Depends on the case and how well you can handle it.
How would you feel if your girlfriend says, "I'm going out with my friend." but later you find out it is "GUY friend"
What if your brother had his wallet stolen and he said, "It's only a couple of dollars."