[pocketarc]

I think that’s just a political question with no “right” answer. Some people will believe the government should intervene and control some of these foods, and some people will believe it shouldn’t, that people should be free to make their own choices.

There’s very good arguments to be made on either side, and neither side is the “right” side, it just depends on what your values are.

Personally, I like being strict with my own diet and fitness, but being free to take a break and pig out on whatever junk food I feel like. A world without Coke and McDonald’s would be sad to me, even if it is ultimately healthier for the population in general.

[hombre_fatal]

Well, the other conversation to have that doesn’t just cash out into personal consumer choice is who a society lets line their coffers with the vices of others.

I find it harder to argue for why you should be able to enrich yourself at the expense of others while singing “But personal choice!” to wash your hands of it all.

[kipchak]

I think the problem is the conflict between the two isn't symmetrical. Those who are trying to convince you to eat Coke and McDonalds aren't playing fair or accurately portraying what they're selling. and will promote research that indicates that lack of exercise[1] or fat[2], and will specifically advertise to children.

Comparing it to tobacco or alcohol for example, I don't think it's wrong to let people chose to consume them, but I don't think it's a bad idea to restrict them being sold to young people or restrict their ability to advertise. Imagine for example a cigarette ad for children. The tactics used are fairly similar.[3]

[1]https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its...

[2]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

[3]https://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/soft-drink-companies-copy-toba...