Seems kind of slippery-slopey...

[Deckard]

I'm all for awareness-raising campaigns funded by public money.

Restrictions on advertising junk food to kids, and on ingredients in school dinners - bring it on. Absolutely no problem with those "incursions on liberty" for the net benefit I believe they will have.

Adults automatically become a different story, and from the quick glance I've had through that link, in this particular case I find myself agreeing with you.

Am I making these judgments arbitrarily? As I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to assess each of these things on a case-by-case basis, and weigh up what I think are the benefits versus the incursions on liberty. I personally don't feel compelled to take an ultra-liberal approach to all health and diet regulation based on the slippery slope argument, because it assumes we've taken - to date - the correct stance on every possible ingredient or chemical, legal or illegal and mustn't change anything - and I simply don't believe that.