Much of politics today seems to be driven by the source of policies. If President Donald Trump or his administration is for it, Democrats are against it. Democrats have pulled 180-degree turns from past support for unilateral military operations by Democratic Presidents to opposing government shutdowns. However, one of the most intriguing has been the opposition to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has launched moves against unhealthy food additives and products. That was evident yesterday when Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) virtually declared war over his effort to press Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks over high-sugar drinks.
Dunkin’ Donuts is clearly an iconic brand, but the lack of support for Kennedy’s food policies is striking in light of the general support of Democrats for Big Gulp laws like the one in New York put forward by former mayor Michael Bloomberg (R).
For the record, I have long opposed efforts to ban unhealthy foods. While I strongly support educational campaigns by the government about such unhealthy choices, I believe that it remains an individual choice on whether to engage in unhealthy habits, from smoking to high-fat foods. I also previously wrote how I believe the Big Gulp law was unlawful. It was later struck down.
In this country and other countries, such as Great Britain, similar measures targeting unhealthy foods have been rallying points for the left.
Yet, Kennedy received pushback after announcing that “We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s OK for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it.’ I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.”
Healey responded with a taunt, “Come and take it,” sharing an image of a flag resembling the 1835 “Come and Take It” flag first used at the start of the Texas Revolution.
Kennedy is not necessarily calling for a ban. He has been pushing to improve the food-ingredient approval system by implementing reforms long called for by nutrition advocates. Much of this effort focuses on improving the Generally Recognized as Safe policy. He has been attacking an exemption allowing food companies to independently verify the safety of food additives without the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight.
Kennedy has stated that this “loophole was hijacked by the industry, and it was used to add thousands upon thousands of new ingredients into our food supply. In Europe there’s only 400 legal ingredients. This agency does not know how many ingredients there are in American food.”
That would seem precisely what many liberals once heralded. Yet, no democratic administration was ever willing to go head-to-head with these companies. Kennedy is doing what administrations like the Obama and Biden administrations failed to do.
However, he remains persona non grata on the left, viewed as a traitor as a member of a famous Democratic family who supported Trump. They would rather defend unhealthy food than a party turncoat.
Once again, I generally oppose limits on consumer choices, preferring educational campaigns and healthy guidelines. However, the latest controversy only highlights the flipping of the magnetic poles in American politics.
There is science at play. It is well known that “Sugar acts on the brain’s reward system similarly to addictive drugs by releasing dopamine, causing cravings, and potentially leading to dependence and withdrawal symptoms like headaches.” It is probably a good idea not to consume too much sugar. The real transgressor here is Gov Healy, offering the people choice, contravening all Democratic teachings.
I agree with the good professor about not banning things.
However, RFK’s request for information and transparency is not over reach by the government. As OLLY points out, citizens should be aware of what is in their food they are putting into their bodies. They should be able to make a informed choice.
Case in point, go to the grocery store and look for a pound of bacon that says, it contains no nitrates or nitrites. Then look at the actual ingredients and will see cultured celery powder. Nitrates and nitrites occur naturally in leafy green vegetables like spinach and celery. So, food companies can claim their bacon does not contain nitrates or nitrites from curing salts like pink salt #1 or pink salt #2, but can list celery powder which does contain nitrates and nitrites and the average consumer is none the wiser.
Whatever Kennedy says, Healy will disagree. She dislikes anyone associated with Trump because Trump will not give her money to repair/rebuild the Bourne/Sagamore bridges.
A couple of very good documentaries to watch on the American food industry,
Super Size Me. One part Spurlock compares two different school cafeterias and grades.
Fed Up. Also digs into big food in public schools. At one point Katie Couric interviewing Bill Clinton, and backs him into a corner with hard questions.
Food Inc. and Food Inc. 2
Bobby does have an issue with doing partial rep workouts, dressed as a job site Joe, while banging TRT, certainly.
But I’m aligned on the additive issues.
Just wish Bobby would bring his science skill up from remedial. Party on!!
Governor Healey, like so many others in her party, obviously suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even so, she and the rest pale by comparison to the TDS of Iranian cleric Seyyed Hassan Ameli. A hand-picked choice of Khamenei to deliver the weekly sermons in one of Iran’s large cities, Ameli believes we are living in the end-times and has told his flock that beyond doubt President Trump is Dajjal, that is, the Antichrist. Compared to that, being called Hitler is practically a compliment.
We are surprised why? The Dems support Hamas and now they are opposed to finally putting an end to the Islamo-Fascist regime that has terrorized the world since 1979.
Strip away the speculation and the basic fact is simple. Kennedy asked for safety data about extremely high sugar levels in certain drinks.
The response from the Massachusetts governor was essentially “come and take it.” That turns a straightforward question about safety data into political theater.
Once that happens, the discussion shifts away from the data and into partisan outrage. Threads fill up with arguments about motives and Trump rather than the simple question that started the debate.
A request for information becomes a political rallying cry. That is not debate. That is demagoguery.
Olly,
There is no such thing as a “simply asking for data” when it comes from a federal regulator with the power to revoke licenses and levy fines. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), if a regulator believes a substance is unsafe, they must start with the formal rulemaking process that applies to the entire industry.
The “safety data” Kennedy wants on sugar isn’t a secret. The FDA and HHS have decades of peer-reviewed studies on the metabolic effects of glucose and fructose. The information he seeks is already available to him.
Kennedy isn’t looking for “safety data”; he is asking companies to prove a legal product is safe to his personal satisfaction. This turns the burden of proof found in a free society, where the government must prove harm before it interferes with a legal business.
“ The response from the Massachusetts governor was essentially “come and take it.” That turns a straightforward question about safety data into political theater.”
The theater began when the HHS Secretary chose social media and campaign-style rhetoric to target private businesses instead of using the official Federal Register.
When Kennedy bypasses legal channels to “shame” a company, a Governor has a 10th Amendment duty to defend her state’s commerce from federal overreach. Governor Healey’s “Come and Take It” wasn’t the start of the theater; it was a response to Kennedy’s theatrics of intimidation.
“ A request for information becomes a political rallying cry. That is not debate. That is demagoguery.”
By bypassing scientific agencies and “asking questions” directly to the public about specific coffee shops, Kennedy is the one practicing demagoguery. He is bypassing the Rule of Law to stir up “outrage” against specific companies. Which is ironically what Turley argues against in his “rage” books.
The truth is that HHS Secretary Kennedy has an entire department focused on nutrition science. If he wants to regulate sugar, he has the legal authority to propose a universal regulation.
Governor Healey isn’t ignoring the data; she’s defending the due process that keeps federal officials from picking winners and losers in the private market.
Kennedy is the one engaging in political theatre and Turley is being complicit in Kennedy’s attempt to engage in partisan rage baiting to score political points.
Yup, no one in government has ever before tried using persuasion/pressure via public means to influence a company by asking for data on a specific product or service. Totally unheard of and all due to “partisan rage baiting to score political points”. So all the work against drunk driving and cigarette usage were political by somebody and totally ok. Also, could you tell me exactly how he is bypassing the sacred “Rule of Law”? Is this COVID lockdowns using science? Look just say you have an addition problem (Trump, sugar, fructose) it’s the first step to moving forward with your life.
“There is no such thing as a “simply asking for data” when it comes from a federal regulator with the power to revoke licenses and levy fines.”
Now do the Biden administration putting the screws to social media companies.
Sam, I agree. Biden did the same thing. If you agree what Biden did was wrong do you agree what RFK is doing is also wrong?
I would add a bit of a nuanced distinction though. Food companies have lower First Amendment protections for their “commercial speech” (labels and marketing) than individuals have for their personal opinions or political posts.
Plus, Social media companies have Section 230 immunity, which allows them to moderate content however they want. The Biden administration was encouraging and/or pressuring them to use their existing policies more strictly, whereas RFK Jr. is suggesting he may create new restrictions on products that are currently legal through demands they produce “safety data” on sugar.
I would like to know Professor Turley’s position on seatbelt laws, since the same principle is involved. The only difference is that dead people are not a burden on taxpayers, whereas unhealthy people are.
I thought the Big Gulp was a 7/11 thing.
I think that Sec. Kennedy is on the right track. I also see no problem with transparency on ingredients in foods. High sugary drinks do have calories and do contribute to a certain amount of weight gain in our sedentary society. Weight gain, obesity, lack of activity are all contributors to poor health. This leads to hypertension, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and increasing rates of malignancies in younger and younger individuals. List the ingredients and push the education in order to help people make better choices.
Bans usually don’t work but I remind people that when it became more and more difficult to find places where you could smoke without getting hassled, this did lead to less and less smoking but not its elimination.
One of the major causes for Liver transplantation in the US is liver failure due to obesity, diabetes . Since we have treatments and vaccines for hepatitis A, B, and C, obesity is now the main culprit for liver failure as well as overuse of alcohol. That is an incredibly expensive treatment for failure to make good lifestyle changes.
GEB
main culprit for liver failure as well as overuse of alcohol.
___________________________
So true. I lost a very good friend from way to much wine. She drank to relive her stress from a failed marriage.
Come On Man! Don’t you know there is only the North Star of Evil known as Orange Man Bad? From the fanatical BOOK OF DEMOCRAP the gospel says Evil will try to trick you into being healthy, wealthy, and wise BUT you must turn away and become fat and sloppy, poor and on the USG Dole, and blissfully stupid by going to public schools for worthless indoctrination. That is the way of the true Blue Dem!!
If President Trump said breathing oxygen was good, Democrats would hold their breaths until they passed out.
Strip away all the political framing and the basic fact is simple.
Kennedy asked companies to produce safety data about the products they are selling. He did not order them to stop selling anything. He asked for the data.
The response from the governor of Massachusetts was essentially “come and take it.”
That response says more about the debate than anything else. If the data supports the product, then producing it should not be a problem. If it does not, citizens deserve to know that too.
In a free society, transparency should not be controversial.
“Healey responded with a taunt, “Come and take it,” sharing an image of a flag resembling the 1835 “Come and Take It” flag first used at the start of the Texas Revolution.”
Governor Healey is defending a major state employer and the economic freedom of her constituents against federal overreach.
For a “constitutionalist” like Turley, it is ironic to criticize a Governor for asserting state sovereignty. Healey’s response is a classic 10th amendment stance. The federal government does not have the police power to micro-manage the menus of Massachusetts businesses.
Previous administrations used legislation and transparent rule-making. Turley is supporting a form of performative governance—picking fights for headlines—over the actual hard work of systemic regulatory procedures required by law (APA).
Turley is framing this as Democratic spite when he should be about a procedural and constitutional issues.
I knew it wouldn’t be long before X demanded that Turley not criticize the Dem, radical, lesbian governor of MA for fighting the FDA for wanting to know what ingredients are given to teenagers to drink before school.
Note that RFK didn’t say to ban such products, he only wants transparency. This is too much for X, the guy that supports Democrats and their vast overreach.
PS. Hey X, will you agree with me that soda and high calorie and high sugar drinks should NOT be paid for with federal food stamps? Or does everyone on assistance have the right to eat and drink junk with my tax dollars?
Hullbobby,
Insulting the governor is not going to make your argument any better. Perhaps you should focus on the facts instead.
You say RFK only wants transparency. He’s “asking” for safety data on sugar. He already has that information. He runs the FDA remember. Why would he need “safety data” from these two specific companies? Both Dunkin’ and Starbucks are already required by the FDA’s Nutrition Labeling and Education Act to disclose every gram of sugar and every ingredient in their products.
“ Hey X, will you agree with me that soda and high calorie and high sugar drinks should NOT be paid for with federal food stamps?”
I agree with you on that hullbobby.
As of March 2026, the USDA has already approved waivers for over 20 states (including Kansas, Texas, and Florida) to ban the use of SNAP benefits for soda, candy, and energy drinks.
X is drinking a 2 Liter Coke while typing!!!! Ha ha
X, shockingly I have to say kudos for admitting that banning tax dollars from going to these obesity making products is a good thing.
As for the governor of MA, it is her type of radical leftist that helped me decide to flee MA. MA used to have all Dems in Congress with moderate Republicans in the governor’s office but now even that one tidbit is gone.
X, as an aside do you think it is odd that for many years there was a Republican in the “corner office” and yet not one Republican in the state House delegation. Heck we even voted in Scott Brown as a senator but we just couldn’t get around the dreaded GERRYMANDERING. Funny how that works.
“Perhaps…”
so original
What a dog’s breakdast of a comment.
First, the federal government has been regulating.food safety for over a century,under the interstate commerce clause. Second, while Dunkin may have its hq in Massachusetts, it operates from sea to shining sea. There are more stores in NY than Mass.
It is ridiculous for a Governor to support a local company’s selling an unsafe product no matter how many employees they have in the state. Did Gov Milliken degend Ford’s exploding Pinto? No.
If you want a 1500 calorie drink, pour in the corn syrup yourself. “Freedom of choice” doesn’t mean the shelves must be stocked with prepackaged poison.
Turley claims RFK Jr. is simply trying to fix a hijacking of a loophole that allows companies to self-verify food additives. That is not true.
Sugar is not an additive covered by the GRAS loophole. It’s a fundamental ingredient.
Fixing the GRAS loophole for chemicals is a policy many Democrats DO support. However, Kennedy is conflating chemical safety with sugar content. You can support closing loopholes for toxic dyes while still opposing a federal official “declaring war” on a cup of coffee.
Favoring individual choice over bans is not what this is.
When secretary Kennedy is asking companies to “show us the safety data” it isn’t an educational campaign; it’s a threat of federal investigation.
When he targets a specific company or product by name, it creates a “chilling effect.” If RFK jr. wants to change sugar standards, he must do so through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—applying the same rules to everyone—not through targeted social media ultimatums.
Turley claims Democrats supported Bloomberg’s “Big Gulp” ban but oppose RFK Jr.’s focus on high-sugar drinks.
Support for public health does not mean support for an HHS Secretary using federal power to single out individual businesses for public shaming or threats without a formal rule making process which IS what the government is supposed to do.
Professor Turley is using a false equivalence regarding jurisdiction. Bloomberg’s policy was a change in local municipal health code. Kennedy is using the federal government to target specific private companies. He’s not making a general rule that affects all companies nationwide. A huge difference.
If asking a company to produce safety data about its own products counts as “shaming,” then the real problem is not the question. It is the answer.
Transparency is not intimidation. It is information.
In a constitutional republic, citizens are expected to make informed choices. That requires knowledge about what is actually in the products being sold.
If the data is sound, there is nothing to be ashamed of. If it is not, then citizens deserve to know that too.
Olly,
In the context of a federal agency, “asking” is a Request for Information Kennedy is not making a polite request. When the HHS Secretary singles out one company (Dunkin’) while ignoring thousands of others selling the same product, it is targeted enforcement.
Transparency should be applied via universal standards like mandatory labeling for all high-sugar drinks. Targeting one iconic brand or two for a public interrogation is not transparency it’s the threat of regulation used as harassment for scoring political points.
You say citizens need knowledge to make informed choices. People already have this knowledge available to make informed choices. Under current FDA’s Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, Dunkin’ and Starbucks are already required to publish the exact amount of sugar and every ingredient in their drinks.
Secretary Kennedy isn’t asking for ingredients, which are already public. He is asking for “safety data” to prove a legal ingredient, sugar, is safe at a specific amount. This is a legal trap. No company can prove that 115g of sugar is healthy, but it is currently legal. By “asking” for safety data sugar, he is effectively trying to ban it without passing a law or going through the normal regulatory process.
Olly, if the data is sound, “there is no shame.” That fallacy often used to justify government overreach doesn’t fly. The burden of proof in a free market is on the government to prove a product is dangerous, in this case sugar, before it interferes with commerce. By flipping the burden to Dunkin’ and Starbucks to prove ”safety” for an ingredient that has already been cleared for decades, the Secretary is bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He’s looking for an easy way to impose rules on a specific company/s.
Thouasnds of companies market sugary coffee drinks to the public?
How many of these are giant international companies with the resources to run controlled tests?
In my many years of political observation I have concluded that the Democrat Party wants anything but informed choices. Our public school systems dropped Civics education and replaced it with socialist indoctrination. Ignorance of basic economic principles and fundamental science is endemic amongst the Democrats voting blocs. History has been rewritten. Low information voters make for an easily manipulated and reliable base of support. Informing consumers of what they are consuming and its impact on health seems a reasonable thing for government to do. 115 gms of sugar seems like a lot to me. I oppose the hyper-regulatory bureaucratic state pushed by the Democrats but I do not see that providing truthful information to consumers is harmful.
tubwateer, well said. Providing truthful information to consumers should not be a partisan issue.
A self-governing society depends on citizens having access to reliable information so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Knowledge is the foundation of responsible choice. I have written before that people can pursue forming themselves for self-government, or they will be formed for something else. That is the real question in many of these debates.
Transparency strengthens citizens. Keeping people uninformed does not.
Tubwater,
Well said.
The American people have a right to make a informed choice. Asking for transparency is not government over reach. It is making information available to the general public so they may make informed decisions on what they are putting into their bodies and those of their children. If a company is that fearful of transparency, sounds like that company might be the problem.
Does anyone else find it interesting how American food companies do not put a petroleum based dye in their products sold in Canada but do (or should I say “did” in the past tense) here in America?
What threats george?? Kennedy asked for info not new government rules.
STOP lying.. which you are good at
Lying? Asking for data a company does not have but he does is a form of intimidation to score political points. It’s a bit of puffing his chest to show MAGA he’s holding companies “accountable” for things he’s responsible for.
P.S. George: Please check out my reply to your comment, pointing out your errors about Trump’s E.O. and Federal Rules.
thanks. lin
Lin, are you referring to yesterday’s topic?
A constitutional republic assumes citizens can govern themselves. That requires capacity, and capacity begins with knowledge.
If government asks companies to produce safety data about additives or extreme sugar levels, that is not prohibition. It is information. Information allows citizens to make informed choices.
Knowledge, engagement, and self reliance are the foundations of citizen capacity.
A free society works only when citizens have the information needed to govern themselves.
A free society works only when citizens have the information needed to govern themselves. Really? What if that information is not there? Its not mandated? No one wants to make such info available. Expecting people to abide by your societal theory of citizenship, if one can call it that, strains the bounds of reality. Time to get onboard the realty train.
If the information is not there, that is exactly the problem.
A free society does not function well when citizens are expected to make decisions in the dark. That is why transparency and data matter. It is not about forcing behavior. It is about making information available so people can judge for themselves.
If companies are selling products into the public marketplace, asking them to provide safety data about what they are selling is not some utopian theory of citizenship. It is basic accountability.
The alternative is a system where neither regulators nor citizens know what is actually in the food supply. That is not the “reality train.” That is willful ignorance.
OLLY,
Accountability. That seems to be a sore place for some.
Upstate, it really is. Perhaps Sec. Kennedy could report the following:
“Our agency requested from Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts any scientific studies or safety data showing that the levels of sugar present in certain beverages are safe for regular consumption. Neither company has provided such data in response to that request.
In the absence of company-provided safety data, our recommendations must rely on the broader body of scientific research regarding excessive sugar consumption and its health effects.
If the companies possess scientific evidence demonstrating that these levels are safe, they should provide it so that consumers can evaluate the information for themselves. Until then, citizens are left with the existing medical research and their own judgment.”
Transparency should not be controversial. If the data exists, produce it. If it does not, citizens deserve to know that too.
Olly, the data they are asking for already exists and is public. Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, companies are legally required to disclose sugar content on every label. The FDA already has the authority to regulate these levels if they are truly ‘unsafe.’
By demanding ‘new’ safety data on a substance as well-studied as sugar, this request bypasses the standard FDA petition process. It isn’t about transparency—since the sugar is already listed on the cup—it’s about using regulatory intimidation to bypass existing laws and force a personal preference on the entire market.
The government is essentially asking companies to “prove a negative” for ingredients that have been legally standardized and around for decades. Their effects have been known to everyone for a while now. Especially with access to the internet.
Listing the quantity of sugar is not the same thing as providing safety data. A nutrition label tells consumers how much sugar is present. It does not show whether the company has any scientific analysis supporting the safety of those quantities in the products as formulated.
Those are two different questions.
And this is not asking companies to “prove a negative.” It is asking them to prove a positive. If you are selling products with extremely high sugar levels, the fair question is whether you have any safety analysis supporting those quantities.
If the companies have that data, producing it should not be controversial. If they do not, then consumers are left relying on the broader body of public health research on excessive sugar consumption.
Transparency about the data behind a product strengthens informed choice. It does not weaken it.
OLLY,
Well said and great comment!
Olly, You’re making a distinction that the law doesn’t require for a reason.
Sugar is classified as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). When a company uses a GRAS ingredient, the ‘safety data’ is the decades of peer-reviewed science the FDA used to grant that status. Asking a company for a unique scientific analysis of sugar in a specific latte is like asking a baker for safety data on a loaf of bread—the safety is inherent to the regulated ingredients used.
“And this is not asking companies to “prove a negative.” It is asking them to prove a positive.“
Actually, it is asking to prove a negative. You are asking companies to prove that sugar—a substance the government has already deemed safe for consumption—is not harmful in a specific mixture. The ‘positive’ proof (the safety of sugar) was established long ago at the federal level. If the government now believes those quantities are unsafe, the burden of proof shifts to the regulator to change the law, not the shop owner to conduct independent clinical trials.
“ If the companies have that data, producing it should not be controversial.”
You’re engaging in a logical fallacy Olly. Companies don’t have ‘secret’ safety data on sugar because they aren’t chemical manufacturers; they are food retailers. They rely on the FDA’s own findings. Demanding data that doesn’t exist—because the government already holds the master file on sugar safety—is a ‘gotcha’ tactic. It creates a false impression of secrecy where there is actually just standard compliance with federal labeling laws.
“ Transparency about the data behind a product strengthens informed choice. It does not weaken it.”
Informed choice requires clear, actionable facts. We already have the most important fact: the sugar count. Knowing the exact number of grams allows a consumer to consult the broader source of public health research already publicly available that Kennedy is demanding of the companies. They can decide for themselves using their phones. They don’t need companies to provide any “safety data.” It’s already available through the FDA’s vast repository of data on sugar.
It’s not about accountability. It’s about Kennedy asking for information his department already has. Private companies like Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks do not create safety data on ingredients. That is not a thing. That is the job of the FDA, RFk jr’s department. They already have the data they are “asking” for.
Healy is pointing out this overreach and defending her state’s businesses from government overreach.
Olly,
In our constitutional republic, we have the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Every gram of sugar in those drinks is already public record by law. ‘Capacity’ and ‘knowledge’ are already available to every citizen on the back of the cup or a smartphone.
Olly, when HHS with the power to shut down businesses ‘asks’ a specific company to justify a legal product, it is not a request for information—it is thinly veiled threat of selective enforcement.
If RFK Jr. believes 115g of sugar is a safety hazard, the constitutional path is through the Administrative Procedure Act, which applies to everyone equally. Singling out specific ‘iconic brands’ for public shaming and harrassment bypasses the rule of law and replaces it with governance by intimidation.
True self-reliance means citizens using the data already available to them to make their own choices, not a federal official using his position to single out a company/s to bypass the established regulatory process.
Iran can still build nuclear weapons without further enrichment.
Iran’s stockpile of over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU)—enriched to 60 percent uranium 235—is weapon usable.
JONATHAN, I hope you will forgive my updates/opinions on the rumblings of another, newer World War unfolding before our eyes.
Many religious and secular experts predict Armageddon cannot be far off. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist’s Doomsday Clock reports it is 85 seconds to midnight.
Oh oh the crazies are here…
I agree with Professor Turley on this one. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make poor choices. On the other hand, people who make good choices shouldn’t be forced to subsidize those who make poor choices and end up with significant health issues. If I were Sec. Kennedy, I might start with chem trails, which nobody can opt out of, and which he campaigned to address. Seems to me like attacking food ingredients is a way to pretend to do something without really doing anything – a Kennedy specialty. A Coke with cane sugar vs corn syrup is not really a healthy option. Much ado about nothing.
When shopping I’m simply dumbstruck how often I see BIG people buy loads of junk foods.
That said, obviously many can’t or won’t control themselves; that so called decision affects everyone in different ways.
My only thought is, as was done decades ago with cigarettes, tax the hell out of junk foods.
Is that government overreach? Yes, but if we’re a society, we have a moral obligation to intervene. On behalf of everyone.
Corporations won’t do anything about the problem, because they are the problem. Well, politicians, they too are part of the problem.
What to do?
You’ve made the connection between big tabacco and big food! Few realize that when the government was going after the tabacco companies, they diversified their interest to food companies in order to protect their profits. Once they did this, they operated in the same fashion to poison the American people. These are facts that are in plain sight. I couldn’t agree with you more concerning the politicians! There are very few that have the moral compass to do anything good when it’s easier to fill your pockets with lobbyist cash and turn a blind eye. RFK Jr, along with a few pols are trying to do the right thing for the American people, but are resisted at every trun. Quite amazing to me, really!
An article from the bastion of liberal America that states these facts:
https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/how-tobacco-industry-drove-rise-ultra-processed-foods
“I believe that it remains an individual choice on whether to engage in unhealthy habits, from smoking to high-fat foods. ”
But, but, but … they’re decision have an impact on all Americans… insurance costs come to mind. Accommodations for the obese, building, aircraft etc..
So your choice is my cost?
Clean H2O will become the most precious liquid on earth in moments from now when a mistake (guaranteed) will trigger the end of all we’ve known on this little, beautiful, blue orb.
There are NO solutions in politics. Only trade-offs. One person’s ox is gored to benefit someone else.