[squiggleblaz]

There's a difference between the government telling you (i.e. a real person) what to do on the one hand, and the government telling a corporation (i.e. a system that can neither live nor die, can neither suffer nor experience pleasure) how they can advertise their wares on the other hand.

For instance, Australian adults are free to smoke cigarettes. But companies operating in Australia are not allowed to sell cigarettes without conforming to various restrictions and regulations. Those aren't the same thing.

So the analogy here would be that Coca-Cola is freely allowed to sell their goods, but (a) they're not allowed to advertise them and (b) when they sell them, they should say something like "sugary beverages cause diabetes" (if that's the valid and analogous claim) and show a picture of person with a foot that needs amputating.

If you still want to buy a coke when the bottle looks like a scene from a horror show, you'd be allowed to. But they'd have to give you a reasonable assessment of the consequences of drinking this beverage (which are generally not becoming a hot fit 20 year old on the beach). (Assuming that there is a valid link between regular consumption of sugary beverages and obesity-related health problems - it's not a topic I've specifically investigated but it seems to be the general assumption.)