Making "foods that aren't loaded with sugar" easier to get, means exactly that.
Making them "comparatively easier and cheaper to get" means restricting so that those containing sugar are actually harder to obtain.
That’s a good point. American agribusiness is amazingly surreal in how it does things. Its design today is in effect based on the public-corporate partnership models of economic fascism of the 1930s.
This amounts to centralized government dictation of the means, type and quantity of production, but under those diktats, production is carried out by corporate management instead of government bureaucrats, as long as compliance is achieved.
So, for example, if Michelle Obama dictates that corporations must use less salt in their products, as she has done, they must comply with her unelected diktat, but it is up to them to do so.
As long as they do so “voluntarily”, they will not be forced to do so by the bureaucracy.
But salt is one thing, and sugar is another. Proportionally, 10 million short tons of sugar are consumed in the US each year, mostly by people and bacteria in fermentation. About 40 million tons of salt are *used*, but only a fraction of that is consumed, the rest being used for food processing purposes in which only a small fraction is consumed (like brining).
So while limiting salt added to food to enhance flavor can be done, limiting sugar would likely increase the price of food considerably.
Simply take away a lot of the farm subsidies, which make wheat and corn, including corn syrups, less expensive than they would be on their own and healthy alternatives would be relatively cheaper.