>UPDATE : Crap, I almost forgot why I logged back on. This article was just forwarded to me, seemed timely given the nature of our discussion.
>
>Food industry decries tighter rules on marketing to kids
>http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/27/food-industry-decries-tighter-rules-on-marketing-to-kids/
>The government proposal would require that foods marketed to children and teens come from one of the following food groups: fruit, vegetable, whole grain, fat-free or low-fat milk products, fish, extra lean meat or poultry, eggs, nuts and seeds, or beans. They must also contain no more than trace amounts of saturated fat, trans fat, added sugars and sodium.
>
>Here's yet another proposed "freedom crimping" limitation.
>
>For clarity here's the freedom that's being crimped:
>The proposed restrictions make foods already considered healthy under current FDA guidelines inappropriate to market to kids younger than 18. Of the 100 most-consumed products in the country, 88 would have to be reformulated to meet these criteria or simply go unadvertised.

But let's be clear. No one is saying they can't make or sell those things, only that they can't market them to kids.

Surely we can agree that children are a special class, and that it is reasonable to exert control over what is marketed to them. Do you have a problem with the laws that prohibit marketing tobacco products to children?

Tamar