This is why I was strongly opposed to the GMO labeling initiatives.
Ignoring a) the anti science kooks who think that GMOs are spooky; and b) the politicking around that proposition that made it very obviously a scaremongering play; I think labeling things like this is good. But there's a difference between "WOAH THIS IS A GMO" and "this foodstuff contains GMO #192674 from DerpCo GmbH.". One of those imparts zero information (and will likely be slapped on virtually everything and contribute to label fatigue). The other is useful.
The same holds true of soft drinks. For fucks sake, there is literally already a warning label. It tells you exactly how much sugar is in the drink. It tells you exactly how many calories are in the drink. It tells you what ingredients are in the drink. You want a warning label about HFCS? THERE ALREADY IS ONE!
Of course, policies like this are not about information. They're paternalistic attempts to restrict our freedom "for our own good". And that's fine, in theory. If sugar really is so bad for us, I'm ok with a public health initiative to do something about this. But it won't work. People want labels to warn them about HFCS, we literally already have these.
A paternalistic scare-tactic label won't work, but it will piss off people (such as yours truly) who don't want to be publicly demonized for responsibly enjoying something that others can't handle responsibly. On the other hand, what both will work and won't piss us off is actual real public health education initiatives. As mmhrar says above, how about a health class curriculum change. How about public health advertisements. How about we get doctors on board with actually encouraging lifestyle changes (like 'don't drink so much pop'). A black box warning label will do nothing for anyone. It's vanity legislation. It's slactivism. It doesn't accomplish anything but it gives everyone something to pat themselves on the back for.
