Instead of regulating everyone's sugar intake

[Nuclear Unicorn]

192. So what are your thoughts on all the posters up and down the thread

who claim that in reality, though they support the regulation, they admit it can do nothing to actually curb consumption if the desire is sufficient?

I ask this because, if food is cooked at less than 165 then there is the potential for an outbreak of food-borne illness. If such an outbreak occurs then the health authorities can examine who ate where and when they have sufficient cause they can inspect the equipment and any such failures can lead to liabilities in the eyes of the law.

But, as my OP suggests, this is a case by case examination of actual conduct.

If a person becomes diabetic or obese due to overconsumption of soda, which vendor would you hold to account? If the vendors generally comply then who is to blame for over-consumption based obesity? And there will still be obese persons as it is a universal confession that the law is essentially pointless in its advertised intent.

It's a law for those who gorge themself on power more than any junk food junkie ever gorged on soda.