What they are doing is no different from the various operations Big Tobacco did in the past to misinform, dissuade or deflect the conversation on cigarettes.
I understand the health costs of sugary drinks, but personally I want to live in a world where I can have one if and when I want to. I don't drink a lot of soda (maybe one a week), but there are certain situations where I find them really enjoyable. I don't want them to disappear.
I think the quality of life will go down if we get rid of all junk food in the world. I know we do a poor job of eating and drinking in moderation, but I don't think the solution is to just have it not be available.
Step 2. Argue against strawman.
Everyone should be free to consume whatever they want, so long as they know what they want is killing them, and there are no distortions by the purveyors of such products that they are anything other than what they are - namely bad for you.
You want to smoke? Go ahead. You want to get obese and severely shorten both your life and its quality by consuming caloric dense nutrient deficient drinks/foods? Go right on ahead. It's your life to screw up.
But don't you dare stand there and tell me that letting these corporations that profit from the damage people do to themselves be free to run around going "OH NO cigarettes are totally fine! OH NO diet isn't the issue - just exercise more - here have a coke". Kids are literally dying because of this shit, and I frankly won't stand by it.
What I am against is systematic and dirty propaganda operations that directly harm the national interest for trivial sums of profit by lying to the population through their teeth and in turn inflicting untold amounts of misery on millions of our citizens.
That isn't what your statement I replied to said... you said there was NO way for them to win.
So the commenter claims "they can't win". That means that even if they stopped all the PR work defending sugar, they still wouldn't win and they would still be on the wrong side of history.
If they have no way to win, then the only thing they can do is stop existing at all.
If the commenter supports their right to exist as a company making sugary drinks, then there IS a way to win.
He never once mentions what they could do to 'win'.
Sugar and caffeine are addictive. We are given these things from a very young age and have very little say in whether we are addicted to them (not to mention, massive amounts of marketing).
The fewer foods I eat, the better I feel. So many people are hooked on this stuff and aren't even aware that it is poisoning them (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, as well as headaches, mood swings, nasal congestion).
I wouldn't want to be a dictator and deprive people who are making a conscious choice, but I would get rid of it in order to give the people who are trapped the opportunity to experience life without it.
Where would it stop, then? Almost everything there is has some people that are addicted to it and use it too much; television, video games, social media, etc. Do we implement global bans to protect the people who are unable to control themselves? Or do we need to do something different?