This paper suggests that the epidemic in childhood obesity is especially troubling, morally speaking, and raises important philosophical and political questions about parental liberty and autonomy, as well as about the causing of harm and the role of the state in preventing harm. The perceived threat to morally valuable aspects of family life are not unfounded, but they are almost certainly exaggerated; for the relevant moral goods turn out on closer inspection to be available irrespective of certain forms of state intrusion. Insofar as the moral reluctance that was the starting concern of our discussion is motivated by a view that state interference to implement anti-obesity programs would be morally unjustified, the grounds for moral reluctance have been removed. In particular, the imposition of an anti-obesity program is morally defensible where parents are either ignorant of the indirect harm of obesity, or where they are not ignorant yet choose to exercise their autonomy wrongly and allow their children to become obese. Once parents are adequately informed and supported, it is morally right that they be prevented from imposing obesity on those whose well-being lies in their hands.