The core of the argument is that it's a control issue: some parents are too dominating of their children, others too accommodating. As one commenter put it: "How would you feel if someone else tried to make you eat when you are not hungry? Or tried to make you eat something that you didn't like the taste of? You'd hate them for it and resist them every step of the way."
It's an excellent point, but the counter-argument is that children don't really know what they ought to eat or when they ought to eat it. Left to their own devices, they would constantly be grazing on sugary snack foods that are entirely devoid of nutritional value. And it is the responsibility of a parent to develop healthy behavior in their children, which quite often requires control.
It is, in fact, a matter of balance. Some parents are entirely self-centered and domineering when it comes to feeding the kids, others are entirely delinquent in their duties. Exactly where to strike a balance is a matter of debate, largely derived from culture. There is a broad range of acceptability, in which children are neither malnourished nor obese.
The same can be said in the economic sector, in which producers and regulators seek to protect the public from its own ignorance and short-sightedness. But because customers are adults, with the right to choose for themselves (even when their choices are harmful) it becomes a much more delicate matter.
Companies may attempt to regulate the behavior of consumers by various methods (choosing what to produce, providing customer support and education, providing price incentives to make wiser choices), but this seems to be seldom - they have a profit motive to provide whatever customers demand, and it's noticeable that the better choices are often economically disadvantageous. Take the example of food: anything that is labeled as light, healthy, organic, or whatnot is always more expensive than a less healthy alternative.
Regulators likewise attempt to gently encourage consumers by controlling the educational system (to teach children) and issuing warnings and bans on products (to inform or control adults) in a positive direction, but this often meets with stern consternation from the voting public when they go too far.
Back to the original discussion about feeding the kids: the most sensible solutions seemed to involve gradually exerting influence: to be accommodating to the appetites of children (feed them when they are hungry, rather than demanding they eat on your schedule) and to be accommodating to their tastes (feed then what they will eat, slowly introducing healthier items as side dishes). This is a slower and more insidious method of domination.
There are commercial parallels: starting off consumers in an "entry product" that offers exactly what the customer demands, possibly at a financial loss, then slowly introducing alternatives that guide them to what the manufacturer wishes to sell, until the customer is fully phased into a sustainably profitable product line.
Though my sense is this has limited applicability, it does seem to have good potential for a relationship company.