I think the only way you can make this argument is to have a completely value agnostic perspective and believe that any individual value curve is good. Is Meth good because people clearly value it enough to destroy their lives to get more? No. It isn't - we know individual value assessment isn't always right.
People genuinely enjoy those foods because they're closer to their bliss point than natural analogues. Increasing salt, fat and sugar content of processed foods doesn't mean they're better for consumers. They just mean they're more addictive. People consume more of them and are more likely to purchase them in the future.
We have no issues identifying that restrictions on tobacco are acceptable from a public health standpoint - the same chemical reward hijacking is being done with food.
It appears that limiting these bliss-factor ingredients would have a major impact on processed food sales, and as such, lobbying will continue to prevent governments from implementing and maintaining a meaningful reduction.
Interestingly, a reduction in consumption of processed foods would also likely have a significant impact on the need for health interventions with drugs. We have massive industries propped up by people’s cravings for junk.
People genuinely enjoy those foods because they're closer to their bliss point than natural analogues. Increasing salt, fat and sugar content of processed foods doesn't mean they're better for consumers. They just mean they're more addictive. People consume more of them and are more likely to purchase them in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)
We have no issues identifying that restrictions on tobacco are acceptable from a public health standpoint - the same chemical reward hijacking is being done with food.