No sides are assigned here. They think together, concede where they must, and only rule once they've heard enough.
The council finds that food categorization standards may prioritize cultural tradition only narrowly, because the chief purpose of such standards is to protect public health and limit diet‑related disease risk.
The allowance applies only when cultural considerations are treated as a single factor within an evidence‑based
The majority's framework, while sympathetic to both tradition and science, cannot draw an absolute line where one realm ends and another begins. They have acknowledged the existence of two competing values—heritage and health—without resolving which holds primacy when they conflict in practice. That ambiguity persists precisely because the limits they've drawn remain provisional: tradition is admittedly valuable but never delegated exclusive control, while health concerns are validated but never placed above cultural choice in the governing structure itself. The result is a diplomatic compromise masquerading as clarity.
The cleaner rule I insist upon separates the regulation of information from the governance of taste. Government-mandated standards must exclusively cover objects measurable and verifiable—nutritional content accuracy, allergen disclosure, ingredient transparency—leaving the classification of foods across categories (breakfast, dessert, etc.) and the exercise of consuming them according to one's convictions entirely to voluntary individual practice. This eliminates the false premise that culinary significance substitutes for nutritional responsibility. I maintain this distinction because it restores genuine agency to those affected, refusing to let institutional bodies police personal nourishment through metaphorical weighing of tradition against science.