While I agree in principle, I have my trouble with politicians deciding what's healthy and what's not. With sugar it seems to be a clear cut case by now. But just imagine your policy implemented in the 90s. They would have heavily taxed fat and eggs. The obesity epidemic would have been even worse, because poor people would have substituted with carbs.

Nutritional "science" is less science than advice. And it's often wrong.

Just look at the number of bs studies on chocolate is healthy, wine is healthy etc. They're famous because everybody likes chocolate and wine. My best guess is that having a glass of wine in the evening is correlated with people who are a) more well-off, b) cook at home and c) have enough moderation not to drink a whole bottle of wine. Having moderation is generally good for you. People who eat dark chocolate? Well they probably aren't people with such a sweet tooth (otherwise they'd eat milk chocolate), and that is in general a healthy thing to have.

Nutritional science is 99% bunk, and filtering through that noise is nigh impossible. I'm wary of politicians calling shots on this basis.