The prevalence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and the associated long-term chronic diseases (cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, depression) have reached epidemic levels in the United States and Western nations. In response to this public health calamity, the author of this paper presents and defends a novel bioethical argument: the consistency argument for outlawing SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) for child consumption (the “consistency argument”). This argument’s radical conclusion states that the government is justified in outlawing SSBs consumption for child (...) consumption. The reasoning is as follows: if one accepts that the physical harm caused by chronic alcohol consumption justifies the government outlawing alcoholic beverages for child consumption, and there is strong evidence that comparable physical harms result from chronic SSBs consumption, then, _mutatis mutandis_, the government is also justified in outlawing child consumption of SSBs. To support this argument, the author provides extensive evidence based on epidemiological observational studies, interventional studies, controlled trials, large meta-analyses, and the pathophysiology and biological mechanisms of action behind SSBs and chronic disease. Chronic consumption of large doses of SSBs and alcoholic beverages both drive the same diseases: obesity and insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and cancer. Chronic SSB consumption carries the additional risk of Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and depression. The author concludes this paper by considering prominent objections to the consistency argument, and then demonstrating that each objection is unsound. (shrink)