You responded to a rhetorical question and completely ignored my response to your ridiculous claim that sugar is being unfairly singled out. Why is that?
Because it's delicious
It's not though. It's only delicious for people who have high sugar intake. And besides, deliciousness is subjective and orthogonal to nutrition, while nutritional value is largely objective (we hope).
Smoking is bad for you, so it's illegal for minors to buy and it's illegal to even smoke with a minor in the car. High sugar intake is bad for you, so it's illegal to advertise sweets to children /s.
Maybe we should focus on why people use food to feel happy rather than why food is manufactured to make people feel happy.
You really think for us to have any hope of changing the prevalence of obesity is to get people to change their behavior, instead of minimizing the accessibility and prevalence of the environment which reinforces said behavior? It'd be great to do both, but realistically...? Get millions of people to change their behavior and opt for the more expensive / less flavorful foods? (And I mean less flavorful in a subjective sense, since they're used to very sweet, very salty things.)