[hansonkd13]

They didn’t say calories are addictive. They clearly said certain foods are addictive. Those foods should be more regulated like cigarettes and companies take more responsibility as a first or at least concurrent step to everyone taking more drugs.

[jrockway]

As far as I can tell, our social policies don't really work for managing addiction. We just hook up a vacuum cleaner to people's pockets and suck the money out of them if they smoke. Call it a "sin tax". But the problem is that people prioritize their next fix above other things; would you rather get some cigarettes or pay your rent, many people choose the cigarettes. I'm not sure how that helps anyone, and I'm not sure how expanding it to sodas or doughnuts would help anyone.

Regressive taxes also don't work well. I don't always eat super healthy. Making unhealthy food cost more wouldn't have any measurable impact, except maybe tanking my 401k because half the Fortune 500 goes out of business.

[hansonkd13]

All the same arguments were said about cigarettes and yet in 2022 I almost never smell a cigarette burning outside and few young people smoke.

People complained about cigarette taxes wouldn’t be effective but they are.

The stock market didn’t crash either despite the multibillion dollar tobacco companies being affected.

[EamonnMR]

I'm not sure I buy that argument though. The idea that you can squarely blame the obesity epidemic on some foods and not others.

Hell I'd be ok with banning all forms of food advertising and requiring that all foods be blank packages with nothing but the ingredients, nutrition facts, and a short description of how they were prepared. I'd prefer that world on general principle. But I don't think it would fix the obesity epidemic.