Yeah. Or maybe we could allow the market to continue to make all kinds of food, including fruits and vegetables, ever more convenient and affordable:

The data presented in that link aren't conclusive. The CPI adjusted prices show a sharp rise in vegetable prices compared to snack foods, but the authors qualify with arguments about quality. After reading the paper, I'm left with a sense of ambiguity more so than the abstract would have one believe.

But anyway, it doesn't matter. We're talking incentives, not absolute prices. Friedman was the one who stated that government's role in the economy should be to use taxes to incentiveize or disincentivize behaviors considered positive or negative, respectively. I'm not arguing that we should pay people to eat better. However, whether or not we should do that has little to do with the current market price of snacks vs. vegetables. Clearly, at current levels, our nutritional-social system is failing. I don't think you will find many health experts who think our trajectory is positive. There may be more to this trend than food, but food is an undeniable and significant major contributor. I think as the epidemiological evidence mounts, we will see public policy catch up to the reality that sugar is poisonous when consumed at the levels at which we consume it (made all the easier by massive subsidies to the corn producers). What our policy response will be is anyone's guess, but unless we want cardiovascular disease to consume an unreasonable percentage of GDP, some trends will have to be shifted.