Congress commissioned a special interagency working group in 2009 to study the marketing of food to children.

What came of the study was a set of guidelines for self-regulation in food advertising. Though these guidelines are currently voluntary, the message to the advertisers is to change now or face the consequences. Even with change, the voluntary could still become mandatory.

The guidelines say that “companies would be urged to only market foods to children ages 2 through 17 if they are low in fats, sugars and sodium and contain specified healthy ingredients,” according to the findings of the Associated Press.

This means that if companies want to continue their current marketing, they would have to reduce the amounts of unhealthy ingredients in their products.

Sounds pretty good, right? Making kids healthier is important. Fighting obesity in children might help America no longer be a country full of overweight people in the future.

Is regulation like this really something the government should be doing? Nixing the use of Joe Camel for cigarette sales made sense to some degree, as enticing children to smoke would mean enticing them to do something illegal.

But these guidelines apply to breakfast cereals, which are not illegal for children to consume.

Getting a kid to want the more sugary cereal, and therefore have it purchased by parents, might be underhanded when it comes to sales, but such underhandedness is by no means illegal.

If a company wants to make a breakfast treat that includes alcohol, then it has the right to do so. If that treat is advertised with a cartoon character who tells kids that they should be eating it every day and that it cures cancer, that would be a time the government should step in.

But the disgustingly sugary, fatty cereals out there that use, for example, a rabbit trying to steal the cereal from kids, are not promoting an illegal activity.

If the government wants to only promote foods composed of significant amounts of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk products, fish, extra-lean meat, eggs, nuts, seeds or beans — as is advised in the guidelines — then they can promote the hell out of them. But trying to make it so companies cannot advertise in a non-obscene manner doesn’t exactly jive with me in a First Amendment sort of way.

The government is already dead set on stopping kids from seeing violent images in advertisements for films and video games — which is fine when the images are obscene — but currently, those films and video games that are full of violence cannot be stopped from being produced. The companies cannot be stopped from making them. Just how much of their plots can be shown to the public is the question.

So why does the government think it can get away with telling food companies they need to change their products in order to market them? Obesity isn’t illegal. Selling someone a fatty food isn’t illegal.

Fighting childhood obesity by informing parents and children about the dangers of unhealthy eating is a good thing. I will argue all day in favor of getting people healthy and fit.

But when some of those crazy folks in high places try to sneak in agendas meant to make America a “better” place by revoking constitutional rights, it will always be something I fight.

This is America. This country was founded on the idea that people should be able to choose their own way of life. Even if that way of life isn’t the perfect possible choice, someone can choose to live as they please so long as their behavior doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Somewhere along the line, some folks in power and many, many citizens have forgotten that idea.

Some people think they know better and think others should kowtow to their “superior” knowledge. Whether that knowledge is correct or not doesn’t matter. The government should not be playing father-knows-best with the rights of its citizens, even when doing so would probably serve their best interests.

Ask yourself if it’s better to let federal regulations or “advisements” improve peoples lives quickly if that improvement comes at the cost of their rights. If you want those rights to be preserved, social improvement may have to occur at a slower pace.