Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.
This is actually one reason I love FBA - I can buy all sorts of small brand specialty health foods from Amazon, bypassing what the local stores choose to stock (or, more often, not stock).
Amazon's anticompetitive practices mean this will become harder in the future however, as they will use this sales and pricing and customer data directly against any mom and pop product that becomes sufficiently successful.
We really need better protections for small businesses that sell via giant online platforms. There is no shortage of healthy, tasty food, people who want to sell it, or people who want to buy it.
6 or 7 supermarket chains further, sometimes a dozen products in same category, end result: not one (0) without added sugars. Anywhere. And all in a similar range, iirc.
So basically the same product everywhere. Just minor tweaks (or with/without chocolate, eg.) + packaging, brands & pricing differences.
Just goes to show how powerful food conglomerates destroy consumer choice.
What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?
Do you feel the same way about the ingredient list?
A ton of court decisions say it is in the US. Here is an article that cites a plethora of them [1]. Note: I have no idea who gfi.org is or whose agenda they are pushing or what side they are on. They just happened to have an article with a nice list of relevant cases.
[1] https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-cl...
So if you want to argue that being required to label the ingredients and other required prose on the outside of your packaging is 'speech' then you are effectively siding with the corporations against humanity. You can probably find some justification for that in your own mind but it isn't going to convince me that you have it right, no matter how many silly arguments you can find to back it up. There is such a thing as common sense and courts risk their own legacy as well as ridicule if they lose that very important element. And in the United States the supposedly independent supreme courts vote o n just about any subject that is even mildly politically tinted can be guessed with an accuracy that borders on certainty, something that should never ever happen if the court were independent.
This sort of reasoning is what got you 'the United States vs $50,000' and other elegant bits of bullshit. And don't get me started on the political nature of the US supreme court, which seems to be visible to all but a handful.
As one of those evil American conservatives, I'm perfectly okay with targeted compelled speech in business activities, such as requiring marketing to be truthful.
Very few conservatives would be upset with the FDA being focused on "truth in packaging" as opposed to "FDA-approved" translating to "force employers/schools to force this on everyone" (aka experimental COVID shots).
Very few conservatives want to remove all regulation - many I know like the safety of the banking system as opposed the scam-heavy crypto market. However, we don't like over-zealous political enforcement of regulations (aka IRS doing targeted audits on conservative leaning institutions) or every transaction being reported to the government.
You are correct there isn't a meaningful economic difference between Democrats and Republicans right now. Both parties are letting inflation run rampant, have done little to fight taxes, deficits, or debts, and have no sense of financial responsibility to their taxpayers or voters, even though they both scream it when they are the minority party.
However, most Conservatives care about the federal debt/deficit, even if all the Republicans in the House don't. That's why Congress's approval rating is crap.