 When the history of the world's attempt to address obesity is written, the greatest failure may be collaboration with and appeasement of the food industry. For instance, Yum Brands, who owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, linked up with a leading U.S. breast cancer charity to sell pink buckets of fried chicken. Save the Children, an organization aiming to positively change the lives of children, was initially a staunch supporter of soda taxes, but recently the organization withdrew its support, saying that support of the soda taxes did not fit the way Save the Children works. Perhaps it's only a coincidence that it was seeking a grant from Coca-Cola, and it accepted millions from Pepsi. Through these partnerships, the food industry seeks to emphasize that inactivity, not the promotion and consumption of its calorie-rich products, is the prime cause of obesity. It stays like this, though, showing that obesity is rising even in areas where people are exercising more, are most likely explained by the fact that our physical activity levels are being outstripped by our eating activity levels. The message is plain. The primary driver of the obesity epidemic in the United States is now the food supply, and interventions targeting physical activity are not going to resolve it. So, while physical activity is good regardless, it will not address most of the burden of ill health caused by obesity. This is going to require a new focus on the root cause of the problem, the American diet. At the heart of the energy inside of the obesity problem is the food and beverage industry, put simply the enormous commercial success enjoyed by the food industry is now causing what promises to be one of the greatest public health disasters of our time. As fast as we can rid the world of the microbial causes of pestilence and famine, they are replaced by new vectors of disease in the form of transnational food corporations that market sulfate sugar and calories in unprecedented quantities. So, policymakers should consider working on pricing strategies that subsidize the cost of healthier foods. First, we need to shift relative prices to make it more expensive to consume animal products compared to fruits, vegetables, and beans. Second, we need to increase demand for plant foods, which is not as easy given the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies are taxpayer dollars going to make animal products artificially cheap. The food industry will rail against the nanny state and fight tooth and nail for its right to market a range of options to responsible individuals able to make choices for themselves. It's the American way. For context, though, these arguments are no different to those used by the tobacco industry, which also markets habituating unhealthy products in pursuit of profit. In the case of tobacco, the American people have agreed that controls must be applied to limit the harms caused. Poor diet is now responsible for an even greater burden of disease than tobacco. And food industries must be controlled in the same way if the harms are to be reduced. As unpalatable as this may be, the food industry would do well to strengthen their public health conscience, given that consumers are always going to need their goods, something that cannot be said for the tobacco industry. And you hear that a lot in the public health circles, how we have to work with the companies, because unlike tobacco, we have to eat. But just like, yes, we have to breathe, but we don't need to breathe smoke. Yes, we need to eat, but we don't need to eat junk.