A Stitch in Haste

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, among the most obnoxious of the nanny-state activist groups, is using a state consumer protection law to — what else — quash yet another entirely legal product:

Parents and advocacy groups today announced their intent to file suit against Viacom and Kellogg to stop them from marketing junk food to young children. The plaintiffs contend that these two companies are directly harming kids' health since the overwhelming majority of food products they market to children are high in sugar, saturated and trans fat, or salt, or almost devoid of nutrients. They will ask a Massachusetts court to enjoin the companies from marketing junk foods to audiences where 15 percent or more of the audience is under age eight, and to cease marketing junk foods through web sites, toy giveaways, contests, and other techniques aimed at that age group.

Some hasty stitches:

--Should one state have the ability to censor broadcast advertising for the other 49? Wait a minute — make that "Should government be able to censor, ever?"

--We already require standardized nutritional labels on our food. Some of the more radical libertarians may not like that law, but look on the bright side: it should provide a safe harbor (i.e., an absolute defense) to claims that labeling of food is somehow "incomplete."

--Consider this quote by one CSPI shill plaintiff parent:

"As a parent, I do my best to get my kids to eat healthy foods," said Sherri Carlson, a plaintiff and mother of three. "But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk-food ads. Adding insult to injury, we enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals. This irresponsible marketing to young children undermines my efforts as a parent and must be stopped."

I thought it was the kids who were supposed to be the whining brats, not the parents. In any case, show me a fat kid and I'll show you fat parents. Either that, or at the very least lazy or incompetent parents. Ms. Carlson can easily control her kids' caloric intake (not to mention which channels her family watches). And even if for some unnamed reason she can't — too bad so sad. That is not my problem, or yours, or Kellogg's or Nickelodeon's.

Food is not tobacco; underage overeating is not underage drinking. Food — even junk food — is a legal product. It is, when consumed responsibly, a source of utility. It is, when consumed responsibly, harmless. The companies that make it have a right to advertise it.

Ms. Carlson, meanwhile, may have the right to be the benevolent dictator of her minor children. But she does not have the right to be the benevolent dictator of the rest of us.

Hat tip to Hit & Run. More thoughts at Where the Dolphins Play, Cake or Death, Junk Science.