[blintson]

No, no it wouldn't. It would be more effective to stop subsidizing unhealthy food. The long-term effects of such legislation are almost guaranteed to be a net-negative because of edge cases. There are already way too many laws. You should always look first at what can be removed, rather than what can be added.

[hugh3]

No, what would be effective is if the parents of children stopped letting 'em eat junk food all the fricking time. "Mummy, I want a Snickers". Bad fricking luck, kid, eat your fricking vegetables.

[smallblacksun]

No kidding. If parents would do their damn job and not let kids eat junk just because they want it, we wouldn't have an issue.

[hugh3]

In fairness, "we" don't have the issue.

It's somebody else's issue, and I refuse to accept any responsibility or worry over the fact that somebody else's kids are fat. I have enough problems of my own, I've got better things to do than accept part-ownership of the easily-soluble problems of others.