Carbs are not carbs (high vs low GI, for example), and fat is not fat (trans fats vs MCT, for example). Many other factors go into whether or not input calories are digested, whether or not input calories are stored (and whether or not as glycogen), and whether or not input calories end up as long-term fat.

It isn’t that simple.

That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.

>That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.

This ignores the entire premise of my comment, which is that people's choices in this context are not made in a vacuum.

If the market demands unhealthy food, then that is what the food industry will supply, and thus be the option made generally available to all.

The food industry has exploited human evolutionary traits (cravings for salt/sugar/fat and other nutrients that are high-value in moderation but detrimental in excess) to push the market in a direction that boosts consumption (and thus revenue growth) at a cost to our health.

The cost to people’s health is not caused by “the food industry”. It is caused, moment by moment, by those same people choosing to harm themselves.

Grocery stores still sell broccoli and chicken. People choose to buy oreos and croissants and other refined carbs. That’s not “the food industry”.

It’s variously described, but “consumer choice” and “market demands” don’t really capture it. It boils down to other adult humans, just like you and I, choosing what they want to spend their money on, choosing what foods they want to eat.

It is nobody’s place but the eater to tell them what they should or should not be doing. Full stop.

> That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.

i could agree with you for individuals

but for corporations who are making money off of (and actively marketing) certain things (that indeed do harm people) i would say regulations should exist to at the very least mark thier products so the consumer is informed “this will most likely kill you if you take more than once a day” or “there are no proven claims in this product” etc...

after working at a few very large firms, i have little faith in companies being genuine about their products’s safety, and if one was to leave things to “the market” then being informed is the absolute minimum in my opinion... idk though maybe i am missing something...