>The first amendment shouldn't really apply to corporations.
Should the feds be able to shut down Hackernews? It's a corporation. NY Times? It's a corporation.
The distinction you want to make is commercial speech should be able to be regulated. And it is. False advertising is illegal but lying about politics is a first amendment right.
Also, sugar isn't harmful in moderation.
Plus the science of diet is hilariously poorly understood. 15 years ago people would have been trying to ban fatty food. Now all the sudden fat is good?
And that goes triple for popular diet advice. It's all fads. We still can't figure out a diet that works for whole population long term.
That's not true. There is a scientific consensus on cigarettes and lung cancer. There is certainly no scientific consensus on sugar and diabetes/cancer.
If the first amendment should apply to corporations, should the New York Times be restricted on what articles it can print? What about the movie documentaries you see on Netflix?
I think that sort of hyperbole isn't helping any arguments against sugar. No need to ratchet up the rhetoric - this is already a hot topic. Sugar is bad, yes, but if it was thought to be "as harmful" as tobacco it would have warning labels and you'd have to be a certain age to use it.
Should the feds be able to shut down Hackernews? It's a corporation. NY Times? It's a corporation.
The distinction you want to make is commercial speech should be able to be regulated. And it is. False advertising is illegal but lying about politics is a first amendment right.
Also, sugar isn't harmful in moderation.
Plus the science of diet is hilariously poorly understood. 15 years ago people would have been trying to ban fatty food. Now all the sudden fat is good?
And that goes triple for popular diet advice. It's all fads. We still can't figure out a diet that works for whole population long term.