Easiest reaction maybe. I'd need to see some evidence to be convinced it is a solution. It seems to me more like a feel good measure that just further burdens

Easiest reaction maybe. I'd need to see some evidence to be convinced it is a solution. It seems to me more like a feel good measure that just further burdens people who are making poor choices already. Sure, there's some sort of libertarianish, survival of the fittest argument to be made for that, but if you're actually interested in positive results I think you're going to need something more nuanced. My personal opinion, based on nothing more than my experiences, and probably not worth much: How did we reduce smoking, another addictive, pleasurable activity with negative health consequences? We taxed it, sure, but we also had aggressive public health campaigns, provided medical assistance, and developed harm-reducing substitutes. Most importantly, we changed the culture, marketing and image of smoking. We didn't simply tax cigarettes and get smoking rates to appreciably fall. Food is even more difficult. Everyone needs to eat. No one needs to smoke. People with unhealthy attitudes towards food can't just give up eating. We have a culture that celebrates overconsumption. We have holidays seemingly dedicated to it. Advertising and the media are constantly promoting unhealthy eating.. Unhealthy eating is an easily accessible pleasure to many in the lower economic classes thanks to subsidies combined with the inherently low cost of production. With such a low starting price, you'd have to have crushing taxes to cause a meaningful shift in habits. Such taxes would be unfair to the people who can safely consume those products. Does it help if we tax, say, sweetened, carbonated beverages while excluding fruit juices or sugary fruits? Honey has even more fructose than "high fructose" corn syrup. Should we tax that too?