To me, putting warning labels on food products is a legitimate function of our government, as described by our Founding Fathers quite explicitly in their detailed explanatory preamble to our Constitution:
In addendum to my answer on food labels, I've something to say with regards to you citing "general welfare". You may be aware I've a knack for citing the Declaration of Independence. Besides spelling out unalienable god given rights, they say:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
Natural law decrees that in our pursuit of Liberty we have the right to rebuff authority. We need not be subjected to tyranny of the majority if we find it objectionable. Where do we find ourselves today? In a highly objectionable hyper partisan divide.
If we don't want to live with each other, I find that we simply don't have to! Contrary to Anarchy this does not simply mean individuals or very small groups have this autonomous right. Or if they do we are simply too far removed from such a society to even contemplate it. Instead I look towards our founding institutions, the largest bodies of government aside from our federal government.
Unalienable state's rights.
It's also why I believe we need a single payer, national health care system as well, as our current one spends twice as much per capita as any other industrialized nation, with some successes but also measurably worse results across a broad range of metrics, for instance.
But with that example, I don't mean to digress from my basic question, which expressed in one way would be, "How do you interpret "promote the general welfare?".
"Everything necessary and proper to promote the general welfare".
Oh, that's my interpretation of your interpretation. I mean, really, with this modern day attitude do we need any guiding documents? I feel we've narrowed it down to a one liner. We see a problem and the centralized authority of the federal government always ends up being the solution. Hammer meets nail.
Instead of concerning myself with a twisted by-blow of specific words, look at the context of our nation's founding. Our express purpose for killing the Brits. We put everything on the line, risking great sacrifice, to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you want UHC, and food labels, then it is your god given right to convince your state to have them. The authority of this lies with you and your state, not the federal government. We do not exert liberty by imposing on others.
My ideal society, to "promote the general welfare" would look very much like today's society. Except we would NOT have all our eggs in one basket. All 315 million people would not be fighting each other to enact the same exact laws on one another. We'd cooperate where we volunteer, but aside from that there would be both Democrat and Republican solutions.
Red states would have their set of rules, Blue states another. Then the two ideologies, finally FREE to compete against one another would quickly sort out success from failure. We would each taste our own bitter medicine and realize yours ain't so bad. Even better, the two parties would be free to fight amongst themselves. Two divided into four, four into more. Who knows how many diverse factions we'll end up with? Diversity should be embraced, not run away from.
This country could finally see progress made.
You want general welfare? Freedom from an oppressive authority is my answer. It was the answer for the Declaration of Independence, and it's still the answer for us today. We have lost our way when it was so clear back then. Put aside the quest for power, and lift up your fellow man. Democrat and Republican alike.