Gorging on soft drinks is a choice. Trying to pass off people as victims is counterproductive but the easy thing to do politically.

Of course, 'some' people will always do something. This is not an argument because if we go that way we ought to ban everything.

No, blaming it on a lack of discipline or willpower is the easy thing to do, and it's what we've BEEN doing, all while enabling companies like Coca-Cola to mass produce addictive, sugary garbage. We're all victims of our own biology. For most of human history we didn't have easy access to cheap sugar, which absolutely lights up pleasure centers of the brain. Companies like Coca-Cola exploit this, and I truly can't believe we still have to argue this. So I'll say it again: food companies exploit the human brain for profit. This will never not be true as long as we keep doing what we're doing.

Is there a place for the occasional Coke in a healthy world? Absolutely. Life's short, enjoy a Coke once in a while. But does Coca-Cola (the company) need to advertise it literally everywhere while getting massive corporate welfare at the expense of the world's health? Probably not.

I think this is the correct perspective.

Humans are full of exploitable bugs/features.

There is a middle ground. People are responsible for their actions, but so are corporations. If the conclusions in this article are correct, Coke deliberately misled people.

So do we say to society, “Coke would have you believe it’s calories vs. calories out. Run a mile. Drink a Coke. It’s all good. The truth, though, is that it is mostly about diet. However, Coke can say whatever it wants. It’s a free country. If you can’t figure it out, if Coke fights to shape news, medical publications, educational material, and every other way you could find the truth, well, sucks to be you.”?

Or do we say, “Coke misled you. They will be held responsible for their actions corporately and individually. Here is what literature not funded by motivated parties says. It says that if you drink a lot of Coke, whether you exercise or not, you will get fat. If you are ok with that, fine. If not, now you know.”?

The issue here is again assuming that studies and expert knowledge is required to determine whether drinking too much soft drinks and/or having a bad diet is bad for health and causes obesity.

Even if that was not obvious, which it is, it becomes so very quickly as you start putting on weight. Similarly, it is obvious and well-known that burning more calories means being able to eat more calories.

People know all that.

Those studies and the attempts at influencing results are mostly political. These studies are tools to influence policy. That's why you have plenty of studies paid for by plenty of pressure groups and which results magically serve the interests of these pressure groups (whatever the side of the argument, or the topic). If you want to have a law passed you need tools to help you. If you want to prevent that you also need tools.

Of course on scientific studies can be very important on many issues, but on this one really they are not to uncover anything Earth-shattering.

Are you suggesting that advertising doesn’t work?

That's not the problem. Ads may influence consumption but (over-)consumption is a choice.

It's a fallacy to conflate both.

If ads increase consumption then they increase overconsumption too.

Claiming otherwise would require an explanation.

I suppose gorging on heroin is too.