[tsimionescu]

> The problem with this sort of strategy is that we make laws by voting, and so it assumes that we can determine what is healthy by popular vote. This isn't true and it is very easily corrupted if the option is open.

Well, we don't really know of any better option for taking collective decisions of high impact. The public and their representatives are informed of the science (and for nutrition information, it's really much more "science" than science at this point) and they decide by voting whether they choose to believe the data presented enough to try to impose tax burdens or other regulations.

What alternative is there? Have nutritionists be able to unilaterally decide what stores are allowed to sell and at what prices? That would get much more easily corrupted, as many nutrition studies have been in the past.

[roenxi]

> What alternative is there?

You could let people who think soda is unhealthy avoid it, and people who don't care buy it from the soda makers. Maybe set up some official nutritional advice [0].

There doesn't have to be a centralised determination on whether soda is to be encouraged or discouraged.

[0] https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/the-austral...

[seanmcdirmid]

This is what already happens. Richer people who are more informed and mindful about their health have been decreasing sugar consumption for awhile now. However, city and state budgets are still heavily affects because the poorer people who more heavily use public services aren’t in that bucket and have much higher obesity rates as a result. They have less access to education and are more likely to ignore advice from their doctor (if they have seen one recently at all).