Government "assistance" ruins people and business

  It's really not a big surprise that we already have an example of a grocery store planted in a "food desert" that is going belly up. So it is with many government projects and socially engineered organizations.
  Michelle Obama's call to furnish the "food deserts" of inner cities, with government funding, has borne fruit, of course.
  Now the Chicago Tribune writes about a wonderful little store that has lots of fresh fruits and vegetables but no customers:

Maywood Market opened with great fanfare, billed as an oasis amid a "food desert" in this west suburb, where fresh fruits and vegetables were hard to find.
Despite the hopes of community leaders and health advocates, one item remains in short supply more than a year later — shoppers pushing carts brimming with food.

  There's an adage that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Thus it is with many people of all colors and classes. Cheetos are easier and more fun to throw in your mouth than carrots. Modern culture has made processed food easily accessible, affordable and satisfying.
  This is what happens when government sticks its nose into the people's business.
  In England, one family with 7 children struggles with obesity, so much so that the government took possession of the family and fed them for 2 years in a "Big Brother" house. Still the children have not lost weight, and so the government is taking custody away from the parents. Daily Mail:

At meal times, a social worker stood in the room taking notes. Doctors raised concerns that the children put on weight whenever they spent time with their parents, a claim they vehemently denied.The couple and their children also had to adhere to a strict 11pm curfew. This involved ‘clocking’ in and out by filling in a sheet held by an employee who lived on site.

  So social workers watched the family eat, monitored the baby as she crawled around (one complaint was that, even though there were no stairs in the flat, the baby was "crawling unsupervised." On and on the complaints go, the objections being normal behavior that normal children and their parents exhibit.  While someone's watching and criticizing, the behavior becomes criminal.
  Here's a picture from the Daily Mail of the family. Do they look morbidly obese compared to other folks, so much so that the government has a right to confiscate the children?

   The parents are on the ends. It's not outrageous to say that the children's body shapes reflect the body shapes of their parents. They're not small people but they're not huge either.
  Didn't the nannies get a clue when they fed the family for 2 years and the kids didn't lose weight? So what makes it any different that they'll remove the children from their parents' care and they'll magically lose weight?