What's frightening is the conservative/libertarian view:
"Government has no business telling me what to eat."
Which is just nonsense, and not only because the decision on what to eat is driven by genetics that did not evolve in the presence of modern processed foods. Government isn't telling you what to eat if it keeps companies from selling the worst junk food. If you want to make junk food yourself, you're welcome to (and it will probably be a lot healthier than what you buy, too, and taste better, subjectively, because you made it), but the problem with junk food is the economy of scale. Companies can cheaply make stuff that tastes great without being healthy, so why would you bother with more expensive or healthier food, or anything you have to spend time making yourself? It's about shifting incentives, not banning anything. They counter that freedom applies to corporations too, and you're banning corporations from doing things, which leads to the "do corporations deserve the same freedoms?" argument.
The conservatives' position goes beyond unwise and into the realm of hypocrisy, because conservatives have no problem when government wants to tell me I can't grow salvia divinorum (yes, in my state it's banned), or poppies, or marijuana plants, but forbid a company from distributing disgustingly unhealthy lunchables or soda and they lose their minds.
(I should add that another part of the problem is that both conservatives and libertarians pretend the costs of eating badly only affect the people making the choice, which isn't true. Particularly with the changes to healthcare, everyone buying their own insurance during open enrollment, and maybe everyone (I don't know, are there any plans where premiums are segmented by behavior other than tobacco use?), is in a gigantic pool where no separation by diet is allowed, even if it were practical which it's not. And if everything were privatized and pools segmented by diet, there would still be costs to others, because people in those pools have more health problems that negatively affect not only their own, but their relatives' and friends', happiness and productivity. Which works if their friends in turn exert influence back to eat healthier, but that)
For me, the problem isn't about libertarian/conservative views on the matter, but the fact that both forget that institutional norms can offset any economic disincentive for any good or service. One example for me would be the overuse of cars in cities which is the product of both private and public institutional norms which require nearly everyone to own a car to get around a city in a timely fashion.
I don't consider myself a conservative or libertarian, but I find it annoying when besserwissers in the government are telling me how to live my life, even when they are offering good advice. For example, if some government besserwisser is yammering about not eating sugar, it almost becomes more tempting for me to eat sugar, even if I agree that eating lots of refined sugar is unhealthy.
However, if I figure out on my own that eating lots of refined sugar is unhealthy, then cutting down on my intake is easy enough.
The government is not capable of 'shifting incentives' through the use of force. Attempts made for a small group to dictate what others want and what's best for them will, and have, ended in failure.
Governments have very effectively reduced tobacco use through advertising, restrictions on where smoking is legal (backed by force), and taxation (backed by force). Making something expensive and inconvient can make it unpopular while avoiding potentially counterproductive bans. The same principles could be applied to unnaturally delicious processed foods.
I would hazard a guess that the decline in celebrity endorsement of tobacco products had a larger influence on the total decline of smoking at least in the adult population. Mind you, this wasn't uniform as the rate of smoking has not declined at the same rate for poorer populations despite the absence of both advertisements or celebrity endorsements.
"Government has no business telling me what to eat."
Which is just nonsense, and not only because the decision on what to eat is driven by genetics that did not evolve in the presence of modern processed foods. Government isn't telling you what to eat if it keeps companies from selling the worst junk food. If you want to make junk food yourself, you're welcome to (and it will probably be a lot healthier than what you buy, too, and taste better, subjectively, because you made it), but the problem with junk food is the economy of scale. Companies can cheaply make stuff that tastes great without being healthy, so why would you bother with more expensive or healthier food, or anything you have to spend time making yourself? It's about shifting incentives, not banning anything. They counter that freedom applies to corporations too, and you're banning corporations from doing things, which leads to the "do corporations deserve the same freedoms?" argument.
The conservatives' position goes beyond unwise and into the realm of hypocrisy, because conservatives have no problem when government wants to tell me I can't grow salvia divinorum (yes, in my state it's banned), or poppies, or marijuana plants, but forbid a company from distributing disgustingly unhealthy lunchables or soda and they lose their minds.
(I should add that another part of the problem is that both conservatives and libertarians pretend the costs of eating badly only affect the people making the choice, which isn't true. Particularly with the changes to healthcare, everyone buying their own insurance during open enrollment, and maybe everyone (I don't know, are there any plans where premiums are segmented by behavior other than tobacco use?), is in a gigantic pool where no separation by diet is allowed, even if it were practical which it's not. And if everything were privatized and pools segmented by diet, there would still be costs to others, because people in those pools have more health problems that negatively affect not only their own, but their relatives' and friends', happiness and productivity. Which works if their friends in turn exert influence back to eat healthier, but that)