I don't hate to see them go, and not for health reasons.
This is what is supposed to happen when a company can not perform efficiently with the resources it has. I realize the strike killed this company, but it was severely wounded and bleeding already. No guarantee it would have survived much longer, strike or no strike.
In these situations, it is good for the company to fold. Sell off it's assets and let another business that can make better use of these resources do so.
If a company is squandering resources, that is a drag on the economy. Much better to let someone new withe better ideas and better execution come into play. Bankruptcy and Liquidation lets this happen. It's a good thing.
If a company can pick up these resources and use them more efficiently, they will hire people. And maybe all the things that Hostess fell short on with the union contract will not be a problem for a company that can execute efficiently.
While that is certainly not the only possible outcome, I think it is a likely one.
This is off-topic, but I really hate the term "health craze." People caring about something does not make it a "craze." When people put on their seat-belt, we don't say they have a "safety craze." For the same reason, we should stop using the term "health craze."
In Krispy Kreme case it was in fact a "craze" - the Atkins "eat no sugar" diet wave, followed by South Beach diet wave, followed by the derivatives. All of these have subsided now, but they were nothing less than a sudden craze. I was one of many how jumped on the bandwagon only to jump off it few months later.