WASHINGTON (AP) _ House Republicans are siding with food companies resisting the Obama administration's efforts to pressure them to stop advertising junk food for children.

Some food companies say the government is going too far with guidelines proposed earlier this year by several government agencies. The guidelines would attempt to shield children from ads for sugary and fatty foods _ think colorful characters on cereal boxes _ on television, in stores and on the Internet. Companies would be urged to market foods to children ages 2 through 17 only if they contain specific healthy ingredients and are low in fats, sugars and sodium.

Even though the guidelines are voluntary, many companies are aggressively lobbying against them, saying they fear the government will retaliate against them if they don't go along.

Republicans are attempting to delay the guidelines by including a provision in next year's budget that would require the Federal Trade Commission to study the potential costs and impacts of the guidelines before implementing them.

As food companies have protested, criticism has ramped up on Capitol Hill. Missouri Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, the Republican who sponsored the provision, says she is concerned that the voluntary rules ``would lead to extraordinary pressure from the federal government.''

Other Republicans have called the rules overreach, saying they encompass too many foods. The standards are meant to crack down on ads for the unhealthiest foods, but others are caught in the crossfire.  Advertising for some whole wheat breads would be restricted because they have too much sodium, for example, and bottled water could be targeted because it doesn't include enough nutrients.

Some Democrats have shown concern with the voluntary rules, as well. Rep. G. K. Butterfield of North Carolina, in a letter to the government agencies in charge of the effort, said the government ``has produced no evidence that I am aware of that the proposed restrictions will serve the government's goals of changing long-term eating habits.''

The spending bill that includes the delay cleared the House Appropriations Committee last month. It could come before the full House as early as next week.

Food companies argue that the rules are back-door regulations that could trample their First Amendment rights of free speech. Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the nation's largest food companies, says his group estimates the standards would affect marketing of almost all of the nation's favorite foods.

``What is very troubling about the administration's proposal is that they would have us drastically change food marketing without presenting any evidence that it changes diets or assessing the costs,'' Faber said.

Health advocates disagree.

``The industry is exaggerating the influence of these voluntary regulations to gin up opposition,'' said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. ``These standards are supposed to provide a model of how self-regulation can work.''

As criticism has become louder, the Federal Trade Commission _ which developed the voluntary regulations with the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control _ has tried to debunk what it says are myths about the standards.

In a posting on the FTC Web site, David Vladeck, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, says there are no legal consequences for companies that don't follow the rules.

``Nobody's saying Toucan Sam has to fly the coop,'' Vladeck said. ``Ideally, during the next five years it would be great to see the cereal companies voluntarily tweak their formulations to raise the whole grain content and lower the added sugars for cereals marketed to children.''

Vladeck also addressed the issue of government overreach.

``The proposal is designed to support _ not supplant _ moms and dads,'' he wrote.

Republicanos se oponen a regular anuncios de alimentos a niños..

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Varios representantes republicanos se están uniendo a las compañías de alimentos industrializados para resistirse a los esfuerzos del gobierno del presidente Barack Obama de presionarles para que dejen de promover comercialmente comida chatarra para los niños.

Algunas compañías alimentarias dicen que el gobierno está extralimitándose con directrices propuestas este año por varias agencias gubernamentales.

Las directrices, de aplicación voluntaria, buscan proteger a los niños de anuncios de comidas azucaradas y de alto contenido graso que se promueven por televisión, tiendas e internet.

Las pautas propuestas alientan a las compañías a promover alimentos para niños de entre dos y 17 años solamente si contienen ingredientes saludables específicos y tienen bajo contenido de grasas, azúcar y sodio.

Aunque las directrices son voluntarias, muchas compañías están cabildeando activamente contra ellas, diciendo que temen que el gobierno tomará represalias si no las adoptan.

Los republicanos están tratando de demorar las directrices, incluyendo una estipulación en el presupuesto de la Comisión Federal de Comercio para el año próximo que requeriría que el gobierno estudie los costos e impactos potenciales de las medidas antes de implementarlas.

Con las protestas de la compañías alimentarias, las críticas han aumentado en el Congreso. La representante republicana Jo Ann Emerson, que patrocina la estipulación, dice que le preocupa que las reglas voluntarias ``lleven a presiones extraordinarias por parte del gobierno federal''.

Otros republicanos han dicho que las reglas se extralimitan, al incluir demasiados alimentos.

Las normas tienen como objetivo combatir los anuncios publicitarios para los alimentos menos saludables, pero hay otros que resultan afectados. Por ejemplo, los anuncios para algunos paquetes de pan de grano entero serían restringidos porque contienen demasiado sodio. El agua embotellada pudiera verse afectada por no contener suficientes nutrientes.

El representante republicano Jack Kingston, partidario de la propuesta de Emerson, dijo que las directrices son ``decisiones basadas en emoción, no en hechos''.

Incluso algunos demócratas han expresado preocupación por las directrices, argumentando la falta de evidencia por el gobierno de que tienen una base sólida.

Sin embargo, activistas de salud pública expresaron su desacuerdo.

``La industria está exagerando la influencia de esas regulaciones voluntarias para aumentar la oposición'', dijo Margo Wootan, del Centro de Ciencia por el Interés Público. ``Esas normas buscan proveer un patrón para la autorregulación''.