YET. You've actually summarized the actual text, not the important subtext. The subtext is that under a UIB, the government can effectively tell you how to behave and almost directly, control your choices from a new orthogonal legal standpoint. Hey, the US isn't barring Pepsi from a free and open marketplace, but if you buy a Pepsi produce we'll revoke your UIB. Who? That birthed organization that's a cross between the TSA and the IRS to administrate the UIB which is necessary "to prevent abuse". Fraud will run rampant in the first attempts. I find these behaviors, embarassingly commonplace, in US programs.
The development of the political consensus necessary to pass a UBI would be, exactly, a political rejection of the idea that such restrictions are desirable.
Trying to scaremonger against UBI with this as the supposed threat is nonsense, because it is, in effect, defending the status quo in which these kinds of restrictions are already imposed on people against a change which would remove them on the idea that somehow, in the distant future, those type of restrictions might be reimposed.
I'm not aware of any basic income proposal that includes such measures; the point of basic income is exactly the opposite: to let people spend their money however they choose. Some governments (California and New York come to mind) are already regulating unhealthy food, but I don't see any connection to basic income.
The article also points out that people who currently receive "nothing" from the government (other than the aqueduct, and sanitation, and roads...) would probably become dependent on their basic income to some extent and thus could be influenced by the threat of taking that income away. Governments already have so many ways to reward/punish people (e.g. tax policy) that I have no idea whether this would be better or worse than the current status quo.