Either you're being serious, in which case I find the argument fairly ludicrous, or you're sarcastically pointing out some ludicrous logical consequences of a certain framework of "rights."

I think it's just a criticism that health often are made with corporate interests in mind (see: the tobacco industry), which don't care about people's wellbeing, but rather about stock valuation.

In the early 1900s, the Ford Motor Company did home visits with workers' wives. They offered nutritional advice, and coached women to discourage their husbands from drinking. Why? Higher productivity, of course. Ford and other corporations supported Prohibition, for the same reason. Unions were generally against Prohibition, as a human rights issue (not in those words, of course).