While I agree that doing this is no better than having cartoon characters hawk cigarettes, I don't see why the government needs to get in between my child and my parenting.
I'm not going to accuse you of being a bad parent, but you have to admit that there are a lot of bad parents. Over 10% of kids have a pretty terrible home situation, even
with government intervention. I have no doubt that the kids taken away from people you know were taken for good reason, as I don't inherently think goverment employees are different from normal people. I mean, if you worked in social services, would you
want to separate a child from its parents? I think not.
If people did not need a government, there would not be a government. This is why there was no government for roughly 150 000 years. There was no need for it. Now that we have an agricultural society - a civilization - it is necessary to have the government regulate certain things. I believe we can both agree that children should be protected - but who will protect the children when their parents don't?
Granted, this is a tightrope, but as with all things, this can and should be regulated in accordance with the need. I think you should be allowed to give your daughter a fruit-snack for lunch at school, and there is no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It's just an example of politics that arises out of spite rather than necessity, which in turn is a result of the two-party system you have going (where both pretend they are a polar opposite of one another). I believe in sensible politics, but it seems that neither the democrats, nor the republicans, nor the tea-party (I hesitate to even mention this, as it seems to be mostly a collection of people who should not be allowed to vote by merit of their own political ignorance) are capable of committing to sensible politics.
As for the toys, this is an example of what I'd call
sane regulation. Much like I think it'd be sane to ban hedgefunds all the other fancy financial things that made the US economy fall on its ass.