> hey aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat Soda manufacturers include this inf

> hey aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat Soda manufacturers include this information because they are required to by law. It is in their interests to hide this information from you. Lobbysists for junk food manufacturers are always hard at work fighting against these kinds of regulations, because you knowing what is in their product is harmful to their bottom line, because they are selling you what amounts to a mild poison. People fought to get this labelling required by law. These companies aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. > They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album. The difference being my health isn't harmed by a pop singer trying to improve their voice. Nor are they creating a need or addiction to music that didn't already exist. There has always been a need for music among humans. Even tribal war drums count as music. I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit, but really, pop music is such a small part of the entire musical landscape. Even if it were, what damage to people is pop music causing? What addictions is it fostering? You could debate about the dumbing down of music that manufactured pop music encourages, but we are talking about actual harm caused by fostering addictions here, which things like sodsa and cigarettes do, as a result of their being addictive as well as damaging to health. The pop music analogy isn't a very good one, because music doesn't damage your health by encouraging your addiction to substances harmful to your health.