The article is not about "scaring you with science". It's about accuracy and honesty in labelling.
Don't label something "natural" or "100% fresh juice" if it's not.
Don't label something "natural" or "100% fresh juice" if it's not.
The point you make is a more complex one than you seem to be implying. What does it mean for something to be "natural"? Is pasteurisation natural? What about homogenisation? Packaging?
That's how I think it should work. Honest labeling, and letting consumers decide.
I don't want genetic engineering and industrial preservation techniques to go the way of nuclear energy -- discarded for an alternative that comparatively damages our health, damages our wallets, and damages the environment simply because the otherwise superior option has a higher coefficient of sensationality.
The problem to me with such an approach (even given that the end is in fact alturistic and beneficial) is: who gets to decide which lies get to be told, and who decides what is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? the whole society? some subset of society?
Do we allow all lies in advertising? Or just ones you or some elite (perhaps scientists or technocrats) determine are for the benefit of society?
Personally, I'd rather have the truth be told, and hold advertisers to a higher standard.
Let's get one thing straight: you're the one who wants to extend the current definition of "lie" to include this particular brand of misdirection and then censor that misdirection. You're the one who wants to "hold advertisers to a higher standard" in the name of benefiting society. I'm the one advocating the comparatively hands-off approach of continuing to restrict censorship to literally false statements. Those hard questions you asked about who should get to make arbitrary decisions are the ones you have to answer for your argument to be convincing.
This is the sub-text of the article, so I think you're being a little naive. Working backwards from the conclusion, there is no difference between various type of juice.