You can write articles for popular online news sites that inform people.

The generalizations made in the article are completely valid for the audience they're targeting: specifically, the x% of Americans who are at increased risk of a heart attack because of the government subsidies you mentioned, as well as their own addiction to sugar.

Can you speak to exactly why the specific regulations mentioned -- the ones that were allegedly successful in Mexico -- won't work or are otherwise harmful?

FTA:

>The key interventions they implemented included taxing soda, banning junk food television advertising, and eliminating processed foods, junk food and sugar-sweetened beverages from schools. More than 15 countries have targeted sugar-sweetened beverages by taxing them — a strategy that’s proven successful.

All of these sound completely reasonable to me.

Can you provide some counter evidence to the NIH study cited in the article? [0]

[0]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19759377

Is it not possible that perhaps government regulation and the elimination/reduction of corn subsidies could be reasonable steps to take?

Sugar is addictive. The availability of low-sugar products is as relevant to the sugar addict as the presence of a basketball hoop is to a heroin addict. Sure, the heroin addict could spend his time playing basketball instead of shooting up, but that doesn't make heroin intervention an unreasonable solution.