Is There a Public Good Problem in the Market for Prepared Foods?

Wikipedia defines a public good as follows:

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. This means that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good…

Non-rivalness and non-excludability may cause problems for the production of such goods. Specifically, some economists have argued that they may lead to instances of market failure, where uncoordinated markets driven by parties working in their own self interest are unable to provide these goods in desired quantities.

Common examples of public goods are national defense, clean air, broadcast television, information, and health and safety standards.  On the issue of Food Safety as a Public Good in the United States,

In the United States, there are many laws designed to guarantee the food supply is safe. The rules and regulations governing food manufacturing and marketing are scientifically based and exist for the purpose of consumer protection. Food manufacturers are held accountable for producing products that are safe for consumption, and the government is responsible for enforcement of applicable laws…

Principles Guiding the U.S. Food Safety System

* Marketed foods must be safe and wholesome.

* Regulatory decisions must be grounded in science.

* Enforcement of food safety regulations is a governmental responsibility.

* Food industry businesses are expected to comply with regulations

* Businesses that do not comply are held liable.

* The food safety regulatory process is visible to the public.

So then this begs the question: Is the government justified in intervening into the market for prepared foods under the auspices of public health and safety?

I would argue no.  First, “too much salt” (however you may define it) is not a problem for everyone, as is too much lead or mercury or radiation.  Second, the government already mandates product labeling, so people can see exactly how much salt is in the food they’re buying.  Third, through product proliferation and/or competition, suppliers are currently providing low salt alternatives.  Taken together, these last two points suggest that to the extent that people are buying prepared foods with high salt content, they are doing so because they prefer those foods to the lower salt alternatives. 

Finally, at what point do you draw the line?  Using whatever reasoning the government is using to justify its intervention into the market for prepared foods, it can equally well justify limiting fat, sugar, or calories.  Is the government really justified in telling people they cannot eat what they want?