You know, insults don't change reality. And the view you are taking is so far removed from reality it is likely impossible for you to understand unless you are willing to stop and actually think.

> If you live in a food desert and your choices are oreos or krispy kremes, what then?

There are almost no real food deserts in the US. The term is a fabrication for political purposes. It is also a sad reflection of your perspective when you think people are so stupid that they can't make a choice between krispy kremes and healthier products. Or that they can't choose NOT to consume that shit.

So, I looked for data on food deserts. Because, you know, unlike you, I don't like to talk out of my ass. I found this:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-...

Then I picked a county at random, just to have a look. I picked Wilcox, Alabama.

And then, I went to Google maps to check out Wilcox, Alabama and look for food:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Food+Giant/@31.5725908,-87...

Tons of food resources. From Piggly Wiggly to Food Giant and dozens of other outlets. Yet, the USDA's political mission lists this town as a food desert; a contorted definition combining average income and distance to supermarkets...none of which correlates to access to non-toxic food.

So, yeah, I have no clue what you are talking about.

And then...

> hyperindividualism that ignores social context is irresponsible.

Biology and science are not individualistic at all. Not sure what you are talking about. Again.

> Half of people have IQs below 100 and likely cannot interpret nutrition labeling.

I am trying very hard not to descend to your level and offer-up just how insulting I think this comment is to hundreds of millions of people. Hundreds of millions?

Yeah:

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*WGBR...

And, yeah:

https://www.brightfuturesny.com/post/average-iq-statistics#:....

And, yeah:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.h...

You have the sad view that, based on a single number that is mostly meaningless, over half the people cannot possibly comprehend a food label. I don't know what to call that without posting an insult, so I'll just point out that you are wrong.

Now, let me steel-man your insult pretending to be an argument:

Let's assume there are, in fact, food deserts such that people cannot possibly buy anything better than Oreo cookies and Krispy Kreme donuts. And, let's further assume that people below an IQ of 100 are just incapable of even reading a food label, much less comprehend it.

Well, if that's the case, you are making my argument: Which is that large government in general and the agencies they produce, are incompetent and even detrimental to society.

If the food desert is a real problem, the FDA and other agencies should help those communities by stepping in and bringing food choices to their vicinity. They don't.

If people below an IQ of 100 are incapable of comprehending food labels, the FDA (and others) should have stepped in decades ago with something as simple as a "Bad, OK, Good, Best" addition to the label to make these poor souls you consider too stupid to read and comprehend to be able to make a choice.

Or, better yet, these agencies should have collectively banned shit food from areas where people can't understand what they are buying and require businesses to only carry stuff that is at least neutral.

And then we have the DOE (Department of Education) and the thousand of school unions around the country, none of which have done a good job of delivering the kind of education that makes young adults with --according to you-- the ability to even begin to comprehend a food label.

Please think before posting this kind of uninformed nonsense in the future.