The problem isn't that corporations are dicks, the problem is that people do not have a lot of nutritional education, and if they do then they rarely apply that knowledge to nutritional labels. They have the opportunity to look into the nutritional health of the food they eat, but they do not. That's not the fault of the companies, that's the fault of individual consumers.
Also, "junk food" and fast food are much cheaper than healthier food and tend to last longer too, making them popular among lower-income families. Say what you will about KFC's nutritional value, but there aren't that many other places where you can feed a whole family dinner for only a dollar. Taxing this is not just an insult to the people who do watch their health, but also adds more of a burden upon the lower class.
Again, you're adopting a defeatist attitude. If we were tax junk foods and remove the subsidies that go to their production, then take that money to subsidize fruits, vegetables, grain, cereals, etc. then your argument is literally turned on its head. People don't need to know the nutritional health of apples, celery, soda, and oreos. Right now, people look at price when coming to their decision and making the latter two more expensive (while subsidizing the first) would decrease the amounts of the latter two which are bought. I also think that feeding a whole family for "only a dollar" at KFC may be a bit of an exaggeration if not a poor word choice.
Suggesting McDonald's to sell apples is okay. Legally mandating them to sell apples is not.
Except now you're misinterpreting what happened (which is easy when the right wing noise machine blows everything out of proportion if not telling out right fabrications). No body in government "legally mandated" MacDonald's to sell apples with every happy meal, or to sell no fries, or even less fries. Michelle Obama made childhood obesity an issue she would like to work to solve and the right wing blew it out of proportion. All she's really doing is
lobbying MacDonalds to change their happy meals, i.e. recommending they do it and providing things like facts and statistics. MacDonald's was free to tell her "no" but instead MacDonald's made the decision to adopt her idea and now apples are included in every happy meal while the number of fries are cut in half. So my question is, a private organization made a decision that was ultimately their own, why the "libertarian" outrage? (libertarian in quotes because teabaggers=/=libertarians)
There's no constitutional grounds for the government telling a private organization what they can and cannot sell or do with their funds.
United States v. Carolene Products (1938)-regulated what types of milk could be sold
Nebbia V. New York (1934)- ditto
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)-regulated wheat grown by a wheat farmer for even personal use
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911)- prevented corporations from using funds in ways which restrain trade
United States v. National City Lines Inc (1948)- prevented corporations from buying public transportation as part of a conspiracy to halt public transportation
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co (1955)- prevented sale of a service which is unlicensed or unprofessional
Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead (1969)- Town of Hempstead created very specific "zoning laws" tailored to shut down a business
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964)- rules corporations can not discriminate in who they sell too
(Pending) National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare)- Mandates what percentage of a health insurance company's funds must be used on providing health insurance.
Etc. I won't go on. However, these are just Supreme Court cases dealing with what can or can not be sold, how it can be sold, to whom, and regulations on what corporations and private individuals can do with their funds. There are a whole host of more modern examples of case laws and many laws (both federal and local) that didn't even meet the Writ of Certiorari to have the case heard (earning a de facto approval). Fact is there is legal grounds for doing exactly the opposite of what you've said.
Of course there is a line to protect the public's safety, but there is a difference between selling fatty foods and, say, selling foods with botulism. The former is only harmful if the consumer chooses to eat too much of it and does not take the proper health measures to protect themselves. The latter is always harmful, no matter who eats it.
This, combined with your last paragraph, make it sound as though Joe Six Pack or Mr. Goodbar's decisions regarding their diet affect only them. It doesn't. We live in a society where individuals rely on one another to a great extent. Joe's cirrhosis and Mr. Goodbar's type two diabetes will end up being paid for by the society they live in (either through medicare which is tax payer money or private insurance which increases operating costs and therefore premiums on everyone else). Taking a preventive measure like taxing their
luxuries to deter their poor decisions is not an attack on their liberties, it is a preventative measure to save money on the part of the larger society.
Also, regulation of foods covered in botulism=telling a business what they can't sell (taken prima facie).
Public schools are not forcing kids to buy sugar cookies. Kids can choose to abstain from sugar cookies. It's really that simple. They also have the option of bringing their own lunches to school if they don't like what the school provides. Not to sound like I have a "blame the victim" mentality, but a child's nutrition is really the responsibility of the parents, not the state. If you set absolutely no guidelines for your child's diet and never teach them about what is healthy eating and what is not, then don't blame the schools when your child becomes unhealthy due to their eating choices.
I really don't know what you're getting at with this point, and I feel you only typed this paragraph to go along with the age old internet meme of attacking every point someone makes (as though 100% of what I said in any post could ever be wrong). However, I bolded the last paragraph to show you why a school's decision to not sell sugar cookies is probably a good idea.
You mention poor families earlier in your post and that the status quo pushes them to making unhealthy decisions (something I agree with), but right here I have to point out that school lunches for such poor children may be the only hot meal they receive all day and may be the healthiest meal they receive. Therefore, I think that for these poor families and children, the government should take more of an interest in providing these children with a healthy meal and removing the option of sugar cookies is at the very least a good start. Removing soda machines in schools would be another one, but now I'm becoming too optimistic.
