Here in Texas, one of the first acts of the new Agriculture Commissioner was to grant a "cupcake amnesty", sponsored by a variety of cupcake businesses: https://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/12/commissioner-sid-mil...

Unfortunately any attempt at regulation, like Bloomberg limiting the size of soda containers, is met with cries of "But my FREEDOM. I need to be FREE to buy as large a container as I want!"

Never mind that the only freedom being preserved here is the freedom of marketers to manipulate the public. Nobody asked for the obscenely large sizes of drinks we have available now. Companies just realized they can sell 3 cents of extra soda for an additional 25 cents and went nuts.

The reason it's met with those cries of freedom is that I don't trust Bloomberg or you to be right about what's healthy or not healthy. In fact, public health authorities are frequently spectacularly, 180 degrees, catastrophically wrong about what is or is not healthy. So while I do not drink soda at all, much less 64 oz buckets of it, I don't want to give the power to ban that to the same people who think salt and animal products are also bad for you.

It wasn't even a ban though. It was a restriction on the size of the container. You could still drink soda, as much as you like. It's well known that when you put larger amounts of food and drink in front of people, they consume more, regardless of whether they felt a physical need for it or not. Instead of letting marketers use psychological tricks to make themselves more money, I'd much rather let the government use the same tricks to make the public more healthy.

Even if science later finds out that soda is super healthy and we should all drink nothing else, I'd much rather have regulations motivated by people asking "Is this healthy?" instead of "Does this make me the most profit?"

Neither I nor Bloomberg are the ones saying it's unhealthy, scientists are. It's a law based on science.