How is it dystopian? We ban kids from doing plenty of things we deem unsafe in the US. We don't let them drive, go to the store alone, drink alcohol, buy guns, get married, buy cigarettes, watch certain movies, play certain video games, get jobs, etc.

Knowing what we know about the long term impact of high-sugar diets, is it really that much of a stretch to limit intake?

You can look at my earlier answer to similar question. Nobody gets punished for not following the rules. We are not a police state. Parents participate in setting up the rules and conventions.

If you dump chocolate in your kids food box every day then the employees will simply talk to you about why it is a bad idea. They are not going to stop you or take away the chocolate.

This is also about consideration towards other parents and children. If one child has lots of candy in their food box you make the other kids envious and they start complaining to their parents about why they don't get candy. That is why it is good to have common guidelines on what kind of food parents should put in the lunch box of their kids.

Protecting underage members of society from potentially harmful substances that they are unlikely to consume in moderation is hardly dystopian; it is in fact a key responsibility of a well-functioning state. Alcohol is also banned at schools, for instance.

It only bans them from eating children.

It is dystopian. And like clockwork, the top comment is about the state banning something, other statists/authoritarians here on HN applauding the effort, and your comment getting downvoted.

I wonder when the state will ban sugar from the homes too. These people don't understand what they're asking for - like the frog in boiling water.