Some people oppose any public suasion of any kinds on food choices — and even some of those do so honorably, instead of being motivated merely by their paycheck. I suspect they would object to the above.
But here's the thing, even putting aside the question of whether sugary soda is even food, or, in the coinage of Michael Pollan, a "foodlike substance." If any currently "acceptable" food or drink product warrants this sort of treatment, it is sugary soda.
Most consumables can make some claim to nutritive value. Ice cream, for example, is high fat and high sugar, and no one would consider it nutritious. But especially considering Dr. David Katz's "one nutrient-at-a-time fallacy," food marketers could tout, say, its dairy protein.
But the most soda could muster is "it's refreshing." I don't oppose refreshment, mind you; I'm merely highlighting sodas' staggering nutritive superfluousness. It adds nothing you need while introducing chemicals and empty calories into the body. It is vastly overpriced relative to the cost of ingredients and creates a disproportionate share of refuse.