Anecdotal. The people I have seen on semaglutide still eat as much as they can, but they feel "full" pretty soon. If that brake goes off, they would just be back to their old diet in no time.
Why are you trying to make this about profit? Discipline is hard and tasty food makes people happy. Companies responding to what people want isn’t evil
I really don't want to sound hyperbolic, but I think this gets the point across more easy:
"Why are you trying to make this about profit? Discipline is hard and Cocaine makes people happy. Companies responding to what people want isn’t evil"
The market environment is extremely creative (this isn't a bad thing) and players will always try to externalize everything but the profit. This is why regulation should put boundaries.
I’m down for taxing fat people to neutralize the externalities they create but I don’t think selling unhealthy food has negative externalities. Eating too much does so sure tax the eater. There is zero external downside to a healthy person eating a moderate amount of unhealthy food.
Taxation as a behavioral incentive is typically applied os a sales tax. So in practice this is a consumption tax, not a production tax.
The externalities in this case are caused by the producer/promoter, as an externalized health risk. What you are probably refering to is the secondary effect of aggregate increased healthcare cost.
There’s no external health risk though. I reject the idea that people don’t realize unhealthy food is unhealthy, they just dont care enough to stop eating it. The health risk is completely internalized.
In a broad sense of 'taste', yes. I noticed a strong correlation between the taste preferences of heavier people for different bakery sweets (patisserie, I do not know if that is a thing in the US) and their varying caloric load. It is not a conscious thing, they just tell me they like the taste of them more.
