The primary argument against labeling sugar contents in drinks/etc seems to come down to perceptions of a rise in "The Nanny State". While the histrionics over the ACA, the rollout, and the rise in state medicare, etc. trend around a similar rise in government oversight or government handout, that entitles "those" folks who "don't want to work" by those who "don't want to pay" - mis-characterizations both - but it does raise the question...
If we as a society now deign that some form of universal health care is deserved by all, isn't it reasonable to try and deliver the best care in the aggregate? Tons-o-sugar isn't too healthy...so says common sense and lots of research. The pennies, or percentages, are generally small and the payoff for that kid who didn't get fat, for the individual, and for the society overall is pretty big.
So while on the one hand I favor the implementation of a commonsense approach that will help the population and save us a bunch of money in the long run, on the other I'd like to see a little more brisk natural selection for the morons who think that they should be able to roundly kill themselves via lifestyle suicide, ultimately at my (and our) mutual expense.
To the pivot
I'm not pushing Girl Scout Cookies again, ever, until they raise the percentage of sales that go to the individual troops! Girl Scouts - essentially under-represented union workers - receive only like $0.25 per box for each one sold in the Annual Great Cookie Consumption Challenge.
Read that again - I will not advocate for Girl Scout Cookies (except Mia's) until they pay the Girl Scouts A LIVING WAGE! Instead I'm giving 'em cash, better return. Someone is making money on the deal and I don't think GSA Board is cooking up the cookies out back of the board room. I'd rather buy the gals a field trip someplace cool than buy Mr Cookie CEO a new Gulfstream.
I did not however, say that I would not buy them....but probably not $100 worth.