Do we really need a gov't food intervention?

If you know what's good for you -- which we're being told we don't -- you'll let the government stick its finger further into the food market and make some healthy choices for you. If we don't, a recent study warns, 50 percent of our population will be obese by 2030. And that's apparently bad for our economy.

If I were John Stossel, I would say, "Give me a break."

According to the study published by British medical journal Lancet [via Science Daily], in the next decade and a half there will be 65 million obese Americans and 11 million obese Brits. While this trend may be true, it's the following that gets me.

The problem: The study says that marketing and food manufacturing have led to an "obesity epidemic" and are to blame for why we can't control ourselves, making it impossible to maintain a healthy weight. The medical costs associated with said obesity epidemic are estimated to increase by $48-66 billion per year in the United States, a cost which it seems the study assumes would be taken on by the government.

My problem with the problem: It's marketing and food manufacturers' fault? I feel like we should put an "Above the Influence" ad here.

The Solution: Clearly, it's economically beneficial to promote a healthier lifestyle. If the government would only regulate food, make healthy food cheaper and unhealthy food more expensive, we would be saved from ourselves.

My problem with the solution: Like government regulation is really going to make a difference.  Junk food junkies will get their fix, regulation or not.

There is also something wrong with this being published in a scientific journal. I understand the facts and figures (i.e. increase in obesity, potential economic cost of medial issues, etc.), but recommendations of how to fix this pointing toward government intervention doesn't seem very scientific.