This is like saying that driving doesn't work because people still walk and the real problem is transportation. It simply doesn't matter. It's not an argument.
That GLP-1 has benefits is good. That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
You can acknowledge both without hurting _anyone_. You entirely lack an argument.
Ya so you want to change a system that involves millions of selfish actors and corporations looking to profit and that have entrenched themselves, and are protected by freedom of association versus a choice between a doctor and a patient.
I can tell you which one will be more successful.
because..?
> That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
Will this be before or after we fix capitalism/finish building communism?
I'd love to re-imagine our food of food production and consumption, but it sounds like you're arguing that because food production and consumption is a better solution, we shouldn't be promoting GLP-1 agonists.
Sorry, but one is exists in reality and the other exists in our imaginations. When we let our imaginations take precedence over reality, we live in a fantasy and the consequence is that we get neither. Effectively this argues for neither, and that's a bad deal for everyone.