According to the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 12.5 million children and adolescents are obese in the United States, with the prevalence almost tripling since 1980. These numbers are horrifying, yet food companies are celebrating a recent win in the weakening of regulations for junk-food advertising aimed at children. But they aren’t stopping there, with hopes of dissolving the regulations entirely. To what rate does obesity have to rise in order for food lobbyists to acknowledge their role in the childhood obesity epidemic and back off? Advertisers hold a high hand in their influence over consumers. They have incredible potential for promoting healthy diet and lifestyles, yet they chose to use their power for evil. Sure, we all fall victim to food marketing and shiny labels, but the difference between us as adults is that we have the knowledge and understanding to make decisions knowing the health effects. Children, however, though aware of advertising and choices, lack the understanding and self-efficacy to know that what they put in their bodies affects their ability to grow strong and healthy. Having “Cars” character fruit snacks in their lunchboxes far outweighs whether or not those snacks are going to lead to obesity. It’s argued that food lobbyists aren’t supporting and promoting childhood obesity, but rather looking out for the livelihood of their companies and product sustainability. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University states that $10 million is spend by food marketers each year to reach children — yes, this number is just advertising to children — through television, radio ads and newspapers. Why not do something good with your power for once, and use even a portion of this money to improve the health content of your products, still leaving plenty left over for advertising ploys. Childhood obesity is not going to go away overnight. This win for food marketers is a heavy blow to the public health of our nation. What will it take for food companies to think with their heads and not with their wallets, and do something respectable with their influence over children?