The federal government would generally like people to eat whole grains. The Court of Appeal holds that policy objective means that California's statute that requires consumers to be warned about things that may cause cancer (via warning labels) is preempted vis-a-vis breakfast cereals in which such cancer-causing chemicals are created by baking, frying, or roasting such grains.
Which is a shorthand way of saying that since telling the people the truth may cause them to react in ways we think are bad for them, we'll make sure they're kept in the dark.
Even when they are (1) adults, (2) in a democracy, who (3) voted to be informed.
The net result may perhaps be improved health for some segment of the population.
With a corresponding decrease in personal autonomy.
