Which one is most correct and natural: "due to fear of...," "due to a fear of..." or "due to the fear of..."?

Question

Can you please tell me which one is most correct and natural: due to fear of..., due to a fear of... or due to the fear of...? For example:

I don't eat too much sugar due to fear of developing diabetes.

I don't eat too much sugar due to a fear of developing diabetes.

I don't eat too much sugar due to the fear of developing diabetes.

I've heard all thee used, but I don't know which one or ones are the most natural. I've browsed the intrnet for and answer, but I haven't been able to find anything.

Answer 1

The only correct and natural way to say it might be:

• I don't eat too much sugar for fear of developing diabetes.

I was taught that "due to" is preceded by the verb to be:

• My illness was due to (my) eating too much sugar.

and can be replaced by "caused by":

• My illness was caused by (my) eating too much sugar.

So you could say,

• 'My not eating too much sugar is due to my fear of developing diabetes.'

Or

• 'I don't eat too much sugar because of my fear of developing diabetes.'
  

Answer 2

To be realistic, you would need "I don't eat sugar, for fear of (developing) diabetes." Does that difference make sense?

None of the examples is obviously more correct and none sounds natural… though it would be useful if you could Post your own preference, with your own reasoning.

In all the Posted cases, "too much sugar" makes it clear the passage is contrived; not natural.

"much sugar" might just possibly work without the "too" but that would be highly unlikely.

Can you go back to "… for fear of…", please?