When Kelly Brownell first proposed the Twinkie tax, only reliable food scolds like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) thought it was a good idea. But now "sin" taxes on foods and other radical ideas are widely endorsed by public health officials in America -- and, it appears, all over the world.

In May, and then again in July, CSPI called on WHO to endorse Twinkie taxes and other restrictions on food choices. CSPI also consulted directly with WHO as it developed its "global strategy." And the resulting recommendations are almost everything CSPI could have hoped for. Their biggest victory comes in the form of WHO's statement that governments should "use taxes to increase or decrease consumption of food."

Perhaps more telling than any one specific proposal: WHO comes down squarely on the side of calorie-counting zealots who couldn't care less about what people like to eat. The new WHO document contends that "preventive strategies" should attack obesity "throughout the population." That, WHO argues, "will cumulatively yield the greatest and most sustainable benefits for populations" and "will far exceed the limited impact of interventions restricted to individuals at a high level of risk."

"Preventative strategies," by the way, is public-health code for government intervention to prevent fat and skinny alike from eating foods that are high in fat, salt, and sugar. In addition to Twinkie taxes, other examples include a minimum purchase age for candy and zoning restrictions on restaurants. Essentially, the global public- health movement would like to make buying a bag of nacho chips as difficult and expensive as possible.

So much for the simple proposition that expanded food choices are an overall good thing. Anti-obesity restrictions that apply to everyone -- not just the obese -- are gradually replacing the idea that individuals and families should be responsible for governing their own diets.