Did the Bloomberg proposal have faults? You bet. Did it have loopholes? Sure. Would it present an enforcement nightmare? Probably, although not nearly as bad as critics have suggested. But that does that mean we sit back and do nothing?

The statement that fructose is toxic is, simply, false. Fruit contains fructose. Honey, which has been part of the human diet since the Stone Age, contains more fructose than glucose. Saying that fructose is toxic but fruit is not is like saying that democracy is evil, but the United States is fine.

Excess dietary sugar is harmful, and among the salient liabilities of the modern food supply. Sugar is not poison, however. And yes, I think the distinction matters enough to keep fighting for it. Here's why.

The sugar status quo is increasingly bitter, rather than sweet. But it's profitable for some folks, even if others have to pay, and thus change seems long in coming. I suspect that eventually, however, good sense will win out here.