I have concerns over testing at such a young age if it relates to testing of general cholesterol levels as an indication of future problems due to lifestyle, rather than testing for genetic predisposition, which I think is an entirely separate issue.

Should testing be voluntary or mandatory/routine, and will it be broadly effective if it is voluntary? Parents who volunteer their child for testing are more likely to be aware of the danger of high cholesterol and so would also be more likely to maintain a suitable lifestyle for avoiding the problem. Is it likely that parents of children at risk due to lifestyle would volunteer for testing?

Would cholesterol levels at such a young age be sufficient to indicate future problems? Even if testing identified the high risk cases, a lot of kids that are at moderate risk might not show signs of it at this age. Kids at moderate risk might even be worse off with testing at such a young age - if they did not show 'danger' signs the parents could be lulled into a false sense of security and think that their lifestyle is not a cause for concern.

Unless the tests go hand in hand with a thorough lifestyle review and education process, then general screening tests for toddlers might not be effective except in extreme high risk cases (where there are more obvious external signs of risk anyway). Routine testing of early primary school age children rather than toddlers would potentially identify a much broader area of risk, whilst still allowing enough time for preventative measures to be taken.

I also think that more should be done to address the cause. Except in cases of genetic predisposition, cholesterol related disease is a social problem that has medical implications, and would be better treated as such.