Do you actually live in such a simplistic and childish head space? It's like FOX News or some some such idiocy. Look, 88, follow your logic. If the tobacco industry had its way, it too would have refrained from any disclosure of the health risks of its products. Just like the soft drink industry. Okay? Are you following this? And..the fact that the tobacco industry was forced to provide such warnings and information (as limited as they could possibly make this), a tremendous amount of people stopped smoking. Similarly, the issue of second hand smoke became law, with widespread results. Get it? Now if this same mandate of the government serving the people by protecting them from unhealthy products was applied to soft drinks, a similar reduction in such consumption would follow. Of course idiots can still smoke--many do. And millions of morons would still drink Coca Cola and similar toxic junk food. But it's the government role of seeking to protect the people that's in question (not the toxic properties of Coca Cola), and the clear positive results that regularly occur when the corporate lobbying does not interfere.
Now look at an even more obvious example. Corporations always want environmental impact limitations avoided--because they feel it impacts their profits to their shareholders. And guess who pays for these corporations using their deep pockets to thwart environmental regulations?
This is the result of coal sludge being unregulated in Tennessee. Critics say the EPA failed to create national standards for waste storage due to opposition from utility companies and the coal industry. With responsibility handed off to state agencies, standards vary widely, resulting in the phenomenon of “importing pollution” from a highly regulated state to one with lower standards.
You see, corporations are inherently opposed to any regulation which might impeded their profits. Your simplistic rote sound bites aside, you've got no argument.