It's "interesting" to see the same methods that the tabacco lobby used are used again. We as a society haven't spent the past time in defending ourselves or our institutions any better then back in those days. Sad Indeed...
Without a government, a corporation can only be strong, when their customers are spending enough money. With a government a corporation can grow out by regulations/subsidies. Regulations are destroying small competitors, not the big corps themselves.
It's not that simple. For instance, kids aren't free to choose what they eat or drink and they can't make rationale decisions. Many adults lack the proper information and so on...
Forced for humans is not just "gun in the head", and it's not a binary either.
E.g. constant hammering with advertising on TV and internet can be an effective force for forcing people into stuff they wouldn't otherwise do.
The argument that people can't be rational and think for themselves, therefore they need other people (a political class) to decide for them, is, frankly, disgusting. No thanks.
You'll need governments deciding things anyway. Otherwise you can't come up with fair contracts when there's a difference of power in the parties of the contract (think e.g. costumer and manufacturer and food safety regulations), even when both sides are rational.
A part of the publication explained how large lobbying efforts are made to make labeling systems less accurate or get rid of them altogether. So, in short, the industry spends a lot of money so consumers don't even know which foods are "suger foods" and which aren't.
The humanity have to build new organizations that help the masses in picking up the right choices and we need new corporations that we can trust. Just have a look at the open source movement, where even commercial companies are opening their source code to improve to build up on trust. We need corporations that put labels of ingredients on their products. But if we force companies to do so, we're destroying the start up resources a new company needs to grow.
By forcing accurate labels we are disadvantaging small companies?
I am quite sure that, in a month of work, a well intentioned NGO with 1 or 2 people could develop a hand-holding website that every company could follow, for labelling.
Can you clarify?
I agree it's often a problem but why not carry a lens to check the small print on the package.
A 'lens requirement' cuts the effectiveness of any information in a package. I'd wager to less than a tenth of readers, compared with readable packages.
Likewise, if the individuals forming a sugar industry marketing or lobbying entity could be held personally liable for the actions of that entity, it probably wouldn't exist. That's the closest thing I can think of to a concept of business law in a libertarian sense: If you own a certain fraction of General Motors, then you're responsible for a fraction of GM's debts, if those debts exceed its assets.
Unfortunately, I can't sue.
Dishonest marketing does not infringe upon your property rights. I've never heard any libertarian claim that limiting speech, for any purpose, is justifiable base on libertarian ideals.
Where do you get that idea?
It's not very different for a cigarette manufacture to claim their product is healthy than it is for a construction company to agree to build you a house but then stop halfway through despite receiving payment. I think it's pretty clear that both would be opposed by most or all prominent forms of libertarianism.
For example, killing is forbidden, except euthanasia (in certain countries). Hedge funds can exist, but they can't do any marketing and can only have "sophisticated" investors. In Sweden, alcohol is only sold by special stores.
I'd advocate the same approach to health & food safety. Businesses can sell everything, but there should be limits on (1) marketing (can't market sugar to kids, if at all), (2) taxes (more sugar, more tax - similar to tobacco), (3) general availability (can't buy cigarettes under 18), and (4) labeling (I support labeling of GMOs and of even trace amounts of trans fat).
Edit: especially number 4 above - I see no reason that a honest business would ever see information disclosure regulation as a negative thing; in addition, availability of (trustworthy) information will only increase the economic activity and decrease economic waste (again, only applies to honest companies and products).
But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. After all, you could also say that your individual liberty is being infringed by taxes - but you can always move to a deserted island, stop using the services provided by the governments, and pay no tax!
One of the most statist phrases ever.
But that is not usually considered libertarian.
A libertarian scheme would usually be like 'certification should be a business, and foods should be certified sugar free by a specific certification company, and bear that company's sugar-free logo'.
Which I think is highly impractical
But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right.
Wow. Stop considering yourself a libertarian, seriously. This is authoritarian talk. All I see you arguing for is rules, and if somone points out their flaws, more and 'smarter' rules. This is the exact opposite of libertarianism.
Without the government enforcing this perversion we might not be in this situation (probably in some other situation but who knows).
of just lying?
because every sugar product conceivable can be 'part of a nutritious breakfast' without any lying (but misleading a lot of people)