Why? Because I am NOT an anti-science zealous denier.
Here’s what I want those who also think they are steeped in sciency-goodness to do:
(1) Explain the known health risks of drinking sugary beverages. This includes how much we know (and we know, I’ve read the “science”) about how much soda contributes to BMI, this includes showing us how much a huge tax (e.g. 100%) on soda would reduce BMI, this includes how much eliminating soda entirely changes BMI and other behavior and of course this includes showing all of us just how much these all translate into disease incidence later in life and the costs of those diseases. This is all necessary of we are being sciency-good.
(2) Explain then, where soda risks rank in the larger panoply of risks. I want to see risks it puts on you becoming obese as well as disease risk and mortality risk, and how soda feeds into those. For example, I’d like to see how car accidents rate, how suicides rate, how gun accidents rate, how pneumonia rates, and so on, and where exactly soda falls. We are being sciency-good, so of course this is necessary.
(3) Explain then, what the common risks we regularly face are – from walking across the street, to smoking marijuana, to drinking beer, to tanning at the beach, to eating ice cream, to playing baseball, to going skiing, and I want to see where soda drinking falls.
(4) Then, I want to see a scientific explanation for why things that are more risky are not banned or limited and why things that are even more safe sometimes are banned.
(5) I want to ban anything and everything that is more risky and more costly to the medical sector and more likely to cause disease than drinking soda.
All in the name of sciency-goodness.