> forcing companies using those products to clearly disclose the associated risks
This is the last thing you should want for better health.
What you'd get is an explosion of "This is known by the state of California to cause obseity" on everything from a banana to a chocolate muffin, leading to people to ignore and diminish the health impact of eating a chocolate muffin because, "how bad can it be if they have to tag a banana".
"Clearly disclosing risks" just leads to overwhelming people and is the opposite of good health education. In fact junk food peddlers would love for this to be the "solution" because it wouldn't nudge people away from junk food.
Much better is just to tax unhealthy food more. That nudges people toward healthier options without them realising it.
However, people (or junk food companies masquerading as people) will oppose such "sin taxes" on the basis they are regressive.
This is the last thing you should want for better health.
What you'd get is an explosion of "This is known by the state of California to cause obseity" on everything from a banana to a chocolate muffin, leading to people to ignore and diminish the health impact of eating a chocolate muffin because, "how bad can it be if they have to tag a banana".
"Clearly disclosing risks" just leads to overwhelming people and is the opposite of good health education. In fact junk food peddlers would love for this to be the "solution" because it wouldn't nudge people away from junk food.
Much better is just to tax unhealthy food more. That nudges people toward healthier options without them realising it.
However, people (or junk food companies masquerading as people) will oppose such "sin taxes" on the basis they are regressive.