Everywhere from restaurants to supermarkets to chocolate bar companies to fast food all make more money if you eat more. There's no incentive to advertise eating less.
You don't see restaurants advertising smaller or even reasonable portions - it's always giant burgers or steaks or monstrous pizzas. In fact, it's a regular critique of fancy restaurants that they have tiny, considered portions. So, people instead eat until they're well-beyond sated. Day after day.
Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.
That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.)
Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.
There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product
> and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.
That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity
Thanks Oprah.
Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.