Yes, but to a reasonable extent. Point by point:

the government has been able to ban fast-food restaurants

When, where, and for what reasons? I am aware of a town in my state that did that, but that was a public vote. Democracy in action.

force restaurants to disclose nutritional information

So what? If you don't care about that sort of thing, don't read. Meanwhile, in a market economy, the consumer has a right to make an informed decision.

change cooking methods

Depends what you are talking about. Sometimes they go over the top, but sometimes....I've worked in food service and in food preparation...you don't want to know what a corporation will do to save money. It gets gross.

restrict access to soft drinks in schools, and now limit the types of foods available within the public schools

If they refuse to admit them on school property, that's no good. But, in my district at least, kids can bring in whatever they want from home or outside establishments. Indeed, its usually cheaper if you pack your own kid's lunch.

"Their latest efforts to keep North Americans' healthy is a national print campaign to have Ronald McDonald retired."

Who is they? Is it actual legislators? Please provide a link.

I'm not saying there aren't good points to be had here, but I generally find the whole "the government is telling us what to eat!" argument to be full of holes. There is a difference between advising and forcing.

I don't see why you're defending a multi-billion dollar company who exploits the 3rd world, uses children as a method of getting income from parents and is the worst sort of "resturant" you could possibly get.

Knowing what's in the food you're being served should be a basic consumer right. Same goes for knowing that it was prepared under hygienic conditions.

Wholesale banning of a fast-food restaurant sounds heavy-handed to me, but I don't know the details behind it. I suspect there's more to it - e.g. the restaurant in question was outrageously flouting health and safety regulations.

School regulations - and any regulation intended to protect children - are a tricky business, as you have to balance the child's personal freedom with your responsibility to do what is best for them. I don't have a problem with restricting the foods that a school cafeteria can serve, although I'd find it better to take a positive route by placing more healthy foods in cafeterias and pricing them competitively, so that students would have some incentive to buy them. (When I was in high school, the single cheapest lunch the caf offered was a cup of fries at $1.70. Anything that was remotely healthy, like salads and sandwiches, cost at least twice as much. Naturally, the fries were the most popular choice, especially for kids who had very limited spending money. That is the sort of thing I really want to see more government control over.)

If schools are not only monitoring what their cafeteria offers, but also restricting what kinds of food students can bring with them, I'd find that more concerning. But if a student is consistently bringing in unhealthy food to school, I think you'd have to take a look at their parents - not so much for high schoolers, but definitely for younger children. I'd consider constantly giving a kid unhealthy food to be a form of child neglect.