[emphasis added by me]Food policy drives the dollars. For example- we- you & I and every US taxpayer- heavily subsidize the production of corn. Which becomes corn-fed beef and HFCS. HFCS is way cheaper than traditional cane sugar, therefore junk foods become cheaper to make and therefore easier to sell at an attractive price. Our government could choose instead to more heavily subsidize say raspberry production or provide serious tax breaks for farmers raising beef on pasture for its entire lifespan. But instead of giving the break to the lady on the plane who'd maybe prefer a pint of raspberries over the family sized kit kat bar that she actually ate, we set up our food policy such that the raspberries are $5 but the kit kat is $2.
Maybe that is not the best example, part of the cost of raspberries are their extreme perishability. But you see what I'm saying. It's as if food policy subsidized the production of rum and then we as a nation wondered why everyone was drunk all the time.
H
I think it is the other way around. Dollars drive the food policy. Lobbying is heavy. We used to have the Basic Four Food Groups where each group had equal visual standing in the grid. The Food Pyramid was held back for I-don't-remember-how-many months/years because the dairy and meat industries didn't like losing real estate to the grains and produce. They didn't like the smaller emphasis on their products. The science was there but the industries (large and small) opposed the change.
Another example is school vending machines. Each time that is brought up in our state legislature the vending machine companies as well as the schools come out against it. Everyone knows it is bad for the children but they come up with excuses such as choice and moderation blah, blah, blah.